Japan, NK, Bangladesh, Tunisia, Egypt, Jordan, Armenia, Comoros, Poland? and SK.

Edit: It is poland, I'm just wondering how Poland got there.

North Korea is probably "no data".

If I had to stab at it, maybe they consider north/south related families separately? There can’t possibly be Chinese living there outside of government contracting.

Especially when one of them is Poland, which is incredibly easy to confuse with a couple of other flags. In order from the lowest percentage to the highest:

• 1st row: Japan, North Korea, Bangladesh, Tunisia, Egypt

• 2nd row: Jordan, Armenia, Comoros, Poland, South Korea

I mean, it's got a map, too...

I can ID Japan, South Korea, North Korea, Egypt, Tunisia, and Poland on there without even going to check if I'm right. (I also correctly guessed Bangladesh and Jordan but had to check to be sure, and incorrectly guessed Georgia instead of Armenia.)

Can't tell what the 10^th^ country is, though, as I don't see any others marked in red.

Your reasoning about Poland would also fit Germany, yet it's a very diverse country in the cities now... Also has language with very long words with a lot of consonants ("Angstschweiß" "Weihnachtsschmuck" ...) and they didn't really get successful colonies going (Namibia perhaps the most). They also carry quite the "reputation". I think for most European countries current diversity has more to do with inviting Gastarbeiter (Italian, Turkish, Moroccan...) and/or Soviet style topdown relocation programs of millions of people across the country (Siberia ...), and somehow Poland had few of both those scenarios? Anyhow I don't think difficulty of pronouncing polish language is the cause of low diversity.

Poland has a certain... reputation...which is why they haven't got much racial diversity.

Perhaps you’re expecting all colonies to be plantations? The British plantations such as North America, Australia and NZ are still as you’d expect. But most of the empire was run for profit rather than plantation. These colonies were administered by British (later a mix of British and indigenous) civil servants and garrisons but there was no intention to build a lasting presence. The British Empire even told itself it would hand back the non-plantations after they had been “set right” for the benefit of the natives.

Yeah this seems a bit rage bitey or just illogical.

Are americans one race or are say native americans spliced out? Is it culture or actual population movement?

Also we all are un the human race to start with.

Somewhat haphazardly, probably 🤷🏻

In meters.

I'm not sure about the actual prevalence of racism, but one thing I can tell you is that living in a less diverse place makes it real easy for people to be blissfully unaware of their own racism, whereas actually interacting with people of other races forces them to confront it about themselves.

I've seen plenty of people here on Lemmy from lily-white states like Minnesota or Montana dunking on the South in the most bigoted way while simultaneously being holier-than-thou about it.

I bet there's plenty research on it. I have a lot of thoughts from Polish perspective, but I don't actually know anything about it.

I.E. I suspect there's little systemic racism in Poland because there's no history that would bring it (no colonialism history in modern era and post-WW2 erased any laws from 30s.

Causal, very much - less these days in media, but there's still racist idioms and jokes. I'd say it's directly proportional to familiarity, but not exactly malicious.

Then there's obviously neonazis and "intellectual racists" that have it all figured out.

That's my casual take about this very not casual topic.

The president of Tunisia is one of those Great Replacement freaks who thinks Sub-Saharan Africans are intent on displacing native Tunisians. My understanding is that that applies to the society as a whole.

what's the difference? I have been using both interchangeably so interested in learning the nuance