If you say North India, and by north I mean Utter Pardesh and Delhi and the old East Punjab, then true. not the case with East India, or in the South and Sri Lanka. Rascism was one of the unfortunate consequences of the relation between the erstwhile east Pakistan and West Pakistan.
Actually if we were to use American standards of who is and isn’t black(I.E. classifying Will Smith, Ice T, and Halle Berry as black) the percent of Cubans who are “black” is probably higher.
According to the Institute for Cuban and Cuban American studies in Miami around 62% of all Cubans are “black”. http://www.miamiherald.com/multimedia/news/afrolatin/part4/index.html
What the census reveals is that many people who would certainly not be considered white in the US consider themselves “Blancos”. In fact, I believe that same census classified people who were Chinese as “white.”
That said, I think Cuba’s view of the color line is hardly unique and pretty much the norm in Latin America and Sub-Saharran Africa where you’re only considered black if you’re of nearly 100% African descent.
This means that had they been born in Brazil, Nigeria, or the Dominican Republic, only about 10-15%(at most) of all American “Blacks” would be considered “Black”.
In India, people don’t generally think of ‘racial’ differences, except for the people from the north east (and in my view even that’s an unfortunate thing). The differences that east/north/south Indians have are predicated much more on culture/language than physical differences. At least in my experience. I know loads of south Indians who’ve grown up in Delhi, and you’d never be able to make out that they’re south Indian if they didn’t tell you.
Well what about the caste system you guys got going there? I heard that the lower the caste, the darker the skin. The untouchables are supposed to be really dark.
Would this be somewhere around Oldham by any chance? Racism is a big issue there, and in several other poor Northern towns- largely due to the high unemployment, combined with high immigration- mainly from Pakistan- the two factors aren’t really connected, but there’s a massive perception that they are. It also leads to a lot of unemployed bored youth, who have formed a violent gang culture, which is largely divided along race lines.
I know some horrificly racist people who live in that area (largely through an ex, who lived in the area, and was the only non-Asian kid in his class at school, though he isn’t racist a bit).
On the other hand, it is fairly restricted to what are actually just a few fairly small towns. Where I live now, in the South of England, there’s almost as high a proportion of ethnically Asian residents, and overt racism at least is much much rarer. I see very little of it, despite living in one of the most diverse suburbs in England, certainly outside of London. Ethnically mixed relationships are very common. It’s not often considered a big deal.
It’s really hard to give an overview of the whole country’s attitudes- generally, I’d say the UK is not really concerned by skin colour, or actual country of origin but is much more bothered by differences in culture. If you ‘act white’, you’re fine.
First I’ve heard of caste and appearance being related. But that may be just me. We’re trying to be a post-caste society now, and if you’re educated and live in an urban area, you’re unlikely to know much about caste. What you say could be within the realms of possibility I suppose. Historically lower castes may have had to stay out in the sun longer and so would be darker. They may not have gotten the best nutrition, so they may have been shorter. I don’t know if that would hold true today, but I don’t think so. I have some friends who belong to what used to be the untouchable castes, and I only got to know this when they were able to take advantage of affirmative action quotas to go to college (the lucky sods). They were taller and lighter skinned than me.
ETA: And I’m above average height and about the usual shade of light brown
Nope, Middlesbrough, but it’s similar to how you describe Oldham.
My vote is for Monaco for two reasons.
First is size, obviously. They’re the second smallest country in the world (Vatican City being first and I discounted them right away). So there’s less of a population that could be racist.
But the second factor is that they’re a huge tourist destination. People from all over the world are constantly flowing in and out of there, so the population gets exposed to everyone over time. Familiarity breeds…well, the opposite of contempt, I would assume.
There are far more African-Americans in the southern states than northern ones. Consider what familiarity did for African-Americans until the sixties.
I don’t buy for a second that India doesn’t care about physical racial distinctions. Every time I see pictures or video of Bollywood stars, they all look like Greeks and Italians. Lighter skin is clearly idealized there.
It was used a lot at my racially diverse British high school a few years back, but I never heard nigger/nigga/darkie/k***ir. They are on a whole different level, even the (Asian) Indians used it.
Good point,
Perhaps the Vatican City is also in the running, as they have both of those, with the addition that all there citizens are devoted to a non-racist religion.
That’s nice and all, but it’s still not a citation.
Are rural and/or uneducated Americans more likely to be “racist” than Americans who are cosmopolitan or educated?
I’d guess so, and guess that underdeveloped countries, or those with poor education, are more likely to be racist.
My remarks are specific to Thailand. Thais may tend to be “jingoist” but that’s not quite the same as racist. “Xenophobic” might be accurate, but I’d not add “very.”
From what I’ve seen, South Asians and Southwest Asians are the groups against whom many Thais feel most antipathy. Westerners (“farangs”) on the other hand are likely to benefit from reverse prejudice in Thailand – many Thais see them as superior! They are often given special treatment, are desirable romantic partners, and (although this changed in the 1990’s) were often given much higher pay for the same work. (Sometimes Thais attempt to exploit Western tourists financially, but it is at least moot whether that fits the definition of “racism.”)
BTW, from what I’ve seen, many Thais think of a Black American as an American, rather than as a Black.
This. The younger generation of Indians tends to be less racist, but older ones tend to be horrendously so – at least in the sense of strongly favoring lighter skin within their own society. My wife’s grandmother (born in India, raised in Malaysia), upon a grandchild’s birth, would enquire, “Is it dark or light skinned?”, never mind if it’s healthy, or has all its fingers and toes…
Ah but it would appear that there is quite a bit of racism between Pakistanis and Indians, hence a large number of Indians swearing about the “Pakis”.
Well, we must move in different social circles then. I live in and come from two places with very diverse populations and high numbers of asians (East London and Birmingham respectively) and ‘paki’ is just as offensive as any of your other suggestions.
Tell it to Pope Aristide I. 
That’s not really a “racism” thing, per se. Nobody in India or Pakistan thinks there’s much difference between Indians and Pakistanis other than culture. Nobody would say that South Indians are of a difference “race”- although there are certainly genetic differences between the Dravidian-speaking population, mostly confined to the South, and people who speak languages descended from Sanskrit.
The preference for light skin is more of an abstract (and stupid) standard of beauty than anything else - though I suspect it is somewhat reinforced (unconsciously) by a subcontinent-wide inferiority complex stemming from British occupation. People don’t just want to associate with light-skinned people, they want their own kids to be light-skinned.
This is not to say that Indians aren’t racist; I’ve heard several derogatory comments from Indian-Americans about black people and Jews.