@meka The map misrepresents what the vote was about. The actual resolution was whether the transatlantic slave trade should be considered "the gravest crime against humanity".
That many countries reject that wording (especially Germany with the Holocaust!) is no surprise.
@meka If you want to see why the EU abstained, read the statement: https://www.eeas.europa.eu/delegations/un-new-york/eu-explanation-vote-%E2%80%93-un-general-assembly-action-a80l48-declaration-trafficking-enslaved-africans_en
Framing this as "the EU won't condemn the transatlantic slave trade" is wrong. The concerns rest with the "gravest" framing; and with the call for reparations. Both of which are understandable and *not* fundamental issues with condemning slave trade.
Naturally a country that had close to zero involvement (?) historically has no trouble with calling for someone else to pay reparations.

25 March 2026, New York – European Union Explanation of Vote (before the vote) delivered by Ms. Gabriella Michaelidou, Deputy Permanent Representative of Cyprus to the United Nations, at the 80th Session of the UN General Assembly: Action on A/80/L.48 - Declaration of the Trafficking of Enslaved Africans and Racialized Chattel Enslavement of Africans as the Gravest Crime Against Humanity
@luatic all other ex-YU countries also didn't have anything to do with slavery, yet they're not blue. Probably other countries share the same history, I'm just not historian and I will not claim anything I'm not sure about.
Anyway, my point is about racism in Serbia, which people had problem with. Or lack of it.
@meka Whether a country is blue on that map has little meaning. It doesn't tell you anything about racism in a country.
I can't tell you how big of a problem racism is in Serbia or which forms it takes, but I can tell you that this map certainly does not "prove" your point.
(Also, my history is a little rusty, but if Serbia knows no racism, how do you explain what happened in Srebrenica ~30 years ago?)
@meka I mean, if you want to distinguish between "ethnicism" (based on ethnicity) and "racism" (based on skin color), you do you. Though be warned that you are then likely to be misunderstood, as common definitions of racism include discrimination based on ethnicity.
And the statement of "we have 'ethnicism' but no racism", even if true, isn't very strong, is it? It's pretty much the same problem of unjust discrimination based on an arbitrary, unchangeable characteristic.