Well, no, your comment is equally information-free as the two that proceeded it. "Things are the way I say they are because I say so" remains unpersuasive.
Look, the whole notion of assigning moral value to places based on an arbitrary measure of "racism and xenophobia" is annoying, and if you think that's what's going here maybe you're understandably annoyed. But it feels like you're not even trying to understand what we're actually talking about, and more importantly, it actually IS important that we have measures for social progress if we are to continue to improve. I hope you'd agree.
So, the thing is: it'd be interesting to know what measure you're using such that a place with "institutionalized racism and the undercurrent of subtle racism" (undeniably true! of the US or, one suspects, anywhere else!) is somehow to be regarded as more "racist and xenophobic" than a place where a genocide occurred in one nation against an ethnic minority while its neighbor nations looked on uselessly. If you regard "subtle racism," income inequality, criminal justice problems, social rudeness and so on as a greater problem than that, well... okay, say so. It's obviously ridiculous.
