It's called World Factbook, not worldbook, "white vs. non-white" has nothing do with it as far as I'm concerned (skin color is related to sunlight, not culture), and last, but surely not least.
As of 2010 however, 1.33 million people or 14.3% of the inhabitants in Sweden were foreign-born. Of these, 859,000 (9.2%) were born outside the European Union and 477,000 (5.1%) were born in another EU member state.
At the beginning of 1992, immigrants and Norwegian-born to immigrant parents totalled 183,000 persons, or 4.3 per cent of Norway’s population. Twenty years later, at the beginning of 2012, these groups had risen to 655,000 persons or 13.1 per cent of the population.
So, my bad; at least these two nordic countries are even MORE diverse than the US. Which is hilarious because I was totally gambling with my initial post, thanks for making me look for confirmation. Of course you might say the real problem is that many US-born citizens have dark skin, while many immigrants to nordic countries have white skin, but that's the point where I leave the discussion.
At any rate, there are differences between the US and those countries, but immigration does not seem to be especially prominent. So no, that can't be it.
20 years? Try going back 400. 99.1% of the US population are descended from immigrants. Ignoring genetic differences and only going with cultural, you are really talking about how quickly immigrant groups homogenize to a standard culture of the country (or region when talking about America). The answer is it varies. A lot. Take any major Scandinavian city. How big and old is the china town? Japan town? Little Italy? German town? Irish population? Puerto Rician population? All the many flavors of Hispanic populations? Asian populations? Slavic populations? African populations? Many American cities have long standing examples of most of these. China town in San Francisco, for example, started shortly after the gold rush. There are many Chinese there who are multi-generational Americans but have not homogenized to the standard culture (if such a thing exists in SF). I have known families in the central coast just south of the silicon valley who can trace their Spanish descendents to pre-gold rush and even have some Ohlone descendents in their past, the people who originally inhabited this part of California. They are very Hispanic culturally.
I read an article a while ago about problems teaching immigrant kids English in the Alum Rock school district. This is just a single school district out of many in San Jose. If you are unfamiliar with San Jose, think south Silicon Valley. They typically have to deal with students who speak 40 different languages. Now that is diversity. Anything similar in Scandinavia?
As I have never been to the Nordic countries, I think it's possible but highly unlikely they are anywhere close to the diversity of the US. I would need to see a lot more than 20 years of immigration statistics to believe it though...
That has nothing to do with anything I said, try to respond in context. However, they have an amazing diversity of people in Nordic countries, and there is also amazing diversity among "whites", as well as similarites to "non-whites".
>amazing diversity among "whites", as well as similarites to "non-whites".
I'm not sure why you persist with this laughable line of argument. I have yet to visit Sweden but I hope to eventually as I have free lodging with family friends. I am quite sure they would get a good chuckle from your assertions.
Sweden according to wikipedia (and CIA factbook) has most of the population being Swede + Sami
Cia factbook on United States:
79.96% are white, but this include some hispanics.
Brazil the most recent census (I will find the link to IBGE site later) is about 45% of the population being white. almost 50% being mixed race (usually between black and white) 5% black (and some below 1% minorities).
Politically? I moved to Göteborg a few years back. The day after I arrived was May Day. The Socialists, Marxists, Marxist-Leninists, Social Democrats, Leftists, and Red Front political parties each had their own march. Then of course the Christian Democrats, the Moderates, Center Party, and the Green Party are 5 of the 8 parties with representation in Parliament. (The Pirate Party has 2 people representing Sweden in the European Parliament.)
In the US there's the two major parties, and Bernie Sanders as the only self-described socialist in Congress. In non-national offices there is a handful of Greens and Libertarians. When was the last time you saw people who were self-described as something other than Republican, Democrat, or independent as a regular commentator on a political discussion show in the US?
That seems like a lack of political diversity in the US, compared to Sweden.
Sure, but they were all Protestant Social Democrats, nevertheless. I mean, they may call themselves Marxists or Sweden Democrats or Red Front or whatever, but still they'll fundamentally believe in a society where everything's lagom.
But of course there's been political diversity in the Nordics; however e.g. the likes of Arvo Kustaa Halberg were a bit too politically diverse to live in Finland so moved to the U.S.
All Protestant Social Democrats? Here I thought only the Social Democrats were Social Democrats. I think you mean 'social democrats', meaning the belief and not membership in the party named 'Social Democrats.'
To think that the Christian Democrats, which were founded out of the movement against removing religious education from elementary schools and is most strong with the evangelical Christians, has the same idea of "lagom" as the Left Party is like saying that the US parties are the same because they all support a free market.
All Protestant? Given the number of atheists in Sweden, that's also unlikely.
I looked up a bit about Arvo Kustaa Halberg. As far as I can tell, he never lived in Finland or any of the Nordic countries. "Hall was born Arvo Kustaa Halberg in 1910 to Matt (Matti) and Susan (Susanna) Halberg in Cherry, a rural community on Northern Minnesota's Mesabi Iron Range" says Wikipedia.
I see no evidence that he moved from Finland to the US, much less that the move was based on a lack of diversity, so I fail to understand your point.
Well, what I meant is that fundamentally, Swedes are - or at least have been - very homogeneous, when compared to Americans. Even where people have labeled themselves with various extreme political affiliations, their way of thinking has been not too different from each other.
Some of my pronouncedly Atheist friends who have worked in Saudi Arabia have told about this. There, when you apply for visa/work permit, you have to state your religion in the application. There's no box to tick "Atheist" or "Agnostic". They ticked "Christian", and later said that this is where they realized how deeply they are products of Evangelic Protestant culture.
Gus Hall of course was born in Minnesota - he couldn't have stood as a presidential candidate unless he were born in the U.S. But he inherited his political affiliations from his parents, who came from Grand Duchy of Finland, where they were indeed too diverse to be palatable those days.
My comments are not about ethnic diversity. You said 'nordic countries are much more homogeneous than the US, ethnically and politically' and I objected to the term 'politically.' (I reserve the right to object to 'ethnically', but I don't wish to have that argument.)
In order for me to understand your views better, could you explain how the US is less politically homogeneous than Sweden, and also how ethnic homogeneity necessarily implies political homogeneity?
I look at the nationalist politics of the Sweden Democrats, the democratic socialism of the Left Party, and the liberal conservatism of the Moderate party, and see three quite different political philosophies with independent party representation in national politics. The Sweden Democrats think immigration has been a failure, the Center party wants more immigration. The Christian Democrats with their anti-homosexuality position, were the only party to decline to participate in the Stockholm Pride parade.
I look at the US and see only two real national parties, with planks which are moderate for one and conservative with the other. While there are certainly a wide range of differences in the people who make up the party, the obligation is to support others of ones own party, and the voting patterns reflect that homogeneity.
You wrote "But of course there's been political diversity in the Nordics; however e.g. the likes of Arvo Kustaa Halberg were a bit too politically diverse to live in Finland so moved to the U.S." Then you wrote that it was actually his parents who had to make the move, due to their political viewpoints. This makes me feel like you are having difficulties in explaining your point. Could you elaborate?
As far as I can tell, his parents were Wobblies. The IWW started in 1905 in the US and Gus Hall was born in 1910. That's very little time for the movement to make it to Finland, his parents to become Wobblies, feel like they have to leave Finland, and migrate to the US.
In any case, Finland was an autonomous part of the Russian Empire until 1917. As best as I could tell, socialism was not an oppressed political viewpoint in Finland in and around 1900. Eg, the Finnish Labour Party started in 1899 and changed their name to the Social Democratic Party in 1903, which remains as a party. The Communist Party of Finland was banned in 1923, but that's well after Hall's family moved to the US, and it still had behind-the-scenes influence on Finnish politics.
Would you please elaborate on how his parents' political viewpoints lead them to leave Finland for the US? And elaborate on how politics in pre-independence Finland reveals insight into a lack of modern political diversity in the Nordic countries? (Though I would prefer that you stay with Sweden, since that was my point.)
Nixon famously tried to get John Lennon deported because of the singer's involvement in the anti–Vietnam War movement. The courts eventually decided against selective deportation for political reasons, but Lennon also had the money and connections to fight that battle. Does this show a similar lack of enthusiasm towards political diversity in 1960s US?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_State...
"nearly 15% of Americans were foreign-born in 1910, while in 1999, only about 10% were foreign-born."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Sweden
As of 2010 however, 1.33 million people or 14.3% of the inhabitants in Sweden were foreign-born. Of these, 859,000 (9.2%) were born outside the European Union and 477,000 (5.1%) were born in another EU member state.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Norway
At the beginning of 1992, immigrants and Norwegian-born to immigrant parents totalled 183,000 persons, or 4.3 per cent of Norway’s population. Twenty years later, at the beginning of 2012, these groups had risen to 655,000 persons or 13.1 per cent of the population.
So, my bad; at least these two nordic countries are even MORE diverse than the US. Which is hilarious because I was totally gambling with my initial post, thanks for making me look for confirmation. Of course you might say the real problem is that many US-born citizens have dark skin, while many immigrants to nordic countries have white skin, but that's the point where I leave the discussion.
At any rate, there are differences between the US and those countries, but immigration does not seem to be especially prominent. So no, that can't be it.