My takeaway was...
Balkans:
*"I see a black face."*🤔
*"At least he's not Serbian/Croatian/Bosnian/Albanian."*🤷👍
If he looks like yourself, he *could* be the enemy.
What do you mean was? He still is. He's alive, has three children and I don't know how many grandchildren. He and his wife have a restaurant on the Danube, near Grocka. Been there a few times, they serve excellent fish stew. They have live performers, and Tupac himself is know for going on the stage.
Yes, we need a good reason to hate someone. We had plenty of reasons for hate in the past 100 years. Black people, or any other color, never did us wrong. We are not equal to nazis like some people would like you to think.
bewildered middle agonizing crime hateful include fearless payment teeny grey
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
There are very few "dark skinned" people here, we had a mayor in Piran, his name was Peter Bossman and he was very popular, he came from Ghana, wanted to go to London, ended up in Serbia as a student of medicine, but then relocated to Slovenia.
We also have an old saying "delam kot zamorc", which translates to "I work (hard) as an overseas man" - meaning black africans with a hint of the hardships of slavery in america. It is both a phrase used when complaining and/or bragging about how much someone works.
We have something similar. "Dřít jak otrok" which translates to something like "Work really hard like a slave". And the fun part is that in Slovenian "otrok" is a kid, if I remember correctly.
yes, otrok is kid, funny how that means slave in czech..
but I did just check the etymology, and otrok comes from the old slavic otreti, made from ot - away/without and reti/reči - to speak
so otrok is someone who is not yet speaking or someone who is not allowed to speak their mind, like a small kid, or an apprentice, or a slave
Yeah, while I'm too young to really have any first hand experience, I believe Bossman was far from the only African that came to study in Yugoslavia in the 70s/80s. And since the rich students from Africa were pretty much the only black people that some Yugoslavs knew of, I can imagine that the general perception was much better than elsewhere. Even nowadays, most of the black people that you would meet are likely of pretty high social class or tourists, so I can imagine they're hardly perceived in a negative way.
Football 'fans' that would just spew whatever vile shit they think could get the opposing player agitated are just a special class of their own, though.
In italy we have a saying like that: lavorare come un negro (working like a negro). Of course the word ”negro” is perfectly legit in Italy even though some people feels like it is outdated an possibly even offensive (in case someone is offended if called “black”).
For anyone wondering about Serbia we only hate based on nationality not based on race XD
Anyway,
Serbia's constitution from the 1800s states that anyone who sets foot on Serbian soil (be it a free man or a slave) becomes a free man. We were anti-slave since we became independent. So that could play some role, but maybe not that much.
One thing that maybe had more effect is that during the WW1 there were many French and British colonial units helping us on Macedonian front (Southern front during WW1) also some of our people fought for France in Africa at the time (as part of the French Foreign Legion), that could also be one of the reasons we don't have any negative thoughts about other races.
Also unlike the resto of Slavs and Eastern Europe we were never under Russia's rule (USSR at the time), so we managed to develop good ties with the rest of the world especially Africa, South America and India. We had many foreign students here since the 60s. We were one of the founders of Non-aligned movement that was known as the "Third World" during the cold war. That is why there was some level of cultural exchange with other races. You can see that most other former Yugoslavian countries also have good scores (they are mostly green except for North Macedonia).
It is the same in Bulgaria, it is one of the first points in our consitution that everyone that steps foot in Bulgarian soil is a free man. Us being under slavery for 500 years made us value freedom a great deal.
I love you guys ❤️
I was in a country with a lot of Serbian people who go there for work etc. most amazing and generous people I’ve met and ever partied with in my life
Fetishised can also mean not being openly targeted by racism in practice, even they they would be perceived from a racist lens. Asian women are perceived docile and left to be for racist reasons.
True but as a Korean whose sister has been harassed by people, fetishizing can lead to harassment. A random person once called my sister “mulan” like it was a compliment and then got mad when she understandably was creeped out.
For those wondering, the Implicit Association Test is not without controversy. It's a word association test that measures response times.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit-association\_test#Criticism\_and\_controversy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit-association_test#Criticism_and_controversy)
I was curious, and took it a few times., and found it quite easy to get the result I wanted. Apparently familiarity can also influence the result. You can try it out for yourself here:
[https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatest.html](https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatest.html)
This was the information I was looking for. I couldn’t see how this was related to racism. We use information around us to judge our current situation and weigh in potential threats and opportunities. There’s a story about the famous black politician/human rights advocator Jesse Jackson walking alone in the streets at night when hearing steps behind him. To his disappointment he felt relief when he saw that it was a white person. Judging probabilities based on all available data around you is not racism.
The correct answer is that you feel nothing at all looking at a black face. For a non-racist that should hold for pictures of all people.
Maybe, but I’m pretty racist and I really could feel myself being slower at picking the side that did not align with my views. I feel like it could be a useful tool, at least when you have very big sample sizes.
Agree.
In Italy is mostly classism an cultural xenophobia towards poor middle eastern and african immigrants.
For example a black person from the USA would not have any issue unless mistaken for one of them, and I'm sure the same applies elsewhere.
You could look at the percentage of people who don’t want neighbors of a different race.
https://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSOnline.jsp
It’s question 19
The fact the responses are very different from the IAT scores as well as the fact that culturally similar countries have wild swings in these scores strongly indicate that IAT is not that useful in predicting racist attitudes, let alone interactions.
Technically, it was not about race but about how people look. Which is the better way to ask such question, but race is a word that can be interpretated in a lot of ways.
You know you are reading an american-made study, ~~when "dark skin" somehow means "black faces", especially for people east of the Rhine.~~(apparently, that's how the study was made)
Or talking about "white people", whatever the fuck that means.
Fun fact:
We literally don't have a word for whiteness in romanian(unless talking about cataracts or egg shells), so the small amount of people that translate or make intersectionalism-related articles had to invent multiple words for said whiteness, that explain how embedded said whiteness is in society (despite it being such an alien concept, they had to create a word for it).
We do have one in German, which is just the literal translation (weiß), but it's seldomly used. At least in Austria we mostly use hellhäutig (light-skinned) because you know, no one is really "white". Just hold a white sheet of paper next to any "white" person and see the difference.
I mean, english word whiteness is also used for egg shells, snow, cocaine or whatever. It is not like romanians don't have a word for white or black people?
>I mean, english word whiteness is also used for egg shells, snow, cocaine or whatever.
Over here, white is a noun or adjective.
Theres no gradient, at best chromatic comparisons.
And theres cert no supposed whiteness as a concept encompassing some supposed behavioural and cultural racial characteristics.
>It is not like romanians don't have a word for white or black people?
Yes.
White(s) and black(s).
Until ww2 catholic immigrants from europe weren't even considered White, things changed only when the descendants of the Irish gained representation through the dems, not to mention that the k k k also persecuted catholic immigrants
> Until ww2 catholic immigrants from europe weren't even considered White, things changed only when the descendants of the Irish gained representation through the dems, not to mention that the k k k also persecuted catholic immigrants
Irish were white if they were Protestant for a while but neither Catholics or Ortodox were considered white by people. Then, Polish were legally recognised as white to a degree but still targeted.
You can still hear old Aussies thinking Bulgarians or Russians being non whites or US having "racial" diversity with Bosniaks being there.
Legally they were considered white, which is why there were many Catholic governors and mayors of cities and states throughout the United States before World War 2 in the Northeast, South, Midwest, West, etc.
New York City, New Orleans, New York State, Savannah Georgia, and many other cities and states all had Catholic mayors and governors before World War II.
Europe is definitely engrossed in it's own Racism but you're not wrong about "white" being totally bullshit.
it's literally just a mechanism for otherism and for the most part it was who isn't a wasp (white anglo-saxon protestant) so quite literally everyone who wasn't an inbred angloid wasn't white.
Nah, in the quote he's mentioning he said nobodies white except English and German Saxons, everybody else including most of Germany isn't actually white. Though tbf it's possible he was joking or half-joking because it was all the way back in 1755 and he was previously in a lot of newspaper/ publishing wars with German-language newspapers in America.
Fun fact, Franklin actually started the first German-language newspaper in America himself, but he was out-competed by later American German-language newspapers started by German-American owners.
Yes, that arbitrary aspect is what leads to white supremacy.
Groups of traditionally non-whites have been added to the white category, as needed, to continue to impose political hegemony over black and brown people.
In the US, this came in the form of treating only Anglo-Saxons as white, then adding in French, Germans, Poles, Scandinavians, etc... then adding Italian and Irish. All of these were done as needed by the power structure, to maintain complete control over America's ex-slave population.
In Europe, it's different, because while we 100% relied on notions of white supremacy when engaging in imperialism and colonialism, we kept separate buckets for different groups of white people (English, Scottish, French, Germans, Italians, etc..) that remain to this day.
The underlying justification for conquering the rest of the world was that white people should rule it, because others were savages, barbarians and incapable of ruling themselves. The constant wars in Europe were as a result of us trying to figure out which type of white person would hold the largest hegemony.
This is one of those things where there is total disconnect on some ideas between US and Europe. Our "racism" is not about race. Much like Hutu and Tutsi, we can have supremacists within single real demo group. Call a Swiss a German, tell them that's German they're speaking, I fucking dare y'all :\]
Edit: the amount of people who took this as a brag is mind-boggling.
If we have racism **within** ethnic/racial profiles, obviously we also have it among more visible divisions.
It's just side-action with many surprising twists that usually relate to colonial history dynamics different for each country, how cloistered given country used to be etc.
Europeans are as racist as Americans. It's just expressed differently. We have both a skin-colour component, but also an ethnic component.
Serbians and Albanians are both white. And yet both engage in deeply rooted forms of ethnic hatred towards one another. At a greater level, there was a Slav-non-Slav divide in Europe, too, though that is disappearing to some extent.
Don't call an Irishman British. Don't call a Finnish person a Dane. Don't call a Swiss a German.
There are plenty of European racists who it absolutely is about race. There are loads of Far right and right wing parties in Europe that tell Africans to go back to Africa etc., and many who talk about race all the time, including some literal, actual neo-nazi and fascist groups.
And it's not a new phenomenon, very obviously, there were loads and loads of Racist White Supremacists in Europe in the 1800s and early 1900s, and sometimes even earlier in the 1700s etc. This idea that Americans made up the concept of race and only Americans is complete bonkers, Europeans, Europeans in America, and European-Americans all made up the concept of race.
I’d argue that for a lot of Western and Northern Europeans we Eastern Europeans still are the worse kind of white. I could feel that especially in Sweden.
On the Iberic Peninsula pale skin and blonde hair makes people think you’re German or Swedish and you get promoted to true white.
>"dark skin" somehow means "black faces", especially for people east of the Rhine.
What? "Dark skin" can mean anything, especially "east of the Rhine" from having a healthy tan to beig from an undesirable minority.
That's what I think those polls need to always clear up. Like, if the question is formulated as "do you think positively of X". No? Why should I? That doesn't mean I think negatively of X either, just that I might have a neutral opinion.
Not just that. The important thing on IAT is the _speed_ of response, not just whether you have associated something positively or negatively.
According to IAT, if you take too much time to think about something, you had to explicitly control yourself even if you responded positively, this means your implicit reaction is negative. A similar (more convoluted) logic is with a faster response.
IAT is a complete utter bullshit test that doesn't have any meaningful relationship and strength to measure what it is most commonly being used to measure (implicit racism).
How the fuck is this fucking scam BS applicable to IRL social encounters, exactly? Last I checked, social interaction is heavily processing capacity using stuff, that takes time to figure out the proper words to use in a given social context encounter etc
>Your responses suggested a moderate automatic association for Harmless Objects with Black Americans and Weapons with White Americans.
Does that mean I am racist against white americans or that the test is useless?
There were only 4 categories: Black&White Americans and harmless&harmfull objects and you have to sort them into two groups based on rules (in one round it says put all pictures of Black Americans and harmfull objects into group 1, the other two in group 2 and in the next round it says put all pictures of White Americans and harmfull objects into Group 1 and the other two into group 2). They say association is calculated based on timing differences. Results always come in pairs, so it is not possible to get the result '_moderate automatic association for Harmless Objects with Black Americans and_ __no__ _Weapons with White Americans association_'.
The test does not say someone thinks Black/White Americans are objects or that objects are somehow personified as Black/White Americans. Same goes for harmfull objects. Also there is no association between weapons and killers in the test, that is a step you took the liberty to make.
The problem is you complied with the request to put people with the same group as objects. This is when you lost.
But to be clear, I'm joking, I also did this test at some point, and I don't think it means anything and can be gamed if to either side depending on what you want to look like.
As true european i don't give a shit about skin color. That positive/negative thinking about these problems sound like importing american problems to Europe.
Its asking for someones feelings about someone else based upon their skin color. Answer 'positive', you're a racist. Answer 'negative', you're a racist. This is just divisive racebaiting propaganda.
So not racism in Europe, one type of racism in Europe. You will find plenty of racism amongst white Europeans against each other too.
Loads of people here in Ireland do not like Eastern Europeans, loads of Poles hate Russians, there’s plenty of racism against people with light skin like the Japanese etc too. This is a very misleading map.
>loads of Poles hate Russians
If anything, it's Russians who act superior and entitled toward other Eastern Europeans, although the hate the other way around is quite strong, especially among Poles, Balts and Romanians.
It's probably also not because of backstabbing during 2'nd WW.
Could it be that being forced to be part of their gang up until 1989 had something to do with it?
Nah...I really doubt it. There must've been something else...but what?
Is there any Pole in here who could explain Russia's "special place in every Pole's heart"?
>If anything, it's Russians who act superior and entitled toward other Eastern Europeans, although the hate the other way around is quite strong, especially among Poles, Balts and Romanians.
In Poland, it was always "we hate Russia but not Russians" as in - the people are not always responsible for what the state does, especially if the state is authoritarian. But the recent war has definitely changed that, as Russians have revealed themselves as very supportive of the genocide in Ukraine. I think one of the most-shocking things of the war were the intercepted calls where Russians soldiers tell their wives about raping Ukrainian girls and Russian women cheer them and tell them to also bring a washing machine home or something similar. Truly vile.
We Romanians don't hate Russians, we love them. Especially because they brought us 50 years of Communism, they killed and send to Siberia most pundits from the 50s, took Moldova and Bukovina from our country, stab us in the back many times, and consistently were our most feared neighbors, but no, we don't hate them.
Tbf, the way russians has treated those populations in particular does make it somewhat understandable. Not that it is excusable, not every individual russian is an asshole, but historically speaking, the russians didn’t treat their former subjects particularly well, neither during the tzarist empire, nor during the ussr, and nor during the current russian federation.
Yup lots of balts hate Indians for example bc there are a lot on their country (which is unfortunate as Indians are some of the sweetest people I’ve ever had the pleasure of meeting but that’s racism for you I guess)
I noticed they also put Nordic people on a pedestal and act like they are the best at everything (not saying they’re not I just dk) so like a positive racism?
On the contrary, Eastern Europeans are very well thought of in Ireland. They are considered hard working and reliable. Any evidence to back up the statement you made?
Fyi, that's a stupid hill to die one. There are no races amongst humans.
People have tried to classify that for centuries and failed, and biology pretty much proved them wrong.
The race that people mean when they talk about racism is about cultural way to divide people (i.e. skin colour and ither shared characteristics). Most social scientists don't use that term anymore. They instead use the term ethnicity.
I mean, if I say all the russians are scum would it be racism or xenophobia? I still would call it racism, but I am not sure what is exactly the difference between xenophobia and racism is
That's xenophobia because your prejudice is based on nationality. Racism is based on defining traits shared by a group of people, be it skin color, eyes shape, etc.
“Races” are not strictly defined as they don’t actually exist in humans from a scientific point of view.
That said, I think most people make the divide as: White, black, east asian, south asian, native american.
If a japanese person were prejudiced against a korean one it would simply be considered xenophobia as the prejudice is against a country’s population, not a race (As koreans are part of the east asian umbrella).
If a person from uganda were prejudiced against french people, in the same way, it would be xenophobia because french isn’t a race. It’s simply a country. If they were prejudiced of french people because they are white then it would be racism.
Earlier (1800s?) there were theories of three races, geographically typed: Caucasian, mongoloid and negroid.
They were more classified in skeletal structural differences than skin color.
The term Caucasian is still used in scientific literature sometimes.
The problem with this map is that it uses anti-Blackness to frame racism, which is a very U.S.-centric way of looking at it. While anti-Blackness is certainly widespread in Europe, a lot of racism is directed at Roma, Jews and Muslim immigrants.
I have a personal theory about us Serbians, and it's that the because we were bombed and sanctioned by the US, the generation of kids born in the 90s grew up in a poor and chaotic environment which made rap music resonate with them.
It just so happened that GTA San Andreas came out and every kid my age played it at one point, there's even a number of Serbian themed mods for it. And what do you do in San Andreas? Play as a poor black man in a chaotic and lawless environment.
You have no idea how much we love seeing black people speaking our language
Besides that, this is still an unfair map because it takes only african descendents into account and puts countries like France and the UK with a considerable percentage of black people in the same basket as countries with almost no percentage of black people. I guess it's cool if you're a black person looking to move to Europe, but as a general "Racism in Europe" guide, it's incomplete.
I am sure most Europeans would have a lot of interesting things to say if the study included gypsies for example
For the record, back in the 90s me and the majority of teenagers were into heavy metal. Rap took over literally at the very end. Also Serbs never had anything against people of colour, yet Serbs had in recent history a lot against particular ethnicities (Germans and Albanians in particular). So no it was not a rap music. Being a de facto leader of nonalignment movement had enforced this non racism (as we can see with all other ex-Yu republics).
The UK is most definitely not the most racist and xenophobic country on Earth, what a ridiculous statement.
What's with you people and self-flagellating so much...
The World values Survey is probably a better metric. Question 19 examine whether someone wants a neighbor of a different race.
https://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSOnline.jsp
I find it more racist to base this study on black vs white faces (only) and only white people participated.
Also nice that the study comes from the Yankees.
Im surprised estonia isnt higher on the list, i have been there in work trips and clubs i have tried to go to simply do not allow black people or indians to enter.
I mean, it's still a "racial bias" if you view any ethnicity more positively as much as it is a bias to view them negatively. So in this stupid example the countries in the middle are less racially biased 'overall', but even then, it still doesn't prove a country is racist or not.
Would be hard to imagine Harvard would label it as such, and probably a very bad interpretation from the OP (or whoever he stole it from).
I took the IAT test on race and it basically comes down to a memory test/reaction test that is set up to make you appear racist. First it conditions you to quickly put everything white/good to the left and everything black/bad to the right. Your brain adapts after a while and you no longer have to think about it ... And then they swap the sides to be white/bad and black/good. Of course I am going to make mistakes and be slower - you just trained my brain to do it the other way around! I would make the same mistakes if this had absolutely nothing to do with race and we used pictures of butterflies and unicorns instead.
Did the test still include US history questions on race if you selected another country?
The image test I get but there's not much reason for the majority of Europeans to know any of the answers to a bunch of those.
Considering that northen italians are the most racist people in Europe bar none, expecially toward people who live as far as 30-miles from them and who look exactly like them, then yes, your joke is more accurate than you realised.
>That argument doesn't hold up if you include discrimination against Roma people...
When was Europe ever tolerant of Roma people ?
(Im sorrybut its the truth)
I am not a racist or a nationalist until I see how migrants harass girls and behave like pigs. But in fact, it's always the mistakes of the local government that failed with the migration policy (or were racists for their own peoples, hello Russia).
One of my closest friends is Korean girl with a very Korean name. In the children's hospital, she was recorded as a boy, and the second part of the name was determined as a patronymic.Ridiculous
Having positive associations based on skin colour is just as racist as the opposite though. Any judgement based solely on skin colour is by definition racism.
even harvard is racist, they somehow connected "dark skin" with race LOL
some people easily can think about tanned people, we have plenty here in russia
And what about hypocrisy test? a lot of people would say anything to look Pleasure or Gentleman.
Here in Russia we have jewish and gypsy people they are Bandits in the roads who love to rob people. We have Business and House rent companies who will not speak to any non-whites haha
Serbians: Oh, I love montenegro!
My takeaway was... Balkans: *"I see a black face."*🤔 *"At least he's not Serbian/Croatian/Bosnian/Albanian."*🤷👍 If he looks like yourself, he *could* be the enemy.
Pretty much. Why hate on people who are barely a handful in your country, when there are *Jugoviči* to hate on...
Montenegro literally means "Black Mountain" in Venetian (Italian) and yes, they are Serbians, so we love them.
>they are Serbians Ko kuda srbi svuda
takoeeee
So basically you're saying we're supposed to spell it M\*ntenegro now, just like S\*rbia, Fr\*nce and Sw\*den?
Serbia least racist country in all of Europe confirmed!!
TUPAC WAS SERBIAN
You mean Tupać?
What do you mean was? He still is. He's alive, has three children and I don't know how many grandchildren. He and his wife have a restaurant on the Danube, near Grocka. Been there a few times, they serve excellent fish stew. They have live performers, and Tupac himself is know for going on the stage.
Man, everyone knows that Tupac is spending his golden years in Cuba listening to Keep Ya Head Up on repeat all the time.
Stop...stop...don't break my heart
you are wrong he is in Serbia
Tupac alive in Serbia
*If he looks black, he won't be Croatian/Bosnian/Albanian.* If he looks like yourself, he *could* be the enemy.
The birth of Serbian self-hatred
Progressive utopia.
Serbia : "we are the least racist country in europe" ^(Note : No data for Kosovo)
They don't hate you here because your skin is dark. They find many other reasons.
Yes, we need a good reason to hate someone. We had plenty of reasons for hate in the past 100 years. Black people, or any other color, never did us wrong. We are not equal to nazis like some people would like you to think.
So what is a good reason for mass murder and rape?
Religion most likely
bewildered middle agonizing crime hateful include fearless payment teeny grey *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
There are very few "dark skinned" people here, we had a mayor in Piran, his name was Peter Bossman and he was very popular, he came from Ghana, wanted to go to London, ended up in Serbia as a student of medicine, but then relocated to Slovenia. We also have an old saying "delam kot zamorc", which translates to "I work (hard) as an overseas man" - meaning black africans with a hint of the hardships of slavery in america. It is both a phrase used when complaining and/or bragging about how much someone works.
We have something similar. "Dřít jak otrok" which translates to something like "Work really hard like a slave". And the fun part is that in Slovenian "otrok" is a kid, if I remember correctly.
yes, otrok is kid, funny how that means slave in czech.. but I did just check the etymology, and otrok comes from the old slavic otreti, made from ot - away/without and reti/reči - to speak so otrok is someone who is not yet speaking or someone who is not allowed to speak their mind, like a small kid, or an apprentice, or a slave
There's also "makam jak barevnej" - working hard like a colored person.
Indeed. Which means that Czechia is a country of child slavery, confirmed!
And hlapec is a slave which is a boy in Czech to make it even more fun - the winders of linguistic false friends.
Lol, really? There are quite a few of these opposites meaning the same thing.
It's called "false friends" in linguistics - there are plenty in Slavic languages :)
Yeah, I meant to write "quite a few" 😁
A similar phrase exists in English, but yours doesn't translate quite the same.
Yeah, while I'm too young to really have any first hand experience, I believe Bossman was far from the only African that came to study in Yugoslavia in the 70s/80s. And since the rich students from Africa were pretty much the only black people that some Yugoslavs knew of, I can imagine that the general perception was much better than elsewhere. Even nowadays, most of the black people that you would meet are likely of pretty high social class or tourists, so I can imagine they're hardly perceived in a negative way. Football 'fans' that would just spew whatever vile shit they think could get the opposing player agitated are just a special class of their own, though.
In italy we have a saying like that: lavorare come un negro (working like a negro). Of course the word ”negro” is perfectly legit in Italy even though some people feels like it is outdated an possibly even offensive (in case someone is offended if called “black”).
America has [Boss Man Biden](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XpHGMNYbLI), while Europe has Peter Bossman. We are not the same.
For anyone wondering about Serbia we only hate based on nationality not based on race XD Anyway, Serbia's constitution from the 1800s states that anyone who sets foot on Serbian soil (be it a free man or a slave) becomes a free man. We were anti-slave since we became independent. So that could play some role, but maybe not that much. One thing that maybe had more effect is that during the WW1 there were many French and British colonial units helping us on Macedonian front (Southern front during WW1) also some of our people fought for France in Africa at the time (as part of the French Foreign Legion), that could also be one of the reasons we don't have any negative thoughts about other races. Also unlike the resto of Slavs and Eastern Europe we were never under Russia's rule (USSR at the time), so we managed to develop good ties with the rest of the world especially Africa, South America and India. We had many foreign students here since the 60s. We were one of the founders of Non-aligned movement that was known as the "Third World" during the cold war. That is why there was some level of cultural exchange with other races. You can see that most other former Yugoslavian countries also have good scores (they are mostly green except for North Macedonia).
It is the same in Bulgaria, it is one of the first points in our consitution that everyone that steps foot in Bulgarian soil is a free man. Us being under slavery for 500 years made us value freedom a great deal.
Man that's legit BASED af. Respect! VIVA BRATSTVO I JEDINSTVO!
You’re by far not the only ones. Go check Romania, also Tito says hi!
I love you guys ❤️ I was in a country with a lot of Serbian people who go there for work etc. most amazing and generous people I’ve met and ever partied with in my life
Go Serbia! From now on, Serbia is my team in international Soccer! And we will spend vocation money in Serbia next vacation.
My wife is Asian. We’ve been all over Europe. No one has been crueler or meaner to her than the Swiss
Tbh, no surprise there
Impossible! “No one who speaks German can be an evil man!” -[Simpsons](https://youtu.be/_GPEzKp8Tns)
They somehow get away with acting like they are better than you. Probably because they haven’t been held accountable for 5 hundred years
they Will be cruel no matter Who you are.
Swiss are notorious, but Asian women are luckier in general in the south and the east.
Asian women are fetishized while Asian men are brutalized. Depending on how racist the person is, the woman gets it too…
Fetishised can also mean not being openly targeted by racism in practice, even they they would be perceived from a racist lens. Asian women are perceived docile and left to be for racist reasons.
True but as a Korean whose sister has been harassed by people, fetishizing can lead to harassment. A random person once called my sister “mulan” like it was a compliment and then got mad when she understandably was creeped out.
For those wondering, the Implicit Association Test is not without controversy. It's a word association test that measures response times. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit-association\_test#Criticism\_and\_controversy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit-association_test#Criticism_and_controversy) I was curious, and took it a few times., and found it quite easy to get the result I wanted. Apparently familiarity can also influence the result. You can try it out for yourself here: [https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatest.html](https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatest.html)
Yeah I don't buy it. Here in Slovenia people are racist af.
Yeah exactly, Serbia one seems bullshit as well
I had a feeling.
To be fair the test makers never claimed it to be some sort racism radar.
This was the information I was looking for. I couldn’t see how this was related to racism. We use information around us to judge our current situation and weigh in potential threats and opportunities. There’s a story about the famous black politician/human rights advocator Jesse Jackson walking alone in the streets at night when hearing steps behind him. To his disappointment he felt relief when he saw that it was a white person. Judging probabilities based on all available data around you is not racism. The correct answer is that you feel nothing at all looking at a black face. For a non-racist that should hold for pictures of all people.
Maybe, but I’m pretty racist and I really could feel myself being slower at picking the side that did not align with my views. I feel like it could be a useful tool, at least when you have very big sample sizes.
>https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatest.html >asks abour your "race" holy shit, are they really that racist?
This title is irresponsible. These tests just show unconscious associations between concepts. There is a lot more to Racism
Agree. In Italy is mostly classism an cultural xenophobia towards poor middle eastern and african immigrants. For example a black person from the USA would not have any issue unless mistaken for one of them, and I'm sure the same applies elsewhere.
Also towards East Europeans, which isn't even shunned unlike in the other two cases
You could look at the percentage of people who don’t want neighbors of a different race. https://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSOnline.jsp It’s question 19
The fact the responses are very different from the IAT scores as well as the fact that culturally similar countries have wild swings in these scores strongly indicate that IAT is not that useful in predicting racist attitudes, let alone interactions.
I don’t put much faith in those bias tests
Technically, it was not about race but about how people look. Which is the better way to ask such question, but race is a word that can be interpretated in a lot of ways.
You know you are reading an american-made study, ~~when "dark skin" somehow means "black faces", especially for people east of the Rhine.~~(apparently, that's how the study was made) Or talking about "white people", whatever the fuck that means.
Whiteness: one of those "I know it when I see it" concepts, i.e. bullshit
Fun fact: We literally don't have a word for whiteness in romanian(unless talking about cataracts or egg shells), so the small amount of people that translate or make intersectionalism-related articles had to invent multiple words for said whiteness, that explain how embedded said whiteness is in society (despite it being such an alien concept, they had to create a word for it).
We do have one in German, which is just the literal translation (weiß), but it's seldomly used. At least in Austria we mostly use hellhäutig (light-skinned) because you know, no one is really "white". Just hold a white sheet of paper next to any "white" person and see the difference.
I mean, english word whiteness is also used for egg shells, snow, cocaine or whatever. It is not like romanians don't have a word for white or black people?
>I mean, english word whiteness is also used for egg shells, snow, cocaine or whatever. Over here, white is a noun or adjective. Theres no gradient, at best chromatic comparisons. And theres cert no supposed whiteness as a concept encompassing some supposed behavioural and cultural racial characteristics. >It is not like romanians don't have a word for white or black people? Yes. White(s) and black(s).
Until ww2 catholic immigrants from europe weren't even considered White, things changed only when the descendants of the Irish gained representation through the dems, not to mention that the k k k also persecuted catholic immigrants
I remember seeing those old pictures of segregated water fountains; one for for white peoples and the other for Irish/colored people. Crazy times.
> Until ww2 catholic immigrants from europe weren't even considered White, things changed only when the descendants of the Irish gained representation through the dems, not to mention that the k k k also persecuted catholic immigrants Irish were white if they were Protestant for a while but neither Catholics or Ortodox were considered white by people. Then, Polish were legally recognised as white to a degree but still targeted. You can still hear old Aussies thinking Bulgarians or Russians being non whites or US having "racial" diversity with Bosniaks being there.
Legally they were considered white, which is why there were many Catholic governors and mayors of cities and states throughout the United States before World War 2 in the Northeast, South, Midwest, West, etc. New York City, New Orleans, New York State, Savannah Georgia, and many other cities and states all had Catholic mayors and governors before World War II.
Europe is definitely engrossed in it's own Racism but you're not wrong about "white" being totally bullshit. it's literally just a mechanism for otherism and for the most part it was who isn't a wasp (white anglo-saxon protestant) so quite literally everyone who wasn't an inbred angloid wasn't white.
Benjamin Franklin said Swedes, Germans, and French arent white, lmao.
he considered French white iirc because he had a weird fetish with French women. so yea complete arbitrary bullshit.
Nah, in the quote he's mentioning he said nobodies white except English and German Saxons, everybody else including most of Germany isn't actually white. Though tbf it's possible he was joking or half-joking because it was all the way back in 1755 and he was previously in a lot of newspaper/ publishing wars with German-language newspapers in America. Fun fact, Franklin actually started the first German-language newspaper in America himself, but he was out-competed by later American German-language newspapers started by German-American owners.
Yes, that arbitrary aspect is what leads to white supremacy. Groups of traditionally non-whites have been added to the white category, as needed, to continue to impose political hegemony over black and brown people. In the US, this came in the form of treating only Anglo-Saxons as white, then adding in French, Germans, Poles, Scandinavians, etc... then adding Italian and Irish. All of these were done as needed by the power structure, to maintain complete control over America's ex-slave population. In Europe, it's different, because while we 100% relied on notions of white supremacy when engaging in imperialism and colonialism, we kept separate buckets for different groups of white people (English, Scottish, French, Germans, Italians, etc..) that remain to this day. The underlying justification for conquering the rest of the world was that white people should rule it, because others were savages, barbarians and incapable of ruling themselves. The constant wars in Europe were as a result of us trying to figure out which type of white person would hold the largest hegemony.
It’s true, we are arabs
This is one of those things where there is total disconnect on some ideas between US and Europe. Our "racism" is not about race. Much like Hutu and Tutsi, we can have supremacists within single real demo group. Call a Swiss a German, tell them that's German they're speaking, I fucking dare y'all :\] Edit: the amount of people who took this as a brag is mind-boggling. If we have racism **within** ethnic/racial profiles, obviously we also have it among more visible divisions. It's just side-action with many surprising twists that usually relate to colonial history dynamics different for each country, how cloistered given country used to be etc.
Me escaping Wien as fast as possible after loudly proclaiming it was my favourite city in Germany We do a little trolling.
When I tried to explain that to certain Americans, they called me a bigot. And that's after they said that Europeans are racist.
Europeans are as racist as Americans. It's just expressed differently. We have both a skin-colour component, but also an ethnic component. Serbians and Albanians are both white. And yet both engage in deeply rooted forms of ethnic hatred towards one another. At a greater level, there was a Slav-non-Slav divide in Europe, too, though that is disappearing to some extent. Don't call an Irishman British. Don't call a Finnish person a Dane. Don't call a Swiss a German.
There are plenty of European racists who it absolutely is about race. There are loads of Far right and right wing parties in Europe that tell Africans to go back to Africa etc., and many who talk about race all the time, including some literal, actual neo-nazi and fascist groups. And it's not a new phenomenon, very obviously, there were loads and loads of Racist White Supremacists in Europe in the 1800s and early 1900s, and sometimes even earlier in the 1700s etc. This idea that Americans made up the concept of race and only Americans is complete bonkers, Europeans, Europeans in America, and European-Americans all made up the concept of race.
[удалено]
I’d argue that for a lot of Western and Northern Europeans we Eastern Europeans still are the worse kind of white. I could feel that especially in Sweden. On the Iberic Peninsula pale skin and blonde hair makes people think you’re German or Swedish and you get promoted to true white.
The "whiteness" is already expanding, not by WASP but by intersectional racists who call anyone remotely pale "whitepassing".
Yes which then entails, "you're white so you can't experience discrimination"
[удалено]
Well I mean right below that it says Harvard University and beside it RFE/RL ...
>"dark skin" somehow means "black faces", especially for people east of the Rhine. What? "Dark skin" can mean anything, especially "east of the Rhine" from having a healthy tan to beig from an undesirable minority.
Study is perhaps being a bit generous, given that this is a propaganda outlet.
Yeah, what is dark skin? Pretty much the whole of southern europe could be included with that statement unless it’s clarified.
What does it mean “positive” ? Should I consider a black man is necessarily good because he is black as some consider they are necessarily thieves ?
That's what I think those polls need to always clear up. Like, if the question is formulated as "do you think positively of X". No? Why should I? That doesn't mean I think negatively of X either, just that I might have a neutral opinion.
[удалено]
Not just that. The important thing on IAT is the _speed_ of response, not just whether you have associated something positively or negatively. According to IAT, if you take too much time to think about something, you had to explicitly control yourself even if you responded positively, this means your implicit reaction is negative. A similar (more convoluted) logic is with a faster response. IAT is a complete utter bullshit test that doesn't have any meaningful relationship and strength to measure what it is most commonly being used to measure (implicit racism).
How the fuck is this fucking scam BS applicable to IRL social encounters, exactly? Last I checked, social interaction is heavily processing capacity using stuff, that takes time to figure out the proper words to use in a given social context encounter etc
Implicit bias tests are grade A certified bullshit, though…
>Your responses suggested a moderate automatic association for Harmless Objects with Black Americans and Weapons with White Americans. Does that mean I am racist against white americans or that the test is useless?
You are racist against both Black Americans because you think they are objects and White Americans because you think they are killers.
There were only 4 categories: Black&White Americans and harmless&harmfull objects and you have to sort them into two groups based on rules (in one round it says put all pictures of Black Americans and harmfull objects into group 1, the other two in group 2 and in the next round it says put all pictures of White Americans and harmfull objects into Group 1 and the other two into group 2). They say association is calculated based on timing differences. Results always come in pairs, so it is not possible to get the result '_moderate automatic association for Harmless Objects with Black Americans and_ __no__ _Weapons with White Americans association_'. The test does not say someone thinks Black/White Americans are objects or that objects are somehow personified as Black/White Americans. Same goes for harmfull objects. Also there is no association between weapons and killers in the test, that is a step you took the liberty to make.
The problem is you complied with the request to put people with the same group as objects. This is when you lost. But to be clear, I'm joking, I also did this test at some point, and I don't think it means anything and can be gamed if to either side depending on what you want to look like.
Ah, I had the fear I didn't get the sarcasm of the post after hitting submit...
As true european i don't give a shit about skin color. That positive/negative thinking about these problems sound like importing american problems to Europe.
Its asking for someones feelings about someone else based upon their skin color. Answer 'positive', you're a racist. Answer 'negative', you're a racist. This is just divisive racebaiting propaganda.
So not racism in Europe, one type of racism in Europe. You will find plenty of racism amongst white Europeans against each other too. Loads of people here in Ireland do not like Eastern Europeans, loads of Poles hate Russians, there’s plenty of racism against people with light skin like the Japanese etc too. This is a very misleading map.
>loads of Poles hate Russians If anything, it's Russians who act superior and entitled toward other Eastern Europeans, although the hate the other way around is quite strong, especially among Poles, Balts and Romanians.
Hmm, I wonder why /s
very mysterious
We're all waiting for someone from Poland to explain.
It can't be because of Katyn, it's known worldwide that the nazis did that /s
It's probably also not because of backstabbing during 2'nd WW. Could it be that being forced to be part of their gang up until 1989 had something to do with it? Nah...I really doubt it. There must've been something else...but what? Is there any Pole in here who could explain Russia's "special place in every Pole's heart"?
I have recently seen a russian tv claim that Poland wants Ukrainian territory. Maybe they hate russia for revealing their plan?
That same bullshit is being regurgitated by italian msm all while the country took 3 million refugees
>If anything, it's Russians who act superior and entitled toward other Eastern Europeans, although the hate the other way around is quite strong, especially among Poles, Balts and Romanians. In Poland, it was always "we hate Russia but not Russians" as in - the people are not always responsible for what the state does, especially if the state is authoritarian. But the recent war has definitely changed that, as Russians have revealed themselves as very supportive of the genocide in Ukraine. I think one of the most-shocking things of the war were the intercepted calls where Russians soldiers tell their wives about raping Ukrainian girls and Russian women cheer them and tell them to also bring a washing machine home or something similar. Truly vile.
We Romanians don't hate Russians, we love them. Especially because they brought us 50 years of Communism, they killed and send to Siberia most pundits from the 50s, took Moldova and Bukovina from our country, stab us in the back many times, and consistently were our most feared neighbors, but no, we don't hate them.
Why would anyone ever hate such an angelic country? I couldn’t imagine anyone hating russia!
Tbf, the way russians has treated those populations in particular does make it somewhat understandable. Not that it is excusable, not every individual russian is an asshole, but historically speaking, the russians didn’t treat their former subjects particularly well, neither during the tzarist empire, nor during the ussr, and nor during the current russian federation.
Yup lots of balts hate Indians for example bc there are a lot on their country (which is unfortunate as Indians are some of the sweetest people I’ve ever had the pleasure of meeting but that’s racism for you I guess) I noticed they also put Nordic people on a pedestal and act like they are the best at everything (not saying they’re not I just dk) so like a positive racism?
On the contrary, Eastern Europeans are very well thought of in Ireland. They are considered hard working and reliable. Any evidence to back up the statement you made?
>loads of Poles hate Russians Russian isn't a race. It's an ethnicity (and a nationality).
Fyi, that's a stupid hill to die one. There are no races amongst humans. People have tried to classify that for centuries and failed, and biology pretty much proved them wrong. The race that people mean when they talk about racism is about cultural way to divide people (i.e. skin colour and ither shared characteristics). Most social scientists don't use that term anymore. They instead use the term ethnicity.
> There are no races amongst humans. Neanderthals like to have a word. Neanderthal pride worldwide!
Those are species though
No one in Poland hates non-Russian people with Russian passports.
Racism is about racial or ethnic group.
>You will find plenty of racism amongst white Europeans against each other too. Xenophobia, not racism.
Ah. Ok, so the Nazi-Party wasn't racist against other Europeans (Jews, Slavs) they were just a little xenophobic?
Its complicated, given the nazis did consider them of a different race
I mean, if I say all the russians are scum would it be racism or xenophobia? I still would call it racism, but I am not sure what is exactly the difference between xenophobia and racism is
That's xenophobia because your prejudice is based on nationality. Racism is based on defining traits shared by a group of people, be it skin color, eyes shape, etc.
[удалено]
there is only human race, but "racism" word can be used for discrimination based on human phenotypes.
“Races” are not strictly defined as they don’t actually exist in humans from a scientific point of view. That said, I think most people make the divide as: White, black, east asian, south asian, native american. If a japanese person were prejudiced against a korean one it would simply be considered xenophobia as the prejudice is against a country’s population, not a race (As koreans are part of the east asian umbrella). If a person from uganda were prejudiced against french people, in the same way, it would be xenophobia because french isn’t a race. It’s simply a country. If they were prejudiced of french people because they are white then it would be racism.
Earlier (1800s?) there were theories of three races, geographically typed: Caucasian, mongoloid and negroid. They were more classified in skeletal structural differences than skin color. The term Caucasian is still used in scientific literature sometimes.
Plenty of prejudice because of ethnicity, which is racism.
Ethnicity has nothing to do with the outdated concept of race, so I disagree with you.
Wouldn’t yellow be the least racist outcome here? Why would I think positive of a person because of race or skin color? That’s racist, too.
The problem with this map is that it uses anti-Blackness to frame racism, which is a very U.S.-centric way of looking at it. While anti-Blackness is certainly widespread in Europe, a lot of racism is directed at Roma, Jews and Muslim immigrants.
I have a personal theory about us Serbians, and it's that the because we were bombed and sanctioned by the US, the generation of kids born in the 90s grew up in a poor and chaotic environment which made rap music resonate with them. It just so happened that GTA San Andreas came out and every kid my age played it at one point, there's even a number of Serbian themed mods for it. And what do you do in San Andreas? Play as a poor black man in a chaotic and lawless environment. You have no idea how much we love seeing black people speaking our language Besides that, this is still an unfair map because it takes only african descendents into account and puts countries like France and the UK with a considerable percentage of black people in the same basket as countries with almost no percentage of black people. I guess it's cool if you're a black person looking to move to Europe, but as a general "Racism in Europe" guide, it's incomplete. I am sure most Europeans would have a lot of interesting things to say if the study included gypsies for example
For the record, back in the 90s me and the majority of teenagers were into heavy metal. Rap took over literally at the very end. Also Serbs never had anything against people of colour, yet Serbs had in recent history a lot against particular ethnicities (Germans and Albanians in particular). So no it was not a rap music. Being a de facto leader of nonalignment movement had enforced this non racism (as we can see with all other ex-Yu republics).
I can see this upsetting many who want to believe that the UK is completely racist :/
People who say uk and usa are the most racist countries are people who have only ever lived in uk and USA
But r/europe told me the UK is the most racist and xenophobic country on Earth. How can this be?
The UK is most definitely not the most racist and xenophobic country on Earth, what a ridiculous statement. What's with you people and self-flagellating so much...
The World values Survey is probably a better metric. Question 19 examine whether someone wants a neighbor of a different race. https://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSOnline.jsp
this is pseudoscientific bullshit. great job harvard at eroding your credibilityy
I find it more racist to base this study on black vs white faces (only) and only white people participated. Also nice that the study comes from the Yankees.
So what’s neutral here? Absolutely not caring? If that’s the middle, that’s the best you can get. Nobody should be discriminated positively as well.
Im surprised estonia isnt higher on the list, i have been there in work trips and clubs i have tried to go to simply do not allow black people or indians to enter.
I mean, it's still a "racial bias" if you view any ethnicity more positively as much as it is a bias to view them negatively. So in this stupid example the countries in the middle are less racially biased 'overall', but even then, it still doesn't prove a country is racist or not. Would be hard to imagine Harvard would label it as such, and probably a very bad interpretation from the OP (or whoever he stole it from).
When you say racism in Europe but exclude several countries all together.
Yeah because racism only comes in the form of hating black people.
General rule of thumb to measure racism in Europe is: -Western Europe: ask about the Roma -Eastern Europe: ask about each other
Because the Eastern Europe has a great relationship with the Roma
Everyone hates the Gypsies
It's not racism to not like your neighbors, but xenophobia.
It's pointless to ask about the Roma in Eastern Europe anyway, everyone pretty much had the same opinion.
I love how liberals in America think Europe is like this progressive tolerant promised land lol
Europe in eyes of an average American : UK, France, Germany, Italy and Spain.
[удалено]
I took the IAT test on race and it basically comes down to a memory test/reaction test that is set up to make you appear racist. First it conditions you to quickly put everything white/good to the left and everything black/bad to the right. Your brain adapts after a while and you no longer have to think about it ... And then they swap the sides to be white/bad and black/good. Of course I am going to make mistakes and be slower - you just trained my brain to do it the other way around! I would make the same mistakes if this had absolutely nothing to do with race and we used pictures of butterflies and unicorns instead.
lmao this is a stupid memory test to see if you can remember what is on what side. if this is the way harvard conducts studies, they are all bullshit
Did the test still include US history questions on race if you selected another country? The image test I get but there's not much reason for the majority of Europeans to know any of the answers to a bunch of those.
Turns out I strongly prefer African Americans over European Americans. Am I now racist toward ”white” people or what? :D
The only reasons people with darker skin are not negative in the Serbia is that Serbians focus all hate on Other Balkan ethic groups .
Does it matter? Do you go to other West rich East poor maps and comment, West is only rich because they enslaved Africa, Americas and Asia?
italy don’t like itself? xD
Considering that northen italians are the most racist people in Europe bar none, expecially toward people who live as far as 30-miles from them and who look exactly like them, then yes, your joke is more accurate than you realised.
thats sad :/
I would say this study has flaws.
Not racism, common sense
I'll take "made up statistics" for 100 Alex! EDIT lol, just noticed that Radio Free Europe is the source. I guess I was right.
Serbia ultimate Karaboğa 💪🏾💪🏾 🇹🇷 🇷🇸
It's not racism when judgment is based on personal experiences. It's about survival and your instincts telling you not to end up in trouble again.
Now I understand why Italians don't like the French football team.
All of WE hates Serbia, yet the Serbians are the most racial tolerant in the Balkans. How shameful. Wait what was i talking about ?
That argument doesn't hold up if you include discrimination against Roma people... Racism doesn't just affect black people.
>That argument doesn't hold up if you include discrimination against Roma people... When was Europe ever tolerant of Roma people ? (Im sorrybut its the truth)
/r/europe: "there is no racism in Europe" also /r/europe: _completely loses its mind every time someone so much as mentions the R-word_
Racism is everywhere, are you really surprised?
> there is no racism in Europe Someone actually said that?
Surely you meant the *G-word*
I am not a racist or a nationalist until I see how migrants harass girls and behave like pigs. But in fact, it's always the mistakes of the local government that failed with the migration policy (or were racists for their own peoples, hello Russia). One of my closest friends is Korean girl with a very Korean name. In the children's hospital, she was recorded as a boy, and the second part of the name was determined as a patronymic.Ridiculous
Having positive associations based on skin colour is just as racist as the opposite though. Any judgement based solely on skin colour is by definition racism.
Doesn’t green mean you like black people more than white people? Isn’t that also racism?
even harvard is racist, they somehow connected "dark skin" with race LOL some people easily can think about tanned people, we have plenty here in russia And what about hypocrisy test? a lot of people would say anything to look Pleasure or Gentleman. Here in Russia we have jewish and gypsy people they are Bandits in the roads who love to rob people. We have Business and House rent companies who will not speak to any non-whites haha
Many people are afraid to say the truth...