From the wiki:

Australia 30% foreign born, although it's in the 25% range if you take out England, Scotland, and the USA.
Switzerland 25% (although I don't see a date here) as of 2016.
Canada 21.9% as of 2019.
Norway: 16.8% as of 2017
Sweden: 14.3% of its population is foreign born as of 2010.
USA: 14.4% of its population are immigrants as of 2015.
Denmark: 8% as of 2014.
Finland: 7.3% as of 2018.

Just wanted to correct the belief that the Nordic nations are homogenous in their immigration patterns.

Anonymous wrote:This is historically ignorant. Homogeneous populations have killed their own kind, oppressed their own kind, raped and murdered their own kind, divided into clans and sects and waged civil wars and revolutions against their own kind. Have you read Dickens or Hugo or Dostoevsky or anything else written about how shitty and dangerous those homogeneous societies were for most of the population? That’s why they came to America, because being poor in Europe was horrible.

It depends on how you define homogenous. The mistake, as is often make by modern woke progressives, is treating everyone of a certain race as one homogenous population.

17th century Europeans didn't define themselves as white. They defined themselves by religion and then by region. You were Catholic or Protestant. Then German or French or or English whatever. The same thinking persists in much of Africa today, where Africans define themselves by tribal loyalty, not skin color, despite everyone being black. They don't see themselves homogenous in being black.

It's easy to pick out the samples of Dickens or Dostoevsky while ignoring that these societies also perpetuated, for centuries, a dominant cultural ethos that was a synthesis of religion, culture, and class (feudal societies, for example), which provided a great deal of solidarity and identity for its people. The Islamic world still has similar approaches, they are uniform in being Muslim and that dominant shared heritage is the glue that binds their society despite any ills within in. I've spent time in various Islamic nations and it's striking how despite enormous income disparities and certainly elements of oppression, they are singularly peaceful and safe places (almost all the time doesn't rule out the periodic exception). They see a strong solidarity in being Muslim that transcends everything else (and also allows various irascible people to become leaders).

This is *not* an argument against diversity at all. But an acknowledgment that diversity does present challenges in fostering solidarity and fellowship, much more so than the woke progressives will want to admit, while homogenous societies find it easier to develop the larger community trust as we see in the Nordic nations or countries like Japan and South Korea. But I do not see it impossible. The US has always been diverse and has carried that diversity successfully by balancing the wishes and desires of smaller communities to their own identities while establishing a neutral playing field for these communities to coexist. It wasn't always perfect (Jim Crow), and at points nearly destroyed the US (civil war) but by and large it was remarkably successful in bringing tremendously diverse groups of people together into a nation. Something I trust it will continue to do so but both the alt right and the woke progressives pose their own dangers to the American liberalism that allowed this flourishing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've mostly seen the term used by libertarians or right-wingers to explain why they don't think the various social programs in Nordic countries would work here. Which I guess sounds better than "we're a bunch of f**kin racists" and/or "black people can't be trusted not to be lazy criminals."

Most of the world is homogenous, whether an African nation or Asian nation or eastern / Northern Europe. In many of these countries, the homogenous nature is something they take pride in because it's a cultural pride rooted in a shared common heritage. There have been solid research, if unpopular, showing that greater homogeneity often comes with greater social trust and community spirit, while greater diversity is often the opposite. On the flip side, people who don't fit the homogenous nature of a country can often be marginalized. A political football, certainly, but it does show how politicized the word homogenous has become, used as a political tool by opposite forces.

I'd like to make sure that I'm understanding your point of view. Your opinion is that when people say there is "solid research that showing that greater homogeneity often comes with greater social trust and community spirit, while greater diversity is often the opposite"; what that really means is "we're a bunch of f**kin racists" and/or "black people can't be trusted not to be lazy criminals." ?

In the absence of racism, why would greater diversity (of a type not present in Nordic countries) result in diminished social trust and community spirit?

OK? I still do not understand why mentioning research on this topic when discussing different cultures makes someone a " f**kin racist" who believes that "black people can't be trusted". Can you please explain that a bit?

it's someone with a big racial chip on their shoulder that they reduce everything to a black-white racism situation while ignoring the vast diversity of human experience across history and the world.

The concept of homogeneity equally applies to a white Nordic country or Asian country or a black African tribal region, for example. Or areas where a religion dominates such as an Islamic country. The shared common heritage is what fosters the community trust within that group and out of that trust you do get greater solidarity. One certainly sees this attitude on a more local scale too. It's a classic and ancient human psyche and way of relating to the world around them that certainly spans all racial groups and even beyond that to factors like faith, class, ethnicities, and so forth.

This is historically ignorant. Homogeneous populations have killed their own kind, oppressed their own kind, raped and murdered their own kind, divided into clans and sects and waged civil wars and revolutions against their own kind. Have you read Dickens or Hugo or Dostoevsky or anything else written about how shitty and dangerous those homogeneous societies were for most of the population? That’s why they came to America, because being poor in Europe was horrible.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've mostly seen the term used by libertarians or right-wingers to explain why they don't think the various social programs in Nordic countries would work here. Which I guess sounds better than "we're a bunch of f**kin racists" and/or "black people can't be trusted not to be lazy criminals."

Most of the world is homogenous, whether an African nation or Asian nation or eastern / Northern Europe. In many of these countries, the homogenous nature is something they take pride in because it's a cultural pride rooted in a shared common heritage. There have been solid research, if unpopular, showing that greater homogeneity often comes with greater social trust and community spirit, while greater diversity is often the opposite. On the flip side, people who don't fit the homogenous nature of a country can often be marginalized. A political football, certainly, but it does show how politicized the word homogenous has become, used as a political tool by opposite forces.

I'd like to make sure that I'm understanding your point of view. Your opinion is that when people say there is "solid research that showing that greater homogeneity often comes with greater social trust and community spirit, while greater diversity is often the opposite"; what that really means is "we're a bunch of f**kin racists" and/or "black people can't be trusted not to be lazy criminals." ?

In the absence of racism, why would greater diversity (of a type not present in Nordic countries) result in diminished social trust and community spirit?

OK? I still do not understand why mentioning research on this topic when discussing different cultures makes someone a " f**kin racist" who believes that "black people can't be trusted". Can you please explain that a bit?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've mostly seen the term used by libertarians or right-wingers to explain why they don't think the various social programs in Nordic countries would work here. Which I guess sounds better than "we're a bunch of f**kin racists" and/or "black people can't be trusted not to be lazy criminals."

Most of the world is homogenous, whether an African nation or Asian nation or eastern / Northern Europe. In many of these countries, the homogenous nature is something they take pride in because it's a cultural pride rooted in a shared common heritage. There have been solid research, if unpopular, showing that greater homogeneity often comes with greater social trust and community spirit, while greater diversity is often the opposite. On the flip side, people who don't fit the homogenous nature of a country can often be marginalized. A political football, certainly, but it does show how politicized the word homogenous has become, used as a political tool by opposite forces.

I'd like to make sure that I'm understanding your point of view. Your opinion is that when people say there is "solid research that showing that greater homogeneity often comes with greater social trust and community spirit, while greater diversity is often the opposite"; what that really means is "we're a bunch of f**kin racists" and/or "black people can't be trusted not to be lazy criminals." ?

In the absence of racism, why would greater diversity (of a type not present in Nordic countries) result in diminished social trust and community spirit?

Unfortunately it is racism but the question is, how do we make people not racist (and not just white people)? It seems like most of the anti racist policies so far have been a failure. They’ve definitely succeeded in taking away power from blatant racists, which is a good thing, but have they actually reduced racial animosity?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've mostly seen the term used by libertarians or right-wingers to explain why they don't think the various social programs in Nordic countries would work here. Which I guess sounds better than "we're a bunch of f**kin racists" and/or "black people can't be trusted not to be lazy criminals."

Most of the world is homogenous, whether an African nation or Asian nation or eastern / Northern Europe. In many of these countries, the homogenous nature is something they take pride in because it's a cultural pride rooted in a shared common heritage. There have been solid research, if unpopular, showing that greater homogeneity often comes with greater social trust and community spirit, while greater diversity is often the opposite. On the flip side, people who don't fit the homogenous nature of a country can often be marginalized. A political football, certainly, but it does show how politicized the word homogenous has become, used as a political tool by opposite forces.

I'd like to make sure that I'm understanding your point of view. Your opinion is that when people say there is "solid research that showing that greater homogeneity often comes with greater social trust and community spirit, while greater diversity is often the opposite"; what that really means is "we're a bunch of f**kin racists" and/or "black people can't be trusted not to be lazy criminals." ?

In the absence of racism, why would greater diversity (of a type not present in Nordic countries) result in diminished social trust and community spirit?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many progressives associate diversity with a greater moral good over homogeneous, which they usually mean all-white as opposed to different races. You see the sneering here on DCUM towards areas that are too white or not diverse enough. While I certainly understand some people's desires to want to be in a diverse areas with many different races, including their own races, it is also an interesting moral psyche that has emerged in recent years and one I find both admirable - and limited - because it frequently reduces diversity to skin color and nothing else and ignores the enormous diversity of humanity within a general race.

Most of the world is homogenous, whether an African nation or Asian nation or eastern / Northern Europe. In many of these countries, the homogenous nature is something they take pride in because it's a cultural pride rooted in a shared common heritage. There have been solid research, if unpopular, showing that greater homogeneity often comes with greater social trust and community spirit, while greater diversity is often the opposite. On the flip side, people who don't fit the homogenous nature of a country can often be marginalized. A political football, certainly, but it does show how politicized the word homogenous has become, used as a political tool by opposite forces.

I’m curious to what the recent emphasis on identity politics in America will do for social cohesion. Somehow it feels like it leads to Balkanization.

Diversity is a strength, its what unites us.

Both the woke warriors and the alt-right with their obsession with some kind of pure white Christian origin ignore that the US always saw itself as very diverse, it's just that the meaning of the word diverse has changed away from what it really means to focus solely on skin colors. But the language of the 18th and 19th century, including the writings of the Founding Fathers, saw the United States as incredibly diverse with so many different people coming from "all over." Yes, the immigrants were primarily Europeans, but they saw the diversity in all the different European heritages, as well as in the growth of different faiths, both Catholicism and later, Judaism. And they saw the country as a place that contained a huge range of opinions and ideas and talents, along with all the regionalism. If you had told them the US was a homogenous place, the'd have laughed. To them, homogenous would have symbolized oppression, because so many of the immigrants came fleeing persecution as a marginalized group who didn't fit neatly in the homogenous structures of the old country. At the same time, they also didn't look at a white person and automatically assume some kind of homogenous identity. The white Anglo-Saxon protestants of America were keenly aware of themselves as opposed to the Irish Catholic, who were also keenly aware of themselves as opposed to Italian Catholics, or German pietists, and even the German Jews saw a difference with the eastern European Polish/Russian Jews, and so on and so on. The woke progressives perhaps too willfully ignore this in their infantile reduction of American history to some basic "white" identity, and so do the alt-rights in their fearful screeds.

Reminds me of when I was studying Indiana history - in the early 19th century, the Methodists and the Presbyterians threw a lot of shade at each other. They regarded themselves as very different from one another. I think our tolerance for difference has increased quite a bit over the decades.

It is far easier to engage in social contracts with other people who share your values and culture. This is very clear.

Anonymous wrote:I've mostly seen the term used by libertarians or right-wingers to explain why they don't think the various social programs in Nordic countries would work here. Which I guess sounds better than "we're a bunch of f**kin racists" and/or "black people can't be trusted not to be lazy criminals."

Most of the world is homogenous, whether an African nation or Asian nation or eastern / Northern Europe. In many of these countries, the homogenous nature is something they take pride in because it's a cultural pride rooted in a shared common heritage. There have been solid research, if unpopular, showing that greater homogeneity often comes with greater social trust and community spirit, while greater diversity is often the opposite. On the flip side, people who don't fit the homogenous nature of a country can often be marginalized. A political football, certainly, but it does show how politicized the word homogenous has become, used as a political tool by opposite forces.

I'd like to make sure that I'm understanding your point of view. Your opinion is that when people say there is "solid research that showing that greater homogeneity often comes with greater social trust and community spirit, while greater diversity is often the opposite"; what that really means is "we're a bunch of f**kin racists" and/or "black people can't be trusted not to be lazy criminals." ?

Anonymous wrote:Can you please link to the post where someone said that Japan and Finland don’t have violent crime because they are homogeneous?

This thread

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/75/1020300.page

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many progressives associate diversity with a greater moral good over homogeneous, which they usually mean all-white as opposed to different races. You see the sneering here on DCUM towards areas that are too white or not diverse enough. While I certainly understand some people's desires to want to be in a diverse areas with many different races, including their own races, it is also an interesting moral psyche that has emerged in recent years and one I find both admirable - and limited - because it frequently reduces diversity to skin color and nothing else and ignores the enormous diversity of humanity within a general race.

Most of the world is homogenous, whether an African nation or Asian nation or eastern / Northern Europe. In many of these countries, the homogenous nature is something they take pride in because it's a cultural pride rooted in a shared common heritage. There have been solid research, if unpopular, showing that greater homogeneity often comes with greater social trust and community spirit, while greater diversity is often the opposite. On the flip side, people who don't fit the homogenous nature of a country can often be marginalized. A political football, certainly, but it does show how politicized the word homogenous has become, used as a political tool by opposite forces.

I’m curious to what the recent emphasis on identity politics in America will do for social cohesion. Somehow it feels like it leads to Balkanization.

Diversity is a strength, its what unites us.

Both the woke warriors and the alt-right with their obsession with some kind of pure white Christian origin ignore that the US always saw itself as very diverse, it's just that the meaning of the word diverse has changed away from what it really means to focus solely on skin colors. But the language of the 18th and 19th century, including the writings of the Founding Fathers, saw the United States as incredibly diverse with so many different people coming from "all over." Yes, the immigrants were primarily Europeans, but they saw the diversity in all the different European heritages, as well as in the growth of different faiths, both Catholicism and later, Judaism. And they saw the country as a place that contained a huge range of opinions and ideas and talents, along with all the regionalism. If you had told them the US was a homogenous place, the'd have laughed. To them, homogenous would have symbolized oppression, because so many of the immigrants came fleeing persecution as a marginalized group who didn't fit neatly in the homogenous structures of the old country. At the same time, they also didn't look at a white person and automatically assume some kind of homogenous identity. The white Anglo-Saxon protestants of America were keenly aware of themselves as opposed to the Irish Catholic, who were also keenly aware of themselves as opposed to Italian Catholics, or German pietists, and even the German Jews saw a difference with the eastern European Polish/Russian Jews, and so on and so on. The woke progressives perhaps too willfully ignore this in their infantile reduction of American history to some basic "white" identity, and so do the alt-rights in their fearful screeds.

Everything must be going great in the country if this is the new imaginary grievance.

It's threads like this that remind me how some people really think, no matter how much they smile.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many progressives associate diversity with a greater moral good over homogeneous, which they usually mean all-white as opposed to different races. You see the sneering here on DCUM towards areas that are too white or not diverse enough. While I certainly understand some people's desires to want to be in a diverse areas with many different races, including their own races, it is also an interesting moral psyche that has emerged in recent years and one I find both admirable - and limited - because it frequently reduces diversity to skin color and nothing else and ignores the enormous diversity of humanity within a general race.

Most of the world is homogenous, whether an African nation or Asian nation or eastern / Northern Europe. In many of these countries, the homogenous nature is something they take pride in because it's a cultural pride rooted in a shared common heritage. There have been solid research, if unpopular, showing that greater homogeneity often comes with greater social trust and community spirit, while greater diversity is often the opposite. On the flip side, people who don't fit the homogenous nature of a country can often be marginalized. A political football, certainly, but it does show how politicized the word homogenous has become, used as a political tool by opposite forces.

I’m curious to what the recent emphasis on identity politics in America will do for social cohesion. Somehow it feels like it leads to Balkanization.

Diversity is a strength, its what unites us.