How racist is America compared to other countries?

[Clementine]

Two different studies here. One involved a study of people who googled the 'n' word. Another looked at twitter comments using the 'n' word in negative ways. I would take it that blacks calling each other that wouldn't count.

Also, there are numbers regarding polls about whether people would be okay living next to other races.

It's a little surprising that it's not the rampant problem the media and race baiters would suggest. It exists and we all know it, but I suspect that people have been trained to see it when it is not present.

More white suspects are shot by cops than black suspects, but that isn't how the media portrays cops. You'd think white suspects are let off the hook, or not stopped at all by cops, while cops go out looking for blacks just so they can make up a reason to harass them.

University of Maryland studied Google searches for "n" word and made this map.

http://www.ijreview.com/2015/04/308406-often-people-area-google-controversial-term/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=organic&utm_content=conservativedaily&utm_campaign=Culture



"The map looks strikingly similar to a recent a map of racist Tweets made by researchers at Humboldt State University.

While racism may appear rife in the US, a separate study found that overall, Western countries are the most accepting of other cultures with Britain, the U.S.and Australia more tolerant than anywhere else.

The data came from the World Value Survey, which measured the social attitudes of people in different countries.

The country with the highest proportion of 'intolerant' people who wanted neighbours similar to them was Jordan, where 51.4 per cent of the population would refuse to live next to someone of a different race.

Next was India with 43.5 per cent.

Racist views are strikingly rare in the U.S., according to the survey, which claims that only 3.8 per cent of residents are reluctant to have a neighbour of another race."



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3061567/Is-region-racist-Hate-map-reveals-dramatic-divide-eastern-western-states.html

 

[Pogo]

Racist views are strikingly rare in the U.S., according to the survey, which claims that only 3.8 per cent of residents are reluctant to have a neighbour of another race."

And yet --- they all seem to post here.

 

[whitehall]

It's ironic that the country formerly known as England was the primary source of slaves to the New World when it was profitable to the crazy Monarchs who executed the Irish rabble for minor violations. Now the idiot mostly left wing excuse for the U.K. press dares to judge parameters of alleged worldwide racism based on the use of the "N" word? ? Give me a break. It's all bull shit.

 

[occupied]

There is a strong undercurrent of sullen resentment here among older Americans at how diverse our country is becoming, good thing they will be dead of old age soon.

 

[Mac1958]

Evidently we're worse at most things than most countries.

That's why some want to "change", "re-make" and "fundamentally transform" us.

Time for payback, kids! Hang on!

.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Two different studies here. One involved a study of people who googled the 'n' word. Another looked at twitter comments using the 'n' word in negative ways. I would take it that blacks calling each other that wouldn't count.

Also, there are numbers regarding polls about whether people would be okay living next to other races.

It's a little surprising that it's not the rampant problem the media and race baiters would suggest. It exists and we all know it, but I suspect that people have been trained to see it when it is not present.

More white suspects are shot by cops than black suspects, but that isn't how the media portrays cops. You'd think white suspects are let off the hook, or not stopped at all by cops, while cops go out looking for blacks just so they can make up a reason to harass them.

University of Maryland studied Google searches for "n" word and made this map.

http://www.ijreview.com/2015/04/308406-often-people-area-google-controversial-term/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=organic&utm_content=conservativedaily&utm_campaign=Culture



"The map looks strikingly similar to a recent a map of racist Tweets made by researchers at Humboldt State University.

While racism may appear rife in the US, a separate study found that overall, Western countries are the most accepting of other cultures with Britain, the U.S.and Australia more tolerant than anywhere else.

The data came from the World Value Survey, which measured the social attitudes of people in different countries.

The country with the highest proportion of 'intolerant' people who wanted neighbours similar to them was Jordan, where 51.4 per cent of the population would refuse to live next to someone of a different race.

Next was India with 43.5 per cent.

Racist views are strikingly rare in the U.S., according to the survey, which claims that only 3.8 per cent of residents are reluctant to have a neighbour of another race."



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3061567/Is-region-racist-Hate-map-reveals-dramatic-divide-eastern-western-states.html

Lots of Appalachia is RED.

 

[Correll]

Two different studies here. One involved a study of people who googled the 'n' word. Another looked at twitter comments using the 'n' word in negative ways. I would take it that blacks calling each other that wouldn't count.

Also, there are numbers regarding polls about whether people would be okay living next to other races.

It's a little surprising that it's not the rampant problem the media and race baiters would suggest. It exists and we all know it, but I suspect that people have been trained to see it when it is not present.

More white suspects are shot by cops than black suspects, but that isn't how the media portrays cops. You'd think white suspects are let off the hook, or not stopped at all by cops, while cops go out looking for blacks just so they can make up a reason to harass them.

University of Maryland studied Google searches for "n" word and made this map.

http://www.ijreview.com/2015/04/308406-often-people-area-google-controversial-term/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=organic&utm_content=conservativedaily&utm_campaign=Culture



"The map looks strikingly similar to a recent a map of racist Tweets made by researchers at Humboldt State University.

While racism may appear rife in the US, a separate study found that overall, Western countries are the most accepting of other cultures with Britain, the U.S.and Australia more tolerant than anywhere else.

The data came from the World Value Survey, which measured the social attitudes of people in different countries.

The country with the highest proportion of 'intolerant' people who wanted neighbours similar to them was Jordan, where 51.4 per cent of the population would refuse to live next to someone of a different race.

Next was India with 43.5 per cent.

Racist views are strikingly rare in the U.S., according to the survey, which claims that only 3.8 per cent of residents are reluctant to have a neighbour of another race."



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3061567/Is-region-racist-Hate-map-reveals-dramatic-divide-eastern-western-states.html

Those first two studies seem pretty weak. Hell, half of the n word searches could be related to various rap lyrics for all we know.


THat last one seems more serious.

3.8%? That sounds more like what I would expect to hear.

 

[Correll]

There is a strong undercurrent of sullen resentment here among older Americans at how diverse our country is becoming, good thing they will be dead of old age soon.

Coming to the conclusion that the increasing diversity is not a change for the good, is not the same as being racist.

 

[Pogo]

It's ironic that the country formerly known as England was the primary source of slaves to the New World when it was profitable to the crazy Monarchs who executed the Irish rabble for minor violations. Now the idiot mostly left wing excuse for the U.K. press dares to judge parameters of alleged worldwide racism based on the use of the "N" word? ? Give me a break. It's all bull shit.

Trust me, Ireland was never the "primary source of slaves". Inflate much?

 

[Correll]

It's ironic that the country formerly known as England was the primary source of slaves to the New World when it was profitable to the crazy Monarchs who executed the Irish rabble for minor violations. Now the idiot mostly left wing excuse for the U.K. press dares to judge parameters of alleged worldwide racism based on the use of the "N" word? ? Give me a break. It's all bull shit.

Trust me, Ireland was never the "primary source of slaves". Inflate much?

In very early colonial times, indentured servants and convicts were used fairly heavily.

I've never seen comparisons in amounts and timelines between them and African slaves.

 

[Asclepias]

There is a strong undercurrent of sullen resentment here among older Americans at how diverse our country is becoming, good thing they will be dead of old age soon.

Coming to the conclusion that the increasing diversity is not a change for the good, is not the same as being racist.

Thats just your fear of your genes being recessive speaking out in panic.

 

[Pogo]

It's ironic that the country formerly known as England was the primary source of slaves to the New World when it was profitable to the crazy Monarchs who executed the Irish rabble for minor violations. Now the idiot mostly left wing excuse for the U.K. press dares to judge parameters of alleged worldwide racism based on the use of the "N" word? ? Give me a break. It's all bull shit.

Trust me, Ireland was never the "primary source of slaves". Inflate much?

In very early colonial times, indentured servants and convicts were used fairly heavily.

I've never seen comparisons in amounts and timelines between them and African slaves.

The first Irish slaves were sent here in 1625, some 30,000 of a number that would eventually total 300,000. Considering that Brazil alone had been importing African slaves for more than a century before that, a number that would approach a total of five million (over sixteen times that amount), I think that's all the comparison we need.

 

[Kondor3]

There is a strong undercurrent of sullen resentment here among older Americans at how diverse our country is becoming, good thing they will be dead of old age soon.

Ahhhhhhh.... youth... adorable...

 

[Kondor3]

It's ironic that the country formerly known as England was the primary source of slaves to the New World when it was profitable to the crazy Monarchs who executed the Irish rabble for minor violations. Now the idiot mostly left wing excuse for the U.K. press dares to judge parameters of alleged worldwide racism based on the use of the "N" word? ? Give me a break. It's all bull shit.

Well, England was formerly the most prolific slave-trading maritime power, anyway.

The black tribes of Western and Central Africa - conquering their neighbors and selling them, and the Muslim-Arab slave-traders of the era, were the primary source of black slaves...

The English just took delivery as wholesalers, then sold 'em at retail prices, in the New World...

 

[Correll]

It's ironic that the country formerly known as England was the primary source of slaves to the New World when it was profitable to the crazy Monarchs who executed the Irish rabble for minor violations. Now the idiot mostly left wing excuse for the U.K. press dares to judge parameters of alleged worldwide racism based on the use of the "N" word? ? Give me a break. It's all bull shit.

Trust me, Ireland was never the "primary source of slaves". Inflate much?

In very early colonial times, indentured servants and convicts were used fairly heavily.

I've never seen comparisons in amounts and timelines between them and African slaves.

The first Irish slaves were sent here in 1625, some 30,000 of a number that would eventually total 300,000. Considering that Brazil alone had been importing African slaves for more than a century before that, a number that would approach a total of five million (over sixteen times that amount), I think that's all the comparison we need.

Mmm, interesting you compare totals though out the entire period of slavery.when Whitehall was mentioning a specific limited time period.

I grant you it might be hard to find the numbers broken down as we would need to see if Ireland was ever the number one origin for any time period.

 

[Pogo]

It's ironic that the country formerly known as England was the primary source of slaves to the New World when it was profitable to the crazy Monarchs who executed the Irish rabble for minor violations. Now the idiot mostly left wing excuse for the U.K. press dares to judge parameters of alleged worldwide racism based on the use of the "N" word? ? Give me a break. It's all bull shit.

Well, England was formerly the most prolific slave-trading maritime power, anyway.

The black tribes of Western and Central Africa - conquering their neighbors and selling them, and the Muslim-Arab slave-traders of the era, were the primary source of black slaves...

The English just took delivery as wholesalers, then sold 'em at retail prices, in the New World...

Actually the English were slow on the "draw" on all that. The Portuguese and Spanish had a way head start going back deeply into the 15th century -- before the "New World" was known -- while England was still forbidding it. Those Iberian sailors, along with (eventually) English, French and Dutch ones, were the vehicle of transport. No African sailors are known to have shipped slaves across the Atlantic.

 

[williepete]

There are other countries in the world besides the United Racists States of America? Where is the color coded world map of racism where the n word is used? And worldwide racism is only framed by the use of the n word? How does that cast system in India rate on the American n word scale?

I traveled the world for 30 years. I lived overseas several times. I lived in Japan for two years. I learned to love and admire the Japanese country, culture and people. I also learned that in their eyes there are only Japanese and sub humans. As much as I admire the Japanese, they are the most xenophobic and racist society on the planet. And they are oh so very polite about it.

In my travels, I'd put the U.S.A. pretty high up on the racial compatibility scale. I know that doesn't match the current narrative but I don't care. I've seen it and lived it with my own eyes. What passes for outrageous racism in America is peanuts on the global scene.

Rant out.

Now back to our regularly scheduled race baiting program.

 

[Pogo]

It's ironic that the country formerly known as England was the primary source of slaves to the New World when it was profitable to the crazy Monarchs who executed the Irish rabble for minor violations. Now the idiot mostly left wing excuse for the U.K. press dares to judge parameters of alleged worldwide racism based on the use of the "N" word? ? Give me a break. It's all bull shit.

Trust me, Ireland was never the "primary source of slaves". Inflate much?

In very early colonial times, indentured servants and convicts were used fairly heavily.

I've never seen comparisons in amounts and timelines between them and African slaves.

The first Irish slaves were sent here in 1625, some 30,000 of a number that would eventually total 300,000. Considering that Brazil alone had been importing African slaves for more than a century before that, a number that would approach a total of five million (over sixteen times that amount), I think that's all the comparison we need.

Mmm, interesting you compare totals though out the entire period of slavery.when Whitehall was mentioning a specific limited time period.

I grant you it might be hard to find the numbers broken down as we would need to see if Ireland was ever the number one origin for any time period.

Seems to me the burden of proof would be on Whitehall, since he brought it up.

But meanwhile there's this:

• 18 August 1518: in a significant escalation of the slave trade, Charles V grants his Flemish courtier Lorenzo de Gorrevod permission to import 4000 African slaves into New Spain. From this point onwards thousands of slaves are sent to the New World each year.

(Charles V = Holy Roman Emperor; "New Spain" comprised a large swath of what is now Central America, Mexico and parts of Texas, New Mexico, AridZona and California) -- source: Slavery Timeline

And this:

Brazil was the world’s leading sugar exporter during the 17th century. From 1600 to 1650, sugar accounted for 95 percent of Brazil’s exports, and slave labor was relied heavily upon to provide the workforce to maintain these export earnings. It is estimated that 560,000 Central African slaves arrived in Brazil during the 17th century in addition to the indigenous slave labor that was provided by the bandeiras.[6]
(--- Slavery in Brazil)
​

--- that number alone, in Brazil alone, in that century alone, easily exceeds the total number of Irish slaves sent across the Atlantic. This doesn't even count the considerable African human traffic to the Caribbean -- which is where most of the Irish also ended up.

 

[Kondor3]

It's ironic that the country formerly known as England was the primary source of slaves to the New World when it was profitable to the crazy Monarchs who executed the Irish rabble for minor violations. Now the idiot mostly left wing excuse for the U.K. press dares to judge parameters of alleged worldwide racism based on the use of the "N" word? ? Give me a break. It's all bull shit.

Well, England was formerly the most prolific slave-trading maritime power, anyway.

The black tribes of Western and Central Africa - conquering their neighbors and selling them, and the Muslim-Arab slave-traders of the era, were the primary source of black slaves...

The English just took delivery as wholesalers, then sold 'em at retail prices, in the New World...

Actually the English were slow on the "draw" on all that. The Portuguese and Spanish had a way head start going back deeply into the 15th century -- before the "New World" was known -- while England was still forbidding it. Those Iberian sailors, along with (eventually) English, French and Dutch ones, were the vehicle of transport. No African sailors are known to have shipped slaves across the Atlantic.

You're right about the Spanish and Portugese kicking things off.

And you're right about the (apparent) lack of African maritime commerce or African sailors.

So long as we remember that slavery was a 'natural state' amongst several of the African tribes of the region and that they sold their brethren to the Arab slave-traders, to transport to the coast, to sell to the Spanish and Portugese and English and Dutch, et al.

 

[Pogo]

It's ironic that the country formerly known as England was the primary source of slaves to the New World when it was profitable to the crazy Monarchs who executed the Irish rabble for minor violations. Now the idiot mostly left wing excuse for the U.K. press dares to judge parameters of alleged worldwide racism based on the use of the "N" word? ? Give me a break. It's all bull shit.

Well, England was formerly the most prolific slave-trading maritime power, anyway.

The black tribes of Western and Central Africa - conquering their neighbors and selling them, and the Muslim-Arab slave-traders of the era, were the primary source of black slaves...

The English just took delivery as wholesalers, then sold 'em at retail prices, in the New World...

Actually the English were slow on the "draw" on all that. The Portuguese and Spanish had a way head start going back deeply into the 15th century -- before the "New World" was known -- while England was still forbidding it. Those Iberian sailors, along with (eventually) English, French and Dutch ones, were the vehicle of transport. No African sailors are known to have shipped slaves across the Atlantic.

You're right about the Spanish and Portugese kicking things off.

And you're right about the (apparent) lack of African maritime commerce or African sailors.

So long as we remember that slavery was a 'natural state' amongst several of the African tribes of the region and that they sold their brethren to the Arab slave-traders, to transport to the coast, to sell to the Spanish and Portugese and English and Dutch, et al.

You seem to be going out of your way to bring in Arabs as well as to shift the focus from the European transporters to Africans. The bizarre fact is, slavery has appeared on every continent and within every race; Europeans enslaving Europeans, Africans enslaving Africans, Asians, Native Americans etc, so its presence in Africa was the norm in the world -- not the exception.

What was new about the transatlantic commerce was the concept of shipping said slaves to an entirely different part of the world on a journey that to its human cargo must have seemed effectively like one of us being abducted by aliens and sent to a distant planet. It was a whole new level of meaning to the already-iffy concept of slavery and begat the invention of the instrument used to justify such a new paradigm: racism.

Africans did not invent that. Nor did Arabs.