Openly racist major power in modern times

Explain East Turkistan then, please.

A country is oppressing an ethnic minority. That's done in plenty of countries right now, including America. Ever heard of Sheriff Joe Arpaio? The question was about an openly racist major power. "One which openly considers and states that certain races or ethnic groups as biological inferior." China is oppressing the Uyghurs because the government believes that the Uyghurs' culture comprises a separate nationality from Chinese nationality and is a threat to Chinese territorial integrity. Not because they believe the Turkic or Altaic peoples to be a biologically inferior race.
 
I'm not sure that your statement is very clear. Miscegenation laws were for all intents and purposes dead as of Loving v. Virginia. The fact that many states still had or continue to have outdated laws on their books speaks more to legislative inefficiency or laziness, rather than anything else, by their lack of effort for symbolic reasons. This extends even towards the implications of Obergefell. For example, in Pennsylvania, the state law o concerning incestuous relationships does not literally prohibit brother-brother or sister-sister sexual relationships. However, in effect these relationships are prohibited. This is just another symptom of our common law system of law, as well as legislative and bureaucratic ignorance, laziness, or unwillingness to cosmetically change laws.
Actually it was at least in part a statement that these states still considered this morally wrong whatever the Constitution said and actually in some places these laws were enforced in living memory. More significant were Jim crow laws and literacy tests for elections and the whole raft of segregationist measures, going back a little further of course you have the famous misuse of the interstate commerce law to convict Joe Johnson. Btw the way whilst Civil rights may have inevitably been raised after WW2 it is NOT certain they would succeed. some would argue they still have not succeeded in full.
 
I think it depends if this racist country is democratic or not. You could theoretically have a free, democratic nation that respects basic human rights, but also has a national consensus that claims that certain people are inferior, especially if it‘s a homogenous country that doesn‘t allow much, if any immigration.

If it‘s a case like South Africa, then the reaction of much of the world will be hostile to varying degrees, as in OTL. But imagine if a country like Japan or Poland passed a constitutional amendment that outlaws non-Japanese or non-white immigration on the basis of the racial inferiority of those kinds of immigrants, and even teaches stuff like this in its schools. All totally democratic, of course, supported by the majority of the population. There would still be freedom of speech, a free press, the separation of powers, rule of law etc.

Would the rest of the ‚free world‘ do much about it? I‘m really not sure what the reaction would be, to be honest. I can‘t see anyone imposing sanctions on such a country, because nothing about this would violate human rights as such.
Israel recently went part of the way, declaring the state to be "the national home of the Jewish people" and that "Israel is the historic homeland of the Jewish people and they have an exclusive right to national self-determination in it".
 
Top