What country has the LEAST BAD history? 

If we go by the rule of the history starts when the country starts, then probably a smaller Caribbean or Oceania island nation that’s only a few decades old. If we have to go back to the beginning of human history in the region then nowhere’s safe.

Everyone forgets Swedish imperialism, when Sweden almost controlled all of the land around the Baltic sea.

Almost every country has some shameful pages in their histories, but it's also important that some admit it and try to make amends, some just apologize but do nothing, and some just ignore or deny the heinous things they have done.

Poland literally has a memorial holiday for when Sweden killed 1/3 of poland-lithunias population

Coming from the Caribbean myself, I would say no country (or culture, ethnicity, etc.) is inherently more or less moral than any other. The only reason Caribbean history seems so spotless is because we simply have not had as many opportunities to persecute others. Racism against indigenous people is very prevalent in the Caribbean, and many of the afrocentrist governments here are either completely oblivious to or deliberately suppress the history of their own indigenous suppression. I feel very confident in saying that the *only* reason that no indigenous genocide has taken place under the afrocentrist governments of the Caribbean is because the Europeans killed and displaced most natives first. Fundamentally, the Caribbean is no different in its treatment of native people than any other settler country created by Europeans.

Honestly no country is entirely sinless when it comes to discrimination and bigotry. But I would say as a general rule smaller countries tend to have a smaller list of sins. Not because smaller countries are morally superior, it’s just that bigger countries have more opportunities to do horrible things.

Countries with moral pasts are only that way because not because of luck, but because they didn’t have the power to corrupt. I also think we should be taking advice from countries that went through some dark times, and came out on the brighter side of things, because they know how to fix the country from what it used to as opposed to country that has never gone through anything of the sort.

Right. While I do agree with J.J.'s statement that Ireland doesn't have a squeaky-clean history, I do think he's gone and used some poor examples of why that is. Despite how he described it there, the Irish Civil War only lasted about 10 months and had no more than a couple thousand casualties (which by the standards of civil wars is notable for its lack of bloodshed). Now that's not to say it didn't have any lasting impact. The two sides of the war were defined by their support or opposition to the Treaty that ended the Irish War of Independence with a partial Irish victory (at the cost of letting the British keep complete control of 6 Northern counties), and after the conflict ended, they eventually morphed into the two main political parties in the Republic - Fine Gael and Fianna Fail, and for most of the 20th century which party you supported was decided in part by which side you or your parents had supported in the Civil War. What's more, the Civil War ended in 1923. The conflict that J.J. is referring to in Northern Ireland, The Troubles, was a sectarian conflict that began in the late 1960s after the pro-British, Protestant government (the Unionists) violently repressed the Irish Nationalist Civil Rights movement that was inspired by Martin Luther King Jr.'s successes in America, which resulted in mass rioting and unrest, most notably in Derry, with The Battle of The Bogside. As a result, the British army was deployed, supposedly as a neutral force, but they quickly began supporting the Unionist government in suppressing the Catholics. This lead to the IRA (There's a big debate about whether or not the IRA of the Troubles was the same organisation as the one that fought the War of Independence, mostly because it went dormant to the point of being defunct in the 1940s-ish. Not going to get into that right now, but it's a fun rabbit hole to dive into if ye're interested) expanding massively because of the failure of peaceful means (Seen by the events of Bloody Sunday and other such occurrences) to achieve equality in the North, and that kicked off a 30 year long bombing campaign and terrorist conflict between the IRA, the British army, and Unionist terror groups like the Ulster Volunteer Force. This only ended in 1998 with the Good Friday Agreement, and there is still some level of animosity between the different sides. I've laid all this out to make the point that this actually isn't on the Irish Government to apologise for - no matter your side in this conflict, the fact remains that ever since 1922, Northern Ireland has remained a part of Britain (And no, I'm not picking a side in this, just laying out the facts at the moment), and was never under the authority of the Republic of Ireland. That said, there is still plenty of skeletons in our closet - the clerical abuse, the Mother and Baby homes, etc. But if you're going to judge Ireland's history, at least judge us for things that we actually had a hand in, yeah?

Ironic for Scandinavia to be considered "uniquely sinless" when taking into account their Viking Age.

One thing I love about this channel is the creativity. The topics are always unique and interesting.

I would say San Marino has the most pure history, the worst thing they have done is not taking part in Eurovision 2009 and 2010, but they did come back luckely.

A fun thought experiment, but I think this is an impossible question to answer because it depends on what you would define as a "country" and when it began. Then you also have to bear in mind that outside of Europe, there was certainly all kinds of brutal history, but Westerners may not consider these tribes, or even full on civilizations, as "nation-states."

The myth that being born on a chunk of earth makes you "guilty" of its past, or that being in a relatively inconsequential country makes you more "innocent," goes hand-in-hand with the idea that your country's success makes you better than somebody else. Both national guilt and pride are absurd.

As a Norwegian, I am pretty sure the reason Norway did the things they did during WW2 was because they were occupied by nazi Germany, with a much smaller population and economy than today, that was easy for the nazis to keep control of. I think you glossed over the viking times though. Loads of atrocities were committed by viking raiders in other countries. Edit: Also, Norway hasn't always treated Sami people very well.

What you fail to mention about Finland is that while yes, they did have a military alliance with Germany, Carl Gustav Mannerheim (leader of Finland at the time) did it on the condition that the Jewish population of Finland would be left in peace. If you ask me, Finland's pretty clean on that front. Yes, Finland have treated the Sami People badly, and that is something that should qualify them as a nation with an "unclean" history, but I thought it was very short-sighted of you in an otherwise brilliant and informative video just to assume that a military alliance with Nazi Germany in itself is a terrible thing to do. When you are sandwiched between that and Communist Russia (who you only gained independence from in the 1900s), there's only one choice, I think. Also, on the topic of Norway, you hold the Quisling government as a reason to qualify Norway's past as unclean, and then completely ignore the fact that the Quisling government was not elected by the Norwegians (he just "proclaimed" himself as leader of Norway on a radio broadcast), and that he was executed by the Nazis a few months later.

I always felt like the nicest countries are those that haven’t had much of a history as a country - the less agency a nation had, the less bad things they could have done.

As a resident of the West Indies-The Bahamas-We in the Bahamas share guilt for widespread prejudice against Haitian and Jamaican Migrants as well as against Asian workers in the country and it is still ongoing tho has not been used radically in any political form....Yet.

Antarctica is the least problematic country, I hope to live there

As a Finn, from oulu we are taught about our relations with Germany in school, sadly we didn’t have a choice, it was either side with them for food and protection or become an SSR of Russia , our history is not clean, but we did what we had to

I don't think that putting Poland in the same basket as the USSR gives justice, blaming the victim for the sins of its oppressor would be exactly the same as blaming a woman for getting raped. Also Poland hasn't waged wars on its neighbours for hundreds of years, it has been a safe haven for the Jews when antisemitism ravaged across Europe, and it was the events in Poland and formation of the Solidarity movement that ignited the spark of an eventual fall of communism (you remember that Nobel peace prize for Lech Wałęsa?). I can't think of many other countries that would have even remotely as least bad history as Poland does.

Norway has a lot to be ashamed of both during and after WW2, but I want to point out that the government at the time were chosen by the invading Nazis and were considered as traitors.

I don't think the "Eastern Block" countries should be blamed for their dictatorships. The Soviet military was stationed there all along, they were continuously occupied. They successfuly revolted many times, but with Soviet help, the dictatorships remained. I don't say they had a perfect past, probably non of them had, but it's more complicated, than simply having a dictatorship.

I think that every country has a bad past, one way or another, and what matters is how it accounts for its past and how it treats its people in the present time. It's ridiculous to blame people in the present day for what their ancestors may have done centuries ago or even just people who look like them (a practice which basically amounts to racism.) Every person is accountable for their own actions, not the actions of others or ancestors, and should be held accountable only for their own actions. The current culture of blame ridiculously pins blame based off of everything from race to nationalism to religion, ignoring the actions of people belonging to certain races/cultures/religions TODAY. It is incredibly divisive and counterproductive towards achieving lasting peace.

I absolutely dont feel like sin of my country is being under communist regime set by soviet russians, my whole family despised this system from start to the end, it was nightmare to live in this country, but its not poles our fault, more like people who particpated in it

Even the stereotypical peaceful Buddhist countries in the Himalayas have some controversy. Bhutan, for instance, faces scrutiny for their deportation of Nepalese peoples in the 90s

Something to remember about Jamaica: homosexuality is still illegal, and men can face up to 10 years of hard labour for an act, which I think is something we need to consider when we discuss shame. Something they may not be ashamed of today, is something they may be ashamed of in the future.

Bhutan just up in the mountains chilling

The problem with looking up apologies is that some countries are so terrible they never even apologize

Kinda weird of you to shame Norway for supporting the Nazis, when they were invaded by the Nazis and were forced to surrender. By this standard you could just say Poland and France supported the Nazis.

In South Korea, there is that sentiment of "We're sandwiched between 2 giants" mentality that is so ingrained in the public's mind that it is quite rare to hear about the country's wrongdoings against a foreign country. I heard that Korean soldiers did some attrocities during the Vietnam war, but that part of the history is barely spotlited. There were some dictators and psychopathic kings too, but these leaders pretty much discriminated the whole public, partly because the country was homogenous for the majority of the history. But as the country is getting more and more immigrants these days, I'm afraid the current ethno-national bond could backfire someday.

When you judge ancient society and ancient leaders you have to judge by the standards of their time not with modern standards

I absolutely DESPISE the entire “you should feel guilty because youre living on their land” argument. Literally every single country or people ever have always at one point lived on someone else’s land. Why is nobody angry at the europeans? They’re living on land that was inhabited by Neanderthals, that’s bad, right?

I like how Sweden is often depicted as super nice and everything but systematically colonized Finland and continues to seemingly not even be aware of it

Kind of odd that the UK is categorised on that map as having been both an imperial power and a dictatorship. The last time Britain had a truly absolute ruler was in the 1600s, which is longer ago than in any of the Scandinavian countries and yet they aren't classified as being former dictatorships.

I feel like we are conflating "this country has done one or more bad things" and "this country owes its existence to atrocity".

What about Puerto Rico? It peacefully self abolished slavery even under colonial rule. It has been a colony for 500 years, no record of dictatorships, no human rights atrocities, no persecutions, strong democratic values. I'm struggling to find any chapter of their history that was dark, but wasn't the fault of their colonial masters. Everything terrible that has happened there was caused by either nature or their colonizers. But the Puerto Rican people themselves have been peaceful and embracing

Canada needs to form a view of it's history that rejects both self-loathing and guilt as well as smug Maple washing

As an Estonian, I would argue that our country was the victim (just like the Carribbean ones) during USSR's occupation. I think Estonia doesn't have as much of a dark past as most other countries, since throughout history it's been occupied by others, and only recently gained independence from them. Estonians themselves have not been dictators or conquerers. I find it odd to be categorised equal to the USSR, when Estonia (as well as the others) were the ones being occupied and weren't dictatorships themselves.

Very unique video. I liked this one a lot

I’ve been wondering this question in my head for forever 😂 finally a video on it

For Ireland, I think the Magdalene laundries and the mother and baby homes are a better example of the shameful things a country can do to its own people. The civil war was a very bitter split, but it was much more evenly split through the population, instead of a small persecuted minority and a hostile majority. There was also the factor of the British still being involved through supporting the government of the Irish Free State. The mother and baby homes and laundries on the other hand, was a situation that the Free State government allowed to develop and continue because it was easier than setting up a proper system in a newly independent country. They only closed in the 1990s, and so are still in very recent living memory, with only really one generation that's too young to remember them.

As an Argentinian I think we have all of these. We displaced, killed and mistreated natives, had a civil war, had multiple dictatorships, and had nazi sympathies during and after WW2.

"Only indigenous people in Europe?" Did white people just fall out of the sky one day?

I’ve always wondered about this. But never took the time to find out. Thank you for doing it for me😅.

I would agree with the idea that national historic “goodness” is very circumstantial, and that’s because it seems to apply to countries that have not been independent for a good deal of time. Many countries became independent after it stopped being acceptable to commit mass atrocity, so they didn’t have the opportunity to engage in such atrocity. I have no doubt in my mind that had said states more independence, more wealth or more stability, etc. similar events would’ve occurred.

Coming from Sweden its weird hearing people claim we have some sort of spotless legacy Utopia here. I would say our modern era is fairly "alright" but pre 1850 it was fighting wars as much as anyone else in europe, the Poles like to remind us of that. Then again in modern times we take the notion of legacy a bit too serious I think, in the many years to come these horrible things will still be a part of history and if a nation can atone for them I think we need to be able to look past it morally speaking. The current people of Germany has practically nothing to do with the Germany of 1939, I have nothing to do with the Swedish Empire of the 1600s and the indonesians have nothing to do with the Majapahit Empire if we regard the moral lens we today see these times from.

"the only indigenous people's in Europe"? that's hilarious haha

Thank you!!🎉

Hey JJ, as a Swede, I am very happy you talked a bit about the samis. They have been horribly treated by our gouvernment ever scince we took over their lands, and not many people here even think about it. Would you ever consider doing a video about the samis? I feel like they are very unknown to basically everyone

The “West Indies” as they are called often, and as JJ specifically mentions, the “British West Indies” are very nice places to visit. They have very tourist-based towns and cities with extremely charming locals who will talk to you about anything and always make you feel welcome. They have a very unique place in the world because of their history, but many of the people there are very laid back and humble people with low crime rates and relatively stable governments

I think one factor to consider when looking at a country's history is to what extent current systems are built on a foundation of the atrocities of its past. Political systems, economic systems, socio-economic systems, etc. Also, I think that shame is useless if it just sits with itself, but can be a good motivator for change

I wouldn't say it's fair to count countries that used to be part of the soviet block as bad because of it, when most of them were only part of it because they got invaded and very much wanted to leave

Concerning your parting question about the significance of a country's goodness (i.e., if it's mere happenstance or not), I think it pretty clear that it's mostly a matter of power. If we look at the countries with the best track records, particularly the ones you mentioned, as well as many of the small Polynesian countries, they are more peaceful mostly because they're small and weak, and have been for basically they're entire existence, and have not really had the ability or opportunity to oppress many people. Conversely, if you look at the countries with the worst, or most obvious track records, they are the ones who are powerful, large, and central to global affairs. So to answer your question, it seems clear to me that it's happenstance, and that there isn't anything to really learn from those countries who happened to avoid large scale atrocities.

Portugal should have been included in the dictatorship metric as well, it literally had the longest-running 20th century European dictatorship.

I’m sorry to point this out, but what is that 75% pie chart at 9:32?

Brat zapomniał o potopie szwedzkim 💀

How are the Sami the "only indigenous people in Europe"? I mean what about the Germanic and Slavic peoples? What about the Basque people who's ancestors were in Europe long before the Sami

New J.J on a Saturday? Instant click. No questions asked.

I’m surprised you didn’t mention any Polynesian countries, even though a lot of them are technically still territories

I'm curious what did you find for the history of the youngest countries like Montenegro, East Timor and Palau? That would've been my first place to look for "nice history" candidates".

I might be a little late to the party, but as a Dane i find it odd that both Norway and Sweden are not included as imperial nations, Sweden held Norway as a unwilling subject for a long period of time(which is imperial if Germany was an empire), and also had multiple colonies around the Atlantic(which is what the Danes stole and then became an "empire" of sorts, so them being excluded is just wrong if you ask me). Norway settled and pushed much of Greenland's population out of the most habitable parts of their landmass, which Denmark then got awarded(way later), making it odd to be seen and an imperial possession. since they just didn't want independence like Iceland wanted and got. To exclude Sweden as an empire, is to say the colonies where fine until they where owned by Denmark, or exclude those colonies and then say that Greenland and Iceland are imperial possessions, but again only when the Danes got them.

I don’t understand how the Sami are the “only indigenous people in Europe”. Are ethnically French people indigenous to France? Aren’t Spaniards indigenous to Spain? Can someone explain that to me?

As an Indian, Hindus, the majority population in India, still hate Muslims and in small cities, there are separate Muslim dwelling areas and Hindi dwelling areas where you cant have a residence of the other religion's person. Tbh if you consider the caste system amongst modern Hindus (it doesnt exist in actual Hinduism) that they discriminate people among their own religion then its not that far fetched.

It wasn't really Poland's fault that it was a dictatorship after ww2. It was installed by USSR as a satellite state while the legal (and democratically elected after the war) government was still in excile. A better example of Polish dictatorship would be the post-1926 oligarchic Colonels' Regime

It's weird to me that African slavery is almost always brought up in the Atlantic context, when the Red Sea/ Indian Ocean slave trade to the Middle East and elsewhere was just as long, brutal, and numerous as the Atlantic one, and possibly even worse in all three ways. My mothers side is descended from slaves originally from East Africa who were enslaved by Arabs. I guess it's because history in the West is of course Western centric, or Eurocentric to a degree, but still, I almost never hear about it in Asia or the Middle East where it was practiced either.

Jamaica actually does have a pretty vicious recent history when it comes to persecuting gay people, both in terms of homosexual sex still being illegal, and regular violence and sexual violence against them as a form of vigilante punishment. At one point Jamaica was called by human rights groups “the most homophobic place on earth”. In most other former British Caribbean colonies, homosexual acts are still technically illegal, if not actively prosecuted anymore. In Barbados, for example, sodomy officially carries a penalty of life imprisonment. I don’t think the Anglo-Caribbean countries are some terrible place for human rights, but they aren’t exactly clean by western liberal standards either.

"Only indigenous people of Europe" is absurd. The peoples of Europe are as indigenous as it's possible to be. Some of their ancestry came with neolithic farmers 6,000 years ago, some is literally prehistoric with the Western Hunter Gatherers. I reckon there's not one tribe in North America that stayed put for 6,000 years.

I can’t believe you cited the description of the Swami as “the only indigenous people in Europe” without taking a moment to point out how ridiculous that description is.

I think we should see history's attrocities as mankind's. I am a german citizen and have learned a lot about Nazism in school. I think that people all over the world should be educated on one of humanty's most evil sins as well all the others; I consider it as an important part of basic humanitarian education. I do not feel ashamed for it/them due to not being complicit in it (I am only 18), but as a human I feel obligated to remember, reflect on and retell it - and so should everyone.

Most of the "good" countries just never had the circumstances to inflict evil in my opinion. Let's say the historic power dynamic had been reversed between English and Irish. The Irish would have conquered England and probably would have had a colonial empire. The geopolitics of history is more pragmatic and less moral.

How about Poland? It was the part of a communist block, but not by choice, it was more like occupation. Poland has a history of being attacked by bigger, stronger countries. Even when we joined Napoleon in his conquest it was at the time when our land was taken by other countries which tried to erase our culture and we hoped that if he defeat our invaders he would give us our country back. And even then when Napoleon send Poles to Haiti they refused to fight and joined locals, because they noticed how similar our history is, both being victims of other nations. Haiti people even called Poles "the black people of Europe", so I think this shows how and why our country is known from being anti-imperialistic. Even now we are the second country after US which helped Ukraine the most.

Here the Bahamas, arguably our biggest crime is the constant mistreatment of Haitian immigrants. The government has a tendency to clear out Haitian shanty-towns with little-to-no remorse and it’s been happening for a while.

I think small oceania island countries have a more 'spotless' history because of these nations' remoteness helped them escape the evils of imperialism (at least early on) and helped them avoid getting into wars with each other. In particular, I think Tuvalu might be the country that has the strongest claim to the title

I don't think it's accurate to characterise the Northern Ireland troubles as being a continuation or successor of the Irish civil war. Not only was there the 40-50 year gap between them, but also the circumstances and goals of the combatants. The civil war was about the question of "what's the best way to achieve an Irish Republic", while the troubles was "should Northern Ireland join the Republic of Ireland or not". Not to mention that there was no ethnic element to the Irish civil war, whilst the troubles was generally sectarian, with two ethnic groups fighting each other.

Love ya, buddy!

I can’t believe I watched this entire video as half baked as it is

As a Canadian, there's another question about guilt beyond just comparisons to other countries. What about new arrivals? Do Canadians who arrived here relatively recently deserve to feel any guilt? Especially given many of those Canadians were perhaps fleeing areas of danger? If they don't, then how far back does your family have to be from here to feel guilt? Is it simply the act of living on Canadian land? You could say, as I've heard argued, that only European Canadians need to feel guilty since Europeans colonized, but how do you break that down then? Most Franco Canadians I know would scoff at the idea of feeling guilt, given that they pride themselves on their relations with the Iroquois (which you may agree or disagree with), and that they see themselves as a minority unjustly treated. So is it just Anglo-Canadians that should feel bad? But then what is an Anglo Canadian? There are plenty of Canadians today who are of European ancestry and speak English, but don't have much of a connection to the British Empire, such as the many Slavic descended Canadians fleeing the old Russian Empire. If we go with that only British descended Canadians are "Anglo" where do Scots or Irish fleeing unfair treatment comparative to the English within Britain fit? In a country like Canada these questions get rather convoluted, and that's before you toss in the Metis.

Personally, given that inequality, bigotry and prejudice are on-going problems in the world, I feel like we have more to learn from countries that have been through darker periods in their history and manged to pull themselves out of it and improve.

I love this video 🤩

This is something I've thought about extensively and I'm glad there are other people wondering the same thing

Back during the Cold War their was actually some paranoia about Jamaica becoming communist due to being close to Cuba and ruled by a white minority for a while post independence and that might be an interesting topic to look into.

i went to norway a few years ago and while i was there i listened to a lecture by a person with sami ancestry in the university in tromsø and quite honestly it’s pretty dark and weird to hear as an american who had barely ever heard of the sami beforehand. it’s even worse when you realize that the us did FAR WORSE to the native americans. since then, indigenous rights have been a topic that i have cared about more than almost any other. i would love to hear your take, jj, on the treatment of native peoples across the world, especially the sami people and their history. they are a group so few outside of scandinavia and finland have ever even heard of so i think it would be an amazing idea to help bring awareness to these types of groups all across the world

4:46 You mean the goverment that was put in power after Germany’s occupation and the guy who’s last name has become a synonym for “land traitor”?

Anyone else noticed the pie graph said 75% but was like 90 percent of the circle? lol😂 9:30

I had the same thought as Henrik Myrhaug. Norway being held responsible for the Quisling government feels disingenous. The legitimate government of Norway kept working from Britain, and made a good effort in organizing the local resistance. It would be very unfair to blame Norway for being occupied and having a puppet government forced on us. It becomes especially absurd when in the next breath mentioning Swedens neutrality as a reason of shame, since Sweden joining the allied forces very likely would have led to them being invaded by Germany as well. It is very likely that the same thing that happened to Norway, would have happened in Sweden if circumstances were different. Quislings government was something that happened to Norway, it was not something that Norway did. In addition to the mistreatment of the sami people, I would also add that Norway have had policies towards roma people that are shameful. Forced castration was in force before and during WW II, but the roma people was treated badly also after the war. How we treated people with mental disabilities in even more recent history is also quite unpleasant. However, I find it weird that Denmark and Sweden, who both at times have ruled over Norway, get's a pass for their imperialist history. Both have been rather large empires in the past.

Continuing on that idea of Scandinavian countries, I was surprised to find out that sweden had an active eugenics program up until 1974! It's one of those almost never talked about things I guess.

Canada's history is absolutely horrible, I'm a Canadian and I tell you that in school they would skip over so much because it was just so horrible

Seeing Canada and Sweden on the thumbnail and immediately thinking of the terrible way they treat their indigenous population

Finland isn't a part of scandinavia since our language is completely different(and arguably barely even a functional one at times) but at this point I've heard people make this mistake so many times I don't really even care anymore

I think there is a sort of neo-noble savage myth that sometimes plays a role in the way some people talk about non-western countries. I had a class in college try to tell me the British Raj brought the idea of social classes and control to India, a country with a longer history of government, conquest, civil society, and social structures then England could even claim without trying to pull that "we are the extension of Athens" stuff. Oppressive systems and horrific acts are social technologies, and they are no more a thing unique to the "Western Mind" than mathematics or logic or engineering. I think the comparison game is a mistake and we can see it with the way everyone has to engage with whataboutism now, with the current war. It's natural to want to pick the absolute moral good vs evil, but realistically, that's not going to work, nor is it the point. It stops us from engaging with whats happening now in favor of grand narratives that don't work. But it doesn't mean anyone is off the hook for the past, especially when its very rare for these things not to have continued effects either directly or through national mythmaking. Just because someone else is worse, doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't right your wrongs.

I completely misread that title

My country, Thumpachia. I haven't "officially" started it yet, but the only evil thing we've ever done is accidentally punch the wrong twin in the face in 6th grade.

While I agree with the end result in this video, I feel like it's a bit unfair to use the Soviet governments as representations for countries like Estonia, Moldova, Georgia etc. I think the post Soviet countries that haven't been ravaged by brutal dictatorships should've at least been mentioned. I would say as a Baltic person our independent history is really peaceful (not counting the duchy of Courland for Latvia since it was ruled by Germans) but considering that we did have a dictatorship, in the end the video has the same result. Just wanted to clarify that the communist governments do not represent us

Tough question, but in my personal opinion I would have to argue for a European country, actually. San Marino, as far as I can tell, is extremely unproblematic. The closed thing I could see being a problem is neutrality in the Second World War, but to me it is entirely different from the Swedish position, due the fact that they were literally inside Italy. I may be overlooking something, but that’s my stance.

It’s most important to keep in mind that the apologies are not just given or wished for out of principle, they also can have a real effect on the present day. Because the injustices still continue on the old groundwork laid by the old injustices, so official acknowledgement of that is the first step of many towards a better present.

it's not about what your history is, it's about how you took accountability for those actions. Most Govts seem to be terrified of taking accountability for ANYTHING.

Honestly I think San Marino has been relatively harmless. Even if they had a fascist government in the 1930s.

Me (a German): I think my country might not do good here...

i love watching people explain colonialism and slavery that have no clue on either or how the world was back then.

mexico banned the slaves in the constitution, so we were always free-slave. natives were a gigant part of the independence (so i think they had and have rights too and spain had a treaty which stated that indigenous people cannot be ensalved)