Most racist continent...

[GMantis]

Eastern Europe + Russia of course! Why these nations are even considered European is beyond me at this point, the Slavs share few characteristics with the Europes outside of Christianity.

This post is ironic, yes?

Irony? Nein!


I do seem to remember ag lecturing me once about why Russia/most of eastern Europe should never be considered a part of the "western" world culturally and after some reflection I realized that Russia/it's own neighbors should be considered a part of its own sphere. I won't lie though, after I did some light reading on modern Russian racism, I have a little disdain for their culture. Call me crazy but I tend to dislike cultures that persecute browns for personal reasons.

Of course all Eastern Europeans are just like the Russians.
Incidentally, was the US and Germany and the US (whose crimes against the minorities are not even comparable with the overstated Russian racism) part of the Western world before 1950?

Not what I was saying but okay! I will acknowledge that my historical knowledge of the Balkans/Baltic nations is very shallow and is nothing to make judgments based off of. Are there any good books I should read that would inform me on your homeland?

Yes. America might have been considered a cultural backwater filled with former colonials but it's always been considered as part of the Western world. The same goes for Australia, Canada, New Zealand and (maybe) South Africa.

So when America was treating its racial minorities horrible it was still part of the West, but Russia is not because of the treatment of its "browns"? Talk about double standards...
Well, don't make judgments then. Regarding my homeland, there is "Bulgaria" by R. J. Crampton, which is reasonably accurate and objective. It can be found here.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Eastern Europe + Russia of course! Why these nations are even considered European is beyond me at this point, the Slavs share few characteristics with the Europes outside of Christianity.

This post is ironic, yes?

Irony? Nein!


I do seem to remember ag lecturing me once about why Russia/most of eastern Europe should never be considered a part of the "western" world culturally and after some reflection I realized that Russia/it's own neighbors should be considered a part of its own sphere. I won't lie though, after I did some light reading on modern Russian racism, I have a little disdain for their culture. Call me crazy but I tend to dislike cultures that persecute browns for personal reasons.

Of course all Eastern Europeans are just like the Russians.
Incidentally, was the US and Germany and the US (whose crimes against the minorities are not even comparable with the overstated Russian racism) part of the Western world before 1950?

Not what I was saying but okay! I will acknowledge that my historical knowledge of the Balkans/Baltic nations is very shallow and is nothing to make judgments based off of. Are there any good books I should read that would inform me on your homeland?

Yes. America might have been considered a cultural backwater filled with former colonials but it's always been considered as part of the Western world. The same goes for Australia, Canada, New Zealand and (maybe) South Africa.

So when America was treating its racial minorities horrible it was still part of the West, but Russia is not because of the treatment of its "browns"? Talk about double standards...
Well, don't make judgments then. Regarding my homeland, there is "Bulgaria" by R. J. Crampton, which is reasonably accurate and objective. It can be found here.

Russia is not part of the West not because of it's treatment of minorities but because of other historical factors. It's modern racism has little to do with it. I'm no defender of America, I'm far from it in fact.

Good advice but making baseless generalizations is so much more fun! I'll put that on my books to get on my Kindle list.

[Keystone Phil]

The difference between Europe and Africa is that racial conflicts in Europe ended in 1945

Uh...the Balkans?

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

The difference between Europe and Africa is that racial conflicts in Europe ended in 1945

Uh...the Balkans?

Also the ETA counts, I'd say.

[Link]

that resulted in the only detonation of a nuclear bomb on civilians.

Without wishing for a moment to defend the actions of Europeans as a group during that particular war, I think it might be pointed out that the people who did that were not Europeans...

I certainly did not mean to cause offense.  I don't think in those terms.  I was just illustrating the absurdity of another poster's reference to war.  For reasons we can only imagine he choose to ignore millenniums of savage conflict in order to make his rather bizarre point.  I have no idea how people of the same race fighting over scarce resources makes a continent "racist."

The difference between Europe and Africa is that racial conflicts in Europe ended in 1945, while in Africa they continue today.

Is Northern Ireland in Europe?

[Link]

First of all let me just say I don't consider an entire continent "racist" because there happen to some groups on that continent that have had conflicts.  I consider races to be things like Asian, White (European Descent, Black (African descent), Asia, and Hispanic (this is an odd category).  If two groups of white people have an issue about where a border should be drawn in Europe I don't think that affects how they would treat Asians and Blacks.  I would not consider that a race war.

South Africa is unique.  It is laughable they anyone would draw conclusions about all of Africa from that one country.

I have meet plenty of non-African people that have gone on vacations to Africa and had a wonderful time.  Some of them even went to rural areas and worked in health clinics.  NONE of them reported any problems based on their skin color and nationality.  They of course did not go to any places that had wars going on.

I have been to Northern Ireland.  Since I am an outsider I did not experience any problems.  I certainly was not treated in a racist fashion.  I was actually amused by how much the locals highlighted differences between themselves.  They were obviously more similar to each other than to me.

Grumpy obviously has some issue with Africa.  One group of black people having a territorial dispute with another group of black people does not a racist continent make.  Neither does one group of white people having a disagreement with another group of white people make Europe racist.

[minionofmidas]

that resulted in the only detonation of a nuclear bomb on civilians.

Without wishing for a moment to defend the actions of Europeans as a group during that particular war, I think it might be pointed out that the people who did that were not Europeans...

They certainly were by ancestry.

[Hash]

The difference between Europe and Africa is that racial conflicts in Europe ended in 1945

Uh...the Balkans?

Also the ETA counts, I'd say.

I'd disagree with that. While there are clear racial and linguistic undertones to much of the Basque question and the issue of language and 'racial purity' has long been present in the wider context of Basque nationalism, ETA itself was not founded on a racist/racial superiority basis at any rate. A lot of its members were actually born outside the CAPV, some of its members picked up the Basque language only later in life, some were born to non-Basque parents. I can't remember all the theoretical arguments within ETA on the issue, but afaik ETA rather quickly rejected racial theses and Sabino Arana's racist foundings of Basque nationalism. Even the most nationalist of ETA's sectors like ETA-V or ETA-M rejected racial theses of Basque nationalism (afaik). Rather, ETA was founded by young radical nationalists (not all of them "pure Basques") who found the PNV's exiled leadership to be creaky, old and useless. Early on ETA adopted Marxism (which one could consider ironic given how the idea of separatism will divide classes rather than uniting them) and they soon became very concerned and preoccupied with the issue of what place the class struggle should play vis-a-vis the nationalist cause and how to best integrate the "pueblo trabajador vasco" in the armed struggle. I have sadly forgotten the background to the PTV idea, but I don't recall it being founded on racist grounds. More than any racial or ethnic undertones it may have, especially in latter years, ETA is inherently political. It is all about liberating Euskadi from the imperialist, colonialist militarist Spanish occupying force. It certainly isn't as much about anything about upholding a superior race or what have you. Their vision would be of creating the conditions for the whole PTV to rise in revolution, establish an independent Basque socialist state and so forth. The only perhaps 'ethnic' undertones to ETA is its advocacy for the Basque language, such as requiring all Basques to be fluent in Basque in order to attain Basque citizenship. But I don't think it's enough to classify ETA's action as a 'racial conflict'.

Furthermore, if you look at ETA's actions since the 1980s or something, its actions do not show an aim to divide the situation between "the entire, courageous Basque rebels vs. the evil non-Basque Spaniards". ETA strikes indeterminately at both, it divides it into "Basque patriots vs. non-patriots", and this includes killing 'pure Basques': local councillors from the PP, PSE or PNV, attacking businesses owned by non-nationalist Basques and so forth.

[Foucaulf]

It is amusing to see Australia receive zero votes; the White Australia policy and the Pacific Solution should have raised a few eyebrows. Same for South America: from Pizarro's conquest of the Incas there has been constant exploitation of the aboriginal ethnicities.

But the poll results were inevitable once one used an arbitrary definition like "continent", no? There is conflict between a human categorisation and a geographical one, and to mend it we equate racism with one cause like lack of development. Not to mention that racism should be categorically unjust, making such comparisons meaningless.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

They certainly were by ancestry.

Oh, sure. But for the purposes of this insane thread of crazy, not sure if that matters? What is the point of this thread, again?

[Sbane]

What is the point of this thread, again?

Trolling?

[minionofmidas]

They certainly were by ancestry.

Oh, sure. But for the purposes of this insane thread of crazy, not sure if that matters? What is the point of this thread, again?

Whitey backpatting.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

They certainly were by ancestry.

Oh, sure. But for the purposes of this insane thread of crazy, not sure if that matters? What is the point of this thread, again?

Whitey backpatting.

Ah, right.

Think we lose though, given the past three centuries and all that.

I think this thread needs a picture, to make itself something more and to give it a whole new level of something.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

They certainly were by ancestry.

Oh, sure. But for the purposes of this insane thread of crazy, not sure if that matters? What is the point of this thread, again?

Whitey backpatting.

Ah, right.

Think we lose though, given the past three centuries and all that.

I think this thread needs a picture, to make itself something more and to give it a whole new level of something.

wow, I like that soap. not sure how I'll feel about it now.

[patrick1]

Human beings of every color and creed find rather arbitrary excuses to kill each other. The End.

[Verily]

They certainly were by ancestry.

Oh, sure. But for the purposes of this insane thread of crazy, not sure if that matters? What is the point of this thread, again?

Whitey backpatting.

Ah, right.

Think we lose though, given the past three centuries and all that.

I think this thread needs a picture, to make itself something more and to give it a whole new level of something.

Given that pretty much identical ads run today in India, not sure how this is all that dispositive of Europe/North America/people of European ancestry being the most racist.

[Sbane]

So the fact that Indians use "fair and lovely" and crap like that makes them white supremacists or something? Key word: supremacists.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I'm gonna say Asia... because Asia has the most people and I believe everyone has a little bit of innate racism inside.