Australia among the most racially tolerant countries in the world, data mapping shows


This story was published: 2 years ago May 17, 2013 12:08PM

AUSTRALIA ranks among the most racially tolerant countries in the world, a global study of social attitudes has found.

We sit alongside our neighbours New Zealand, the US, UK, Canada, Sweden, Norway, Latvia and large parts of Latin America in the rankings of 80 countries.

India, Jordan, Bangladesh and Hong Kong are the most racially intolerant countries, the data mapping shows.

The data was taken from the World Value Survey - a study by Swedish economists - which has been measuring global attitudes from three decades, the Washington Post reports.

The survey asked respondents to identify people they wouldn't want as neighbours, with one of the options on the list being "people of a different race".

Hong Kong was found to be the least racially tolerant nation, with 71.8 per cent of respondents saying they didn't want a neighbour of a different race.

Bangladesh was a close second with 71.8 per cent, followed by Jordan with 51.4 per cent and India with 43.5 per cent.

Other racially diverse countries in Asia and the Middle East, where there is a diversity of religions and economic migrants often come from poorere countries in the region, also scored low on the tolerance level.

In Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia and Malaysia up to 39.9 per cent of respondents said they would not like living next to a person of a different race.

On the flipside, in multicultural western countries including Australia, the UK, Canada and the US, 5 per cent or less of respondents didn't want to live next to people of a different race.

See the full mapping at the Washington Post

http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/australia-among-the-most-racially-tolerant-countries-in-the-world-data-mapping-shows/story-e6frfq80-1226645175923

Because it's not our history or culture.

It's largely made up and bullshit.

Read and educate yourself. http://au.fourfourtwo.com/forums/default.aspx?g=posts&t=102197

Cheers.

How is it not? We are in Australia and soldiers from Australia fought for Australia.

For Australia?

Oh fuck lets not go full tin-foil here.

They represented Australia. They do not get to choose what cause they fight for.

So it's OK then?

Our blokes get sent half way around the world and invade a country that must've been thinking who the fuck are these blokes?


Edited by MUNRUBENMUZ: 23/4/2015 11:01:22 PM

The Turks shot back you know ;)

I've had time to read the article. The author draws a long bow and the study where he gets his data from makes no such conclusion.

Also the results are for one question only. Hardly conclusive.

[size=7]If we treat this data as indicative of racial tolerance[/size], then [size=7]we might conclude[/size] that people in the bluer countries are the least likely to express racist attitudes, while the people in red countries are the most likely.

Compare the results to this map of the world's most and least diverse countries.

Before we dive into the data, a couple of caveats. First, it's entirely likely that some people lied when answering this question; it would be surprising if they hadn't. But the operative question, unanswerable, is whether people in certain countries were more or less likely to answer the question honestly. For example, while the data suggest that Swedes are more racially tolerant than Finns, it's possible that the two groups are equally tolerant but that Finns are just more honest. The willingness to state such a preference out loud, though, might be an indicator of racial attitudes in itself. Second, the survey is not conducted every year; some of the results are very recent and some are several years old, so we're assuming the results are static, which might not be the case.

Yes they did. As we would if some fuckers invaded us.

The whole thing is ridiculous particularly when your ACA and Today Tonight mob get up in arms about some proposed work that needs to be done at ANZAC cove.

Can't imagine the shitstorm if the Japanese objected to a subdivision near Darwin wharf because that where some of their pilots were killed.

It's mind numbingly stupid.

The whole thing was a debacle from beginning to end and lots of poor, ignorant bastards died for no good reason.

And then this.

Correction: This post originally indicated that, according to the World Values Survey, 71.7 percent of Bangladeshis and 71.8 percent of Hong Kongers had said that they would not want a neighbor of a different race. In fact, those numbers appear to be substantially lower, 28.3 percent and 26.8 percent, respectively. In both cases, World Values appears to have erroneously posted the incorrect data on its Web site. Ashirul Amin, posting at the Tufts University Fletcher School’s emerging markets blog, looked into the data for Bangladesh and discovered the mistake. My thanks to Amin, who is Bangladeshi and was able to read the original questionnaire, for pointing this out. His analysis is worth reading in full, but here’s his conclusion:

The short answer is, yes, someone did fat finger this big time. "Yes" and "No" got swapped in the second round of the survey, which means that 28.3% of Bangladeshis said they wouldn’t want neighbors of a different race – not 71.7%.

26K Facebook likers and 2.5K Tweeters, take note.

Amin adds, “Bangladeshis are a tolerant bunch — it’s ok to come visit.” The error in the Hong Kong data, first discovered by Chinese-speaking users on Reddit, was flagged by Engadget Chinese editor Richard Lai. Ng Chun Hung, a University of Hong Kong professor who was the principal investigator on World Values' survey there, confirmed via e-mail that the data had been transposed on the survey company's Web site. He added that he has written the World Values Survey team to alert it to this and ask it to remove the faulty data. My thanks to him, as well as to Lai and the Reddit users who dug through original Chinese-language survey forms to demonstrate the error.

That's the point retard. We're not celebrating the reason we went to war but the men themselves who sacrificed their lives.

So we're agreed. There was no good reason.

And by the way rocket scientist there's already a day for remembering and honouring our soldiers. It's called Remembrance Day.

HINT: The name of the day kind of gives it away.

https://www.awm.gov.au/commemoration/remembrance/tradition/

Here's the full paper. Good luck extracting your "facts" from this.

"After the end of the Second World War, the Australian and British governments changed the name to Remembrance Day. Armistice Day was no longer an appropriate title for a day which would commemorate all war dead."

Commemorate. Not celebrate.

Remembrance day is not uniquely Australian/Kiwi though.

mumbruz makes a very valid point. what if japanese govt wants to set up a memorial in Darwin ? could you imagine the uproar. we need to stop putting a premium of a human life based on their national colora because its divisive

What's wrong with having a day unique to Australian to remember our fallen soldiers? Remembrance day has more of an international significance and doesn't resonate with Australians as much as Anzac Day does.
Your cynicism and pretentiousness is off the charts. You're probably the kind of person who hates Christmas right? You know the whole "the story of Jesus is bullshit it's ridiculous we celebrate his imaginary birth ner ner ner". That's you right? No Santa Claus for your kids, just an opportunity for advertisers to exploit children and parents? How about birthdays, is that another day of misery?? Isn't is retarded that people celebrate the day they were squeezed out of vagina? That's how you think right?

I can tolerate people who want to think like that but why must you infect everyone with your misery and depressed attitude about certain public holidays. Just be silent about it.

I think we'll be a better country when we commemorate without the mythology or glorification, but rather recognise that war is fucking terrible and should be avoided. And also recognise that our soldiers were no better or worse but rather just human like their military foes. And that our enemies have similar tales of heroism and horrible loss. Most people do the right thing, but IMO the media love a beat up with their cool stories, re-enactments, slow motion etc. I think the country is getting a bit sick of the commercialisation.

Because 54 000 blokes died on the Western front (in the main). Only 6000 died at Gallipoli.

If you like, commemorating ANZAC day is not very fair to the majority of Australian war casualties. (Who died elsewhere. In far worse conditions.)

Stick with Remembrance day. The orgification of Anzac day is a relatively recent phenomenon.

(Arguing on 2 fronts here Rusty. Just like Germany circa 1945.)

War might be terrible but those who participate in it should be glorified. If they have laid down their lives for their country they should be honoured and remembered more than someone who didn't make that sacrifice. Armies need to soldiers so also don't have a problem with legends and mythology if it inspires folks to join up. That's going to build an army better than telling them they're terrible and their efforts are for shit.

The shit set in with the official war historian Charles Bean who was actually at Gallipoli and never missed an opportunity to "talk it up" on Australia's behalf.

Had to laugh last night when I also found out that the ANZAC biscuits we eat were never eaten by ANZACS in Europe.

Golden syrup, coconut and butter added by Arnotts in the 1920's.

If they've died because of no good reason they should be pitied not glorified. Glorifying them only encourages more ignorant saps to stick their hand up the next time a barney blows up.

Maybe, like the VIetnam War, if the populace, says, by and large, "fuck you" to the government of the day we can avoid getting our blokes killed in some politicians folly.



And there you go. You've distilled my argument into one line. Thanks.

Gallipoli is the battle where Australia lost the most lives and is symbolic of our greater participation in that war, and also all wars since.

We can have Remembrance Day AND Anzac Day too (kind of like hard and soft tacos). Anzac Day is more cherished and has been commemorated as a public holiday since 1920s.

I don't share your cynicism they died for no good reason.

Can you give me your reason then?

Cheers lads, especially those that gave well thought out replies.

I'm off to find some mentos (thanks Russ) and hit the sack.

As a member of the British Empire we did the right thing supporting out ally, whom as a new country we were still greatly tethered to for financial, economical and military support. Even today as a far more independent sovereign nation if our allies were attacked we'd have a responsibility to defend them, otherwise all the various military pacts we rely on to keep our borders safe would be worth shit and we would be left exposed.

Wasn't there like 20,000 killed in pozieres?