Love thy neighbour

There was an interesting piece in The Washington Post which mapped the most racially intolerant countries in the world, according to whether people would mind or not whether their neighbour was from another race. This was to examine a thesis that material wealth decreases racial intolerance. As with all such studies it relied on people being honest rather than replying with what they think is an acceptable, politically correct answer.

In Europe, the UK, Norway, Sweden, Andorra and, surprisingly given the long-standing tensions with the Russian minority, Latvia were the least intolerant countries with less than 5% objecting to a neighbour with a differing racial background. Around the world, where data existed, northern Europe (plus Spain and Croatia) were fairly tolerant, as was much of the Americas (bar Venezuela and the Dominican Republic and even there less than 20% of the respondents), South Africa, Taiwan, Australia (another maybe surprising finding given deep-seated hostility among much of the political class towards immigrants, although the same could be said of the UK) and New Zealand. Pakistan was also in the mix, described as an outlier.

The most intolerant places were India, Bangladesh, Jordan and the outlier of Hong Kong (by contrast with HK, Singapore was quite relaxed), in each case more than 40% were hostile, answering “people of another race” when asked to pick from groups of people they would not want as a neighbour. South Korea was quite high, being another outlier. France seemed to be more racist or at the same level against any other country in Europe bar Albania, falling in the 20% - 29.9% category along with the likes of Bulgaria, Moldova, Turkey and Georgia. Even Bosnia-Herzegovina had a less intolerant score and by some margin. This in the same week that a study suggested that the French were the most homophobic nation in western Europe. Other prominent intolerant countries were Rwanda, Nigeria, Egypt and Indonesia, all with communal tensions, plus the restrictive societies of Saudi Arabia, Iran and Vietnam. Of course, when such statistical surveys are carried out, journalists are loath to declare the degree of confidence the statisticians have in their findings (hint: it is never 100%).

Some of the ‘less than 5%’ in the UK may draw conclusions that this is why Indians and Bangladeshis form their own communities in northern England (an argument undermined by the integration in the south), while not having the paedophile gangs preying on largely white girls that the Pakistanis have (because the Pakistanis are relaxed about racial background?). I make this point, despite its inherent unpleasantness towards peoples of the subcontinent and my own queasy concerns over it because I want to demonstrate that is how racism takes hold, grabbing at a kernel of truth and extrapolating it to condemn an entire people.  A lie easy to create because most people are not in full command of the facts.  Although not framed in this way, such views are prevalent on the message boards of the right-wing media (although on The Telegraph, if reported, they get deleted). Such repugnance is crafty but is too often encouraged by the right-wing press. It as if Stuart Hazell, molester and murderer of Tia Sharp, never happened. Nine out of ten paedophiles are family or friends of the victim(s), though racists will use anything with which to bash immigration.