I understand where you're coming from, but what the handful of articles is meant to demonstrate is not that there's a unilateral form of racism being propagated on every level of society, but that an underlying problem exists, socially (and for some regions, jurisdictionally, economically, and politically), and that this issue has also attracted both the media and for people to act against this racism. Being "Mexican" is, simply put, not the same as being "Canadian". As a Canadian, racism on some levels exists, but the likelihood of any related beatings or murders related to your ethnicity, language, or whatnot is extremely unlikely to happen within the United States (heck, the terms 'racism against canadians' or 'anti-canadian racism' are seldom used). Should population, immigration, and/or proximity be a factor, then I dare challenge you to find equally comparable racism, to the same extent as that of Mexicans, in America against Canadians. Also, the fact that some places have racism within state institutions is an issue apart, and it disregards racism that occurs within non-state controlled institutions, and also disregards the entire social aspect of racism. If we can separate religion & religious doctrines from the State, then we can just as easily separate people from the State. Creating a law or a Constitution doesn't mean that that law/constitution is enforced, and this is something that many countries are criticized for.


I don't see you're point with this, I never anywhere stated that racism alone is worse than all other listed countries. To requote myself, "[The United States] fails on just as many levels as many of the countries you listed therein". If you honestly want to talk about institutional racism, then read Institutional Racism, by Shirley Jean Better, and then Race, gender, and punishment by Mary Bosworth and Jeanne Flavin (summary concerning Mexicans at ~p57).

Seconded.

And, I love Mexicans, by the way.

I prefer transculturalism.

Well it seems you guys have quite the conversation going. I don't have time to read all the posts so for now here's my answer to the original question:

I wouldn't say that there is no country that I'd never go to simply because I'm optimistic that things will get better in some of the troubled areas. It also depends on how I go to different countries. I would love to visit Egypt but not alone. I'd rather go there with a tour guide and company who will "keep me safe" (well, at least warn me of where not to go).

On the other hand I would never go to any theocratic countries (except Egypt) for the very reason that I don't want to encourage or bring money into their countries.

Why is Egypt an exception?

I wouldn't consider Egypt to be a theocratic country. I mean, the most prominent fundamentalist organization, al-Ikhwan al-Muslimun (the Muslim Brotherhood) is banned.

However Egypt has, as we went over earlier, a bad government for different reasons.

I would pretty much go anywhere except France, Spain, Latin America Or Korea. And many Eurpeon countries I wouldn't go too.

Why wouldn't you go to those places?

No offence to anyone, but I don't like the Langauges of Europe or Far East Asia that much. Also, I don't really like the culture that much. I don't know why. I hope I am not being offence.

That's fine. Everyone has their own likes & dislikes. Nothing wrong with that, in my opinion.