According to the people at the UK Daily Mail, the above phrase is factual. A survey, which is described as one of the largest such international surveys, Britain is listed as #23 on the 100 countries surveyed. (Ireland was #22, meaning it’s just a little less ‘prejudiced’ than the UK). Just as a by-the-way, the USA is at #14, which means it’s even less ethnocentric. All three countries are becoming less ‘themselves’ by the year, as we can’t help noticing.
Well, that’s how it works when our country (the USA) was originally a social/political experiment in creating a ‘pluralistic’ country from a hodgepodge of European nations.
But let’s look at what this survey indicates. First, it should raise questions as to whether people truly express their feelings to strangers taking polls, asking us about things that are matters for our own consciences. People want to say the ‘correct’ thing, as seen by those who are authorities over us. Everyone (except the most biased or the most ignorant, usually the same people) knows that the Media are biased, and that they are a class apart from ordinary Americans, whose opinions are not monolithic and scripted. The media consider themselves our betters, judging us from on high, so people are often guarded in their answers to pollsters.
But when the poll describes itself as a measure of ”racism”, let’s remember that until circa 1960, the term ‘racism’ was unknown by most English-speakers. That’s fact. I’ve just done a web search (on an alternative, supposedly less left-wing) search engine or two, and believe me, the results are heavily, heavily weighted toward the left’s side. I own a few old early 20th century English dictionaries, both British and American.
None of them, prior to the 1930s, list ‘racism’ or ‘racist’ as a word. There may have been a few Bolshevik ideologues who used that word or some equivalent, but the word was, before about 1960s, not in the vocabulary of the average American citizen. It was literally unknown to most Americans, even those who went to college or university, unless they were unlucky enough to have one of those old-Left academics that preceded today’s extreme-Left college professors.
So the search engine results you will get if you search on the origin of the word ‘racist’ are outright biased (— let’s say bigoted — yes, turnabout is fair play.) And if the word fits, they ought to wear it.
I have read that Trotsky invented the term ‘racist’, and if he didn’t, some other like-minded leftist did. And whoever coined the word, it’s been put to work to defame anyone who doesn’t toe the leftist line, and march in lockstep with that ilk. No escaping it, lefties; the right certainly didn’t make up a weapon-word like that. Why deny ownership of the word? The left of that era discussed amongst themselves the plan to use certain peoples (those seen as deprived or ‘oppressed’) as their vanguard to attack the ‘wealthy, imperialist’ — and White countries and peoples. I have original sources to back this up, but the left will not talk about this.
Having invented this useful word with which to bludgeon the First World, the left had only to condition people to the idea of European-descended peoples as villains — why? Because they were the most successful and powerful. Prima facie proof of their villainy, at least to the left. The British had the largest empire for a long while, so they were cast as part of the Evil Scheme to oppress everybody. And the U.S., being militarily and financially powerful, was also one of the villains. Suddenly having unflattering opinions about someone, regardless of circumstances, was proof of being the most contemptible and evil of all people. And a new word was at hand to use and condemn such people — even if no proof of the accusations existed.
It all went into overdrive in the 1960s and 70s and has escalated unbelievably since then. And it shows little sign of reversing, and returning to some semblance of proportion and perspective.
Do supposedly ‘prejudiced’ people judge without any knowledge or experience? Most often there are reasons for the opinions people have, based in reality and experience. The countries having so many problems with ”diversity”, for example, Sweden, had little experience with people of disparate and obviously incompatible backgrounds; they were thus too open and naive to believe that diversity could cause any problems, even violence. Likewise Ireland, apart from Dublin, has had little experience of ”diversity” but it seems they are accepting of it despite the disruption. Yet some few can see the dangers of transitioning to a homogeneous and relatively peaceful country to a torn, conflicted mess, which can ill afford the experience.
It’s been said that wise people learn from other’s experiences. Thanks to the meddling media, the lesson that places like homogeneous Ireland and Sweden both learned was that Americans were bad people because they oppressed and mistreated innocent ‘Others’ living in their midst. No possibility of any guilt on the part of Oppressed Underdogs was even going to be considered.
Then there began to be a culture, in newly ‘diverse’ countries, even America, of jockeying for moral status by showing off, making a point of saying ”I’m not racist…” or some of my best friends are…”[fill in the blank with the appropriate victim group]. Then there’s the factor, newly popular, of seeing the Others as being ‘cool’, of having a certain cachet; our people are bland, boring, they have no rhythm — in addition to being evil oppressors.
So we are supposed to be reassured, or proud, that the U.S. is being called ‘One of the least ‘racist’ countries, as is our ancestral nation, England? Will that help us at all? Will it mean that we will be let off the hook for our generational guilt? Answer: It will not. The accusations and recriminations won’t go away. The goose that laid the golden egg: why kill that goose?
What I worry is that who and what we are is slowly dying away, as we try being self-effacing and apologetic about our forebears just for the sake of making that list of ‘least racist’ countries. Some people go the ultimate in an effort to cleanse themselves of ‘White guilt’ (really, leftist-induced guilt’. They try to purify themselves of their bad White Oppressor genes by outmarrying.
Where does that ultimately lead?
[Incidentally: I linked to the Free Republic thread on this Daily Mail story because the Daily Mail, though sometimes useful, resembles one of the trashy supermarket tabloid papers from here in the States, with the usual salacious stories. I also wanted to show the dismal state of awareness in the U.S., with the commenters mostly politically-correct comments — which would have been shouted down by the real right-wing of years ago. The ‘right’ in the U.S. has definitely slid far to the left.]