3 ms·
That table lists Russia and the Congo as more ethnically diverse than the UK. OK, if you define ethnicity in such a way that it has no correlation with skin col
by repolfx 8y ago
That table lists Russia and the Congo as more ethnically diverse than the UK. OK, if you define ethnicity in such a way that it has no correlation with skin colour or any of the traditional aspects of racism, then sure. Maybe there are more ethnic tribes or something in the Congo than the UK.
Now go define it in the way people actually mean when they talk about racism, and see what happens.
Projects like Galileo are impossible without centralization
That's clearly nonsense. The International Space Station is not the product of a giant centralised power structure. It's the result of an international collaboration amongst governments, none of them able to control the others. And the ISS is much more complex an endeavour than Galileo.
- padthai 8y agoLook, (ethnic) Russian, (ethnic) Caucasians and Tatars do not look alike. Same in Congo with the Bantu, Pygmy and Nilotic. You are not even choosing good examples for your arguments. Most ethnics conflicts in the world might not even skin colour related because they occur between neighbors. Pakistan/India, the Balkans, Azerbaijan/Armenia etc. But hey, whatever fits your narrative.
- repolfx 8y agoPeople from the north and south of England can often be told apart by how they look and sound, and north/south bias is a thing - does that make them different "ethnicities"? I mean, the whole idea that the UK is a massively racist country is so silly nobody has tried to defend it, have they? As defined in a normal way - people of very different skin colours and origins getting along next to each other - the UK does very well.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]