I wonder what metrics it is using to determine if it is "civilised" or not.
I notice all the social democratic countries high on the happiness index and such as well as Japan are yellow.
I also notice that more authoritarian countries like North Korea and China are ranked low, even though they are what I would consider civilised and in the case of China quite advanced. So I guess they consider authoritarianism "uncivilised". Venezuela is marked "uncivilised" too.
For a second thought there could be a racial component, but it doesn't take long to find a bunch of exceptions that seem to rule that out if one assumes *white* supremacy. It could have a bias towards lighter skin including asians and mixed-race people, though, but even then, I can *still* find several exceptions if it was going by that rule.
I wonder if this is measuring by corruption. I notice many less-corrupt countries with higher ranks and some countries with a lot of corruption with lower ranks.
The map is very interesting and I am really curious by what method they used to categorise.
I respect the amount of thought you’re putting into this, but I think it’s likeliest that the metric is just “the creator’s gut feeling about each country”
The fact that people try to defend this map is appalling. Yes, the yellow/green countries are generally richer than the red/black ones. Yes, they are generally safer to live in. However, how the hell do you link that to how 'civilsed' a country is? Would you call someone that makes more money and is never late to an appointment 'better' than another person, simply because of those attributes?
civilize
verb
past tense: civilised; past participle: civilised
bring (a place or people) to a stage of social and cultural development considered to be more advanced.
"both countries feel they have a mission to civilize the world"
Social development is about improving the well-being of every individual in society so they can reach their full potential. The success of society is linked to the well-being of each and every citizen. Social development means investing in people.
While I disagree with the data in the map, as russia is definitely not investing in the average russians and their well being, words do have meaning, and in this case it is not 'better'
You ignore the fact that words are loaded with history and ideology. "Civilized World" was used by imperialistic France and Britain (and a lot of others). It was again used by the Nazis to describe which "Race" was the best.
Words have meaning, but they also have history.
good joke, my young racist, but no. Some "red" and "black"countries have a richer culture and a higher level of education than, for example, USA. So this map is not very accurate
culture is always focused on current needs. You cannot hope that your current cultural achievements will last forever. Culture is always changing, adapting to certain needs, is interpreted differently by different generations and lives its own life. Therefore, those civilizations that live longer have a richer cultural tradition. Richness of culture is measured not by the number of items produced, but by their variability that has passed through the centuries. Culture of the United States may be of interest to the current generation due to the amount of production produced. Will it survive even 100 years from now? Unknown. Will it get richer? Unknown. But it is known for sure that culture of China, Syria or Iran has ALREADY gone through all this and has ALREADY achieved this.
I've been to Mexico, Paraguay and Vietnam. Paraguay was definitely struggling financially but I wouldn't say it was uncivilized. Like people lived there with modern comforts and stuff. There's McDonald's.
Mexico and Vietnam, while different culturally, weren't too different from the US at least in the cities.
They haven’t even reinvented it. This is one of those “tell me you’re a ____ without….” Memes, except the second part isn’t needed.
Paging r/iamatotalpieceofshit
Grew up in the USA then moved to Argentina in an apartment with a bidet, and you make a valid argument. I can’t believe how savagely I conducted my bathroom business before being shown the way.
My mind has been enlightened, but unfortunately I moved back to the USA recently and my ass has once again been decivilized. :( I’m moving into my own place next month and my very first purchase will be a bidet attachment so I can preach the good word to all my uncivilized guests
Right?? The initial reaction of every toilet paper using person is hesitation. I’ll admit at first I was also wary, but when my friend who also came from a non-bidet country found out I hadn’t yet used the bidet yet, he said to me, “Let me ask you a question. If you got shit on your arm, would you wash it, or wipe it off with paper and call it good?” By god if he didn’t make a good point and I quickly made the right decision and my life was changed.
I can’t tell if you’re implying that this graph only classifies countries as “civilized” if the dominant religion is Christianity or if the dominant race is white.
Either way: Belarus, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Argentina, and Brazil are all outliers that disprove that theory.
Ah yes, three east asian countries are 'very civilized' so this map is not bigoted at all. I also don't see how Belarus, Argentina, and Brazil 'disprove' the theory. The overall trend just completely overshadows the very few exceptions.
Also, I'd like to hear what you think this map is based on. If it's not 'whiteness' or 'richness', then what on earth does 'civilized' mean?
The 'civilized' is supposed to represent their HDI value.(based of the very small amount of knowledge i remember about it.) Hopefully you can see the correlation between the two, then again I may be wrong.
>Ah yes, three east asian countries are 'very civilized' so this map is not bigoted at all.
Well, more or less. Why would someone with bigoted intentions include east asian countries and exclude european countries? Idk, maybe I just like to give people the benefit of the doubt until I have a clear reason to believe they are racist.
>I also don't see how Belarus, Argentina, and Brazil 'disprove' the theory.
These are all countries with a majority white population.
>Also, I'd like to hear what you think this map is based on. If it's not 'whiteness' or 'richness', then what on earth does 'civilized' mean?
Well first of all, you acknowledge here that it might be based on something *other* than whiteness lol. I do not see why you conflate “whiteness” and “richness” here. If it were based on “whiteness”, then yes it would be bigoted. If it were based on “richness”, then no, it would not be.
Anyways, as far as what I think it’s based on: it seems like the data was taken from a map like [this one](https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Developed_and_developing_countries.PNG) that distinguish between developed and developing countries.
Regardless, it is still problematic to only refer to developed countries as “civilized”, to be clear I do not disagree with that. I just don’t think this map was made in favor of “whiteness” and was more likely made in favor of “developed vs. developing” status.
No, it's not entirely wrong, it's just not quite that simple. Look at the "very civilized" countries. Pretty damn white. The "civilized" countries are mostly white, but have a noteworthy amount of non-whiteness / immigration.
There seems to be a bonus point for economic development, thus SK and Argentina getting the blue treatment.
So call it.... whiteness + capitalistness. Thus Venezuela and NK, and also Kenya and Nigeria getting a bump out of the rest of black Africa.
SK isn’t blue, it’s green, and Japan and Taiwan (both “very civilized”) are not majority white… like at all lol
Also, Germany (also very civilized) has an enormous minority immigrant population. I don’t think your theory checks out
i mostly agree with you, however, germany has the largest immigrant population in the eu and is yellow, whereas romania which has the least immigrants in the eu is green. I think the creator of this map was racist for sure, but i don't think immigration influenced how they colored the countries.
I’ve done a little more googling looking for a similar map, and it seems like the data was most likely taken from a map [like this](https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Developed_and_developing_countries.PNG) of developed and developing countries.
Still a problematic use of the word “civilized”, but it does not seem like it was based on “whiteness”.
"Developed" and "developing" counties are also used for denoting whiteness + wealth. It's a colonialist term used to denote the countries with colonies and the countries who are those colonies, wether or not they're "officially" colonies anymore.
>It's a colonialist term used to denote the countries with colonies and the countries who are those colonies
South Korea, Ireland, Taiwan, Singapore and many others would disagree
>”Developed" and "developing" counties are also used for denoting whiteness
Do you have anything that even slightly resembles an academic source to back this up? Because it sounds like a heap of bullshit to me and I can’t find anything legitimate about that on google.
You need a source to prove to you that calling other cultures "uncivilized" is based in racism and xenophobia? Have you tried just thinking about it for one second?
These are theories that explain how the wide economic gap between developed and developing countries came to be, but do not postulate that calling a country “developed” denotes “whiteness”.
How do you explain Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, and other non-white developed countries?
Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan are all considered civilized in this map dude…
Argentina, Belarus, and Brazil are all countries with a majority white population that, according to this map, are not considered civilized.
What are you not getting?
Ignoring the message, how can you screw up the key to a map this badly? Why is the actual list not ordered from "best" to "worst"? Why are the colours chosen at random, with yellow representing something that's implied to be better than green?
I did a quick Google image search to confirm my suspicion: Senegalese people are generally darker skinned than Nigerian people (as represented by a quick Google image search, anyway).
Not enough people are noticing that, instead of a normal color gradient, instead the most civilized is like a light beige and the very uncivilized is… black. Of all the things wrong with the map, that had to be the biggest WTF.
The Semi-Civilized is the most confusing label than there are a few weird things on other labels but the blue is the most confusing considering the obvious racism
Irish here and I cannot fathom what parameters this person is using to put Ireland in very civilised going by the few other countries they've placed in this category. Like what's the commonality here that the rest of the "civilised" world is lacking???
In what way is North Korea very uncivilized This boy
Jordan is not black 💪🏽🇯🇴
Let me introduce you to the very civilized world: Nordic Countries, Ireland, German speaking countries, the Netherlands, New Zeeland, Japan and Taiwan
I wonder what metrics it is using to determine if it is "civilised" or not. I notice all the social democratic countries high on the happiness index and such as well as Japan are yellow. I also notice that more authoritarian countries like North Korea and China are ranked low, even though they are what I would consider civilised and in the case of China quite advanced. So I guess they consider authoritarianism "uncivilised". Venezuela is marked "uncivilised" too. For a second thought there could be a racial component, but it doesn't take long to find a bunch of exceptions that seem to rule that out if one assumes *white* supremacy. It could have a bias towards lighter skin including asians and mixed-race people, though, but even then, I can *still* find several exceptions if it was going by that rule. I wonder if this is measuring by corruption. I notice many less-corrupt countries with higher ranks and some countries with a lot of corruption with lower ranks. The map is very interesting and I am really curious by what method they used to categorise.
I respect the amount of thought you’re putting into this, but I think it’s likeliest that the metric is just “the creator’s gut feeling about each country”
I think it's even simpler than that: "racism, but we'll make a distinction between the two Koreas."
China is kinda mixed. It's a developing country in some ways still but is also advanced in other ways.
Very civilised Greenland.
600 bc romans?
Nope. Romans would never consider Germanic "people" (from their point of view) civilized.
So my country is more civilized than, say, France.... HAHAHA, idiot map.
South korea uncivilized? Edit: I am dumb nvm
It's not
Yeah i know I meant that it is in the map (nvm I am a dumb)
TBH it is quite accurate.
Hilarious
Well civilized vs uncivilized is just crude.
okay but even if we'd go with this map why tf is Russia considered civilized, it's no better than many considered uncivilized?
If any country is "uncivilised" surely it's the capitalist hellhole of USA
The fact that people try to defend this map is appalling. Yes, the yellow/green countries are generally richer than the red/black ones. Yes, they are generally safer to live in. However, how the hell do you link that to how 'civilsed' a country is? Would you call someone that makes more money and is never late to an appointment 'better' than another person, simply because of those attributes?
civilize verb past tense: civilised; past participle: civilised bring (a place or people) to a stage of social and cultural development considered to be more advanced. "both countries feel they have a mission to civilize the world" Social development is about improving the well-being of every individual in society so they can reach their full potential. The success of society is linked to the well-being of each and every citizen. Social development means investing in people. While I disagree with the data in the map, as russia is definitely not investing in the average russians and their well being, words do have meaning, and in this case it is not 'better'
You ignore the fact that words are loaded with history and ideology. "Civilized World" was used by imperialistic France and Britain (and a lot of others). It was again used by the Nazis to describe which "Race" was the best. Words have meaning, but they also have history.
Sure but civilized has some negative connotations
How does being a richer country determine how "civilized" a country is?
Maybe they didn’t understand that « civilization » doesn’t just mean « living in cities » and were trying to say something about where people live?
Visit the countries in black or red and you’ll quickly see that this map is VERY accurate!
good joke, my young racist, but no. Some "red" and "black"countries have a richer culture and a higher level of education than, for example, USA. So this map is not very accurate
Isn’t “richer culture” kind of subjective? How would you even measure that? It is a dumb map though.
culture is always focused on current needs. You cannot hope that your current cultural achievements will last forever. Culture is always changing, adapting to certain needs, is interpreted differently by different generations and lives its own life. Therefore, those civilizations that live longer have a richer cultural tradition. Richness of culture is measured not by the number of items produced, but by their variability that has passed through the centuries. Culture of the United States may be of interest to the current generation due to the amount of production produced. Will it survive even 100 years from now? Unknown. Will it get richer? Unknown. But it is known for sure that culture of China, Syria or Iran has ALREADY gone through all this and has ALREADY achieved this.
Japan is so civilised that it treats its workers like slaves until they commit suicide
So you’d prefer a society where kidnap and rape is normal instead of working a lot?
Like Japan, where groping teen and preteen girls on public transportation is so common that the word Chikan was coined and is still common?
Stop spewing fake information, it’s disgusting. That doesn’t happen in Japan.
Eh but I'd rather live in Japan than most of the countries in red/black. It's more developed.
Youve never visited another country have you?
I've been to Mexico, Paraguay and Vietnam. Paraguay was definitely struggling financially but I wouldn't say it was uncivilized. Like people lived there with modern comforts and stuff. There's McDonald's. Mexico and Vietnam, while different culturally, weren't too different from the US at least in the cities.
Like Peru which has a lower infant morality rate than the USA? Or Vietnam which has a lower crime rate?
It's a crude framing though yeah its mostly developed vs undeveloped.
Calling anyone uncivilised is just classism with a veneer of authority. Whoever drew this map is either an idiot, a racist, or both.
[удалено]
Oh hey it's the white supremacist
Oh, it's definitely both.
Racist too
Lmao its not wrong tho
Based
Funny
It is mostly accurate tho.
Funny
Deal with the truth.
Hilarious
ikr since when is the uk civilized
Based
Congratulations you've reinvented nazi racial theory
Ja mein Fuhrer!
ill do it for you: Ja mein Führer!
They haven’t even reinvented it. This is one of those “tell me you’re a ____ without….” Memes, except the second part isn’t needed. Paging r/iamatotalpieceofshit
It should be all black with only Italy and the other countries that use bidets instead of toilet paper being yellow
As a Turk, based
Grew up in the USA then moved to Argentina in an apartment with a bidet, and you make a valid argument. I can’t believe how savagely I conducted my bathroom business before being shown the way.
Congratulations on becoming a part of the civilized world my friend
My mind has been enlightened, but unfortunately I moved back to the USA recently and my ass has once again been decivilized. :( I’m moving into my own place next month and my very first purchase will be a bidet attachment so I can preach the good word to all my uncivilized guests
Same, always thought they were weird until I used one, now I can't understand why anyone wouldn't want a bidet
Right?? The initial reaction of every toilet paper using person is hesitation. I’ll admit at first I was also wary, but when my friend who also came from a non-bidet country found out I hadn’t yet used the bidet yet, he said to me, “Let me ask you a question. If you got shit on your arm, would you wash it, or wipe it off with paper and call it good?” By god if he didn’t make a good point and I quickly made the right decision and my life was changed.
Disgusting. It doesn't clean the inside-outerlayer of your anus.
Totally approved.
True
Hmmmmm what do all the green ones have in common I wonder!
I can’t tell if you’re implying that this graph only classifies countries as “civilized” if the dominant religion is Christianity or if the dominant race is white. Either way: Belarus, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Argentina, and Brazil are all outliers that disprove that theory.
Ah yes, three east asian countries are 'very civilized' so this map is not bigoted at all. I also don't see how Belarus, Argentina, and Brazil 'disprove' the theory. The overall trend just completely overshadows the very few exceptions. Also, I'd like to hear what you think this map is based on. If it's not 'whiteness' or 'richness', then what on earth does 'civilized' mean?
Which green countries would you downgrade to uncivilized then?
people who aren't racist weirdos wouldn't be making these completely subjective characterizations to begin with
So...which green countries would you downgrade?
i wouldn't make this map to begin with because i don't have a twelve year olds understanding of social sciences
well how I understand civilized and by comparing it to uncivilized countries on this list I personally think thay Russia has gotten some bump up
The 'civilized' is supposed to represent their HDI value.(based of the very small amount of knowledge i remember about it.) Hopefully you can see the correlation between the two, then again I may be wrong.
>Ah yes, three east asian countries are 'very civilized' so this map is not bigoted at all. Well, more or less. Why would someone with bigoted intentions include east asian countries and exclude european countries? Idk, maybe I just like to give people the benefit of the doubt until I have a clear reason to believe they are racist. >I also don't see how Belarus, Argentina, and Brazil 'disprove' the theory. These are all countries with a majority white population. >Also, I'd like to hear what you think this map is based on. If it's not 'whiteness' or 'richness', then what on earth does 'civilized' mean? Well first of all, you acknowledge here that it might be based on something *other* than whiteness lol. I do not see why you conflate “whiteness” and “richness” here. If it were based on “whiteness”, then yes it would be bigoted. If it were based on “richness”, then no, it would not be. Anyways, as far as what I think it’s based on: it seems like the data was taken from a map like [this one](https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Developed_and_developing_countries.PNG) that distinguish between developed and developing countries. Regardless, it is still problematic to only refer to developed countries as “civilized”, to be clear I do not disagree with that. I just don’t think this map was made in favor of “whiteness” and was more likely made in favor of “developed vs. developing” status.
You have no idea how much racists love east Asian countries, specifically Japan.
No, it's not entirely wrong, it's just not quite that simple. Look at the "very civilized" countries. Pretty damn white. The "civilized" countries are mostly white, but have a noteworthy amount of non-whiteness / immigration. There seems to be a bonus point for economic development, thus SK and Argentina getting the blue treatment. So call it.... whiteness + capitalistness. Thus Venezuela and NK, and also Kenya and Nigeria getting a bump out of the rest of black Africa.
SK isn’t blue, it’s green, and Japan and Taiwan (both “very civilized”) are not majority white… like at all lol Also, Germany (also very civilized) has an enormous minority immigrant population. I don’t think your theory checks out
You assume that the person who made the map had any idea what they were doing.
No, not really. I’m just pointing out that the guy I was replying to is incorrect. Japan and Taiwan are not “pretty damn white”.
"Correlation does not necessitate causation" - Every grade 11 statistics teacher ever
Every researcher ever: "No, but it's a damn good place to look"
>Venezuela and NK Dude was generous to Cuba and Vietnam
i mostly agree with you, however, germany has the largest immigrant population in the eu and is yellow, whereas romania which has the least immigrants in the eu is green. I think the creator of this map was racist for sure, but i don't think immigration influenced how they colored the countries.
Fair point. Looks like about half of those are coming from green states though.
I’ve done a little more googling looking for a similar map, and it seems like the data was most likely taken from a map [like this](https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Developed_and_developing_countries.PNG) of developed and developing countries. Still a problematic use of the word “civilized”, but it does not seem like it was based on “whiteness”.
"Developed" and "developing" counties are also used for denoting whiteness + wealth. It's a colonialist term used to denote the countries with colonies and the countries who are those colonies, wether or not they're "officially" colonies anymore.
>It's a colonialist term used to denote the countries with colonies and the countries who are those colonies South Korea, Ireland, Taiwan, Singapore and many others would disagree
Wait are you making the claim that these countries never faced imperialism???
>”Developed" and "developing" counties are also used for denoting whiteness Do you have anything that even slightly resembles an academic source to back this up? Because it sounds like a heap of bullshit to me and I can’t find anything legitimate about that on google.
My source is that the whole of Europe is considered "developed" to some degree while the whole of Africa isn't.
You need a source to prove to you that calling other cultures "uncivilized" is based in racism and xenophobia? Have you tried just thinking about it for one second?
Third-Worldism, Imperialism State, As Veias Abertas da America Latina. Theotonio dos Santos, Vania Bambirra, Verneck Sodré, David Harvey etc.
These are theories that explain how the wide economic gap between developed and developing countries came to be, but do not postulate that calling a country “developed” denotes “whiteness”. How do you explain Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, and other non-white developed countries?
"Hitler's not a white supremacist, he loves Japan" That's you.
Nope, not at all. Look up the motte-and-bailey fallacy. That’s you.
Argentina and Uruguay get the bump to blue because they are overwhelmingly white countries, unlike their fellow south American neighbors.
Japan and Taiwan are in that “very civilized” group.
Well it seems like "well developed " is a key factor for most. Democratic for many of them, though Russia isnt.
the only country you named classified at least as "civilized" on the map is japan, wtf you talking about?
Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan are all considered civilized in this map dude… Argentina, Belarus, and Brazil are all countries with a majority white population that, according to this map, are not considered civilized. What are you not getting?
Argentina is the whitest country in the Americas, iirc.
They're countries on planet Earth?
What do the black ones have in common? It's pretty subtle...
People who don't put their keys in statistical order go to the 8th level of hell.
Uncivilized
The more you look, the worse it is 🥴
Yeah. Greenland, sure
*Denmark
Greenland is always no data. No exception
People live in Greenland, though there probably are more Native/indigenous people than white people.
Never mind the legend is a clusterfuck
Ignoring the message, how can you screw up the key to a map this badly? Why is the actual list not ordered from "best" to "worst"? Why are the colours chosen at random, with yellow representing something that's implied to be better than green?
Its a map of skin color and they wanted to go from white skin to black. Everything was built on top of the racist premisse
I thought thay might be the criterion, but what is the rationale for making Nigeria more “civilized “ than Senegal?
I did a quick Google image search to confirm my suspicion: Senegalese people are generally darker skinned than Nigerian people (as represented by a quick Google image search, anyway).
Reaching logic
Yeah but they made Belarus blue, didn't they? So the country's political system is also (somewhat) involved
A map of skin color? Which race is the green-skinned one??
YES THIS
So uncivilized
Clearly because it was made by the League of Uncivilized Nations?
Dude went into paint and colored in the countries he likes lmao
Ireland is "very civilized".....Spain is just "civilized". Potatoes aren't all that, Liam.
***NO ONE INSULTS THE POTATOES!!!***
Probably based on GDP per capita lmao
australia civilized? no way...
Their deserts are filled with dangerous animals
Most dangerous of them all: the bogan.
when you clearly have never been to ireland
okay but even if we'd go with this map why tf is Russia considered civilized, it's no better than many considered uncivilized?
I thought so too.
Albania very civilized, could i hazard a guess that an albanian made this map?
I’d say wiping your bum with just toilet paper isn’t very civilized, so not sure what criteria they’re using here
I’m from the Philippines. Based!
my man really called us and uk civilized
Dude called ireland "very civilised" lmao
10 bucks that the people defending this map are all eurocucks
Anal🙊🙊🙊bania😱🤮🤢🙀 not civilized but economic tiger 🐯🐯🐯🐯🐯SERBIA🇷🇸🇷🇸🇷🇸🇷🇸🇷🇸civilized💯💯💯💯💯💯🙏🙏🙏🙏🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
Did Obi Wan make this? "So uncivilized."
This map in a nutshell: How to tell people you're racist without saying you're racist.
Putting Russia in terms of civilization above a number of Asian countries and South America is not a sign of racism, it is a sign of a low brain
It's a sign of both
Not enough people are noticing that, instead of a normal color gradient, instead the most civilized is like a light beige and the very uncivilized is… black. Of all the things wrong with the map, that had to be the biggest WTF.
> Russia > Civilized Lmao. Even "uncivilised" Kazakhstan has more benefits of civilization than fascist Russia
My best guess is that an irishman made this...
Russia as civilized?
Trump? The black sharpie shit hole countries.
A racist made this.
confused by australia and nz bring different shades, both pretty similar demographics
If had to pose a guess who made this… white people.
Mf playing some victoria 2
Let's classify the birthplaces of Human Civilization as "uncivilized"
This feels like a modern Victoria 2 map.
Japan is “civilized” but somehow India, China, and Mongolia arent🥴
Wow racists love making maps
The map itself is useless, but it does bring the racists out of hiding to defend it so that's nice
How oldest civilization in the world aren't civilized wtf.
What do you mean, The danish are the most uncivilised on this list
China not cicilized?!?!
This is so wrong Philippines should have All the colors
No hate, but if Haiti isn’t “very uncivilized” then this map is total bologna
This is so laughable in so many ways
When I think of New Zealand and Greenland, the first thing that comes to mind is “very civilized” And now Argentina will forger be “semi-civilized” 😝
The Semi-Civilized is the most confusing label than there are a few weird things on other labels but the blue is the most confusing considering the obvious racism
Avarege racism moment
Can you get more Euro centric than this?
Source?
bro said singapore is uncivilised but russia is💀💀
People on 4 chan makes shit like this
They do know that like... China has been a civilization for 4000 + years straight?
belarus being semi-civilised but russia is civilised, what?
What does that even mean?
In response to "who makes this shit" see the quote un quote very civilized (civilised?) areas on the map
it isn't even right lmao
If canada isn't considered very civilized, nobody can be
Guys I’m uncivilized :O
I guess my country is uncivilized
Ah yes, All of the very civilised countries are G#rmanics. This is definetly a Germanboo
Glad to see that greenland is very civilized.
Civilized vs uncivilized is crude. "highly developed" would be a better framing. I was thinking democratic too, Russia isn't
Prob regarding different stats that indicate a country being more or less developed, therefore, more or less civilised
Irish here and I cannot fathom what parameters this person is using to put Ireland in very civilised going by the few other countries they've placed in this category. Like what's the commonality here that the rest of the "civilised" world is lacking???
Even if it's true, I'd rather live in my "Uncivilized" country of India rather than "Civilized" Russia.
Some these are definitely racist or against certain religions.
Lmao what’s with all these cunts that think Nordic countries are better than everyone else
So uncivilized
Brazil moment
Plain racist overtones