So over the break, there was a Reddit thread that was basically taking all these accomplishments that Norway has, and by comparison, throwing shade at the US for not having these things, as we’re the most wealthy country, etc…
I contended that it’s a lot easier to govern a relatively small (~5 million / 149 thousand square miles) nation with a very homogeneous population (83% ethnic Norwegian), than it is to govern a nation of 330 million people spread over 3.8 million square miles in 50 states, who are broken up into four or five vaguely defined ethnic groups who are also unevenly distributed across those 50 states and 3.8 million square miles. Basically you have much more of a cat-herding kind of situation in politics than you do in Norway, where there’s a LOT more common ground and culture overall.
I got accused of being racist, and blaming the US problems on ethnic minorities. That wasn’t my intent at all- I wasn’t even trying to make excuses for the US, so much as I was pointing out that Norway is not a good comparison.
Am I off base here, or were the Reddit offenderati just looking to find a reason to call me racist without any actual proof or reason?
I’d have to see the post, but trotting out the racist card seems to be a much used debate tactic lately. I can’t see how, based on what you said here, that your response was racist, but then I’m not seeing the thread (probably for obvious reasons that it’s against the rules to link to or cut and past posts from other boards). At face value though, the US IS much different than Norway, and this isn’t a matter of racism or ethnic minorities in the US, per se. Basically, the country is comprised of MANY ethnic minorities, often lumped together into big seemingly homogeneous groups (i.e. ‘white’, ‘black’, ‘hispanic’, ‘asian’, etc) which aren’t actually homogeneous even in and of themselves.
The US definitely has race issues, always has since it’s founding, but pointing out that you can’t really compare the US to Norway in any sort of meaningful way (Norwegians themselves are a minority group in the US, comprising only 4.5 million people…but that’s nearly as many as live in Norway today) isn’t a racist position except to someone who is trying to use it to ‘win’ by fiat.
I don’t see how it’s racist. It’s a fact. Our ‘white’ population, which is the supposed largest ethnic group, well, isn’t exactly in lock step OR an actual group, being comprised of many, many ethnic groups who all have very different ideas, history, culture and goals. Unless you think that ‘white’ people in California agree with ‘white’ people in New England, Texas the South or basically even with each other IN California depending on where in the state we are talking about. ‘Hispanic’ is the largest ethnic minority (soon to be the actual largest ethnic group in the US), but only if you lump us all together…which isn’t particularly helpful or meaningful, as hispanics from the South West are very different than hispanics from New York, Florida, California or Puerto Rico. We aren’t even really ethnically the same (in the same way ethnic Norwegians in Norway are the same)…we don’t have the same ethnicity, we don’t have the same culture, hell, we don’t even speak SPANISH the same way. The same goes for all those other ridiculous US racial categories…each is actually made up of many different ethnic groups, all with different cultures, values, and goals.
This is our great strength, but it’s also why is so hard to get any sort of political consensus…something that isn’t as difficult in places like Norway, where a shared heritage, culture, history, language and even goals is so much a part of their makeup. It’s why comparing Norway to the US wrt political will and policy is so ridiculous. The closest analogue to the US is probably Canada, but there you have other differences that make even that comparison invalid. But if you are going to compare the US to someone, they (or maybe Australia) are the closest it gets wrt diverse population, all pulling the political system in different direction, with different goals and outlooks.
It might make sense, if one of the positives listed about Norway was “And there is no racism here!”
The reason some countries don’t “see” racism is because their minority populations are so much smaller, and so vastly outmatched by the majority (in terms of being heard), that their voices are drowned out.
In Japan, for instance, it’s still seen as “quaint” to have a Japanese-only bar.*
But if what was being responded to didn’t bring up race/racism, then it was kind of dubious to bring it up for an explanation of why the US struggles.
So I guess I’ve gotta go with “context matters” here.
*ETA: Other recent examples, from Western Europe, include Switzerland banning minerets (not just mineret-like towers, but specifically those towers attached to a mosque) and the French ban on facial coverings (not specific to, but definitely targeting Muslims). And then there’s the island Denmark has converted into a holding site for certain immigrants (not that the US is in the best position to point fingers here). Oh, and the concerns over immigration that has gone into brexit.
I’ve seen this “homogeneous population” argument before but don’t understand why a “homogeneous population” is easier to govern or to provide education or health care to.
Why reference population homogeneity at all? It’s a pointlessly self-inflicted wound on your own argument. At best, you might argue that it’s relevant because there is systemic racism in the more diverse United States, where certain ethnicities are deliberately denied opportunity (thus reinforcing poverty) in blatant disregard to the country’s alleged ideals of equal treatment under the law. There’s no point just saying this makes the U.S. different from Norway when the only reasonable conclusion is that it makes the U.S. worse than Norway, unless you can demonstrate that the 17% of the Norwegian population that is not of the ethnic majority is similarly mistreated.
If you’re not going to explore the issue in a way that is relevant to your argument, don’t bring it up in the first place. That said, comparing the U.S. to Norway is inherently flawed just for land area and population size. Either compare the U.S. to the entire E.U. :
U.S. Population: 327M
E.U. Population: 513M
U.S. Area: 9.8M km[sup]2[/sup]
E.U. Area 4.48M km[sup]2[/sup]
…or compare Norway to an individual state, perhaps with a comparable climate:
It implied that a lack of homogeneity leads to more problems, of some sort, since you mentioned that as a reason that the US has not achieved whatever marker’s of Norway’s greatness were presented.
I don’t know if that’s racist, but it does implicitly accept one of the main arguments of racists – that mixing groups is bad and leads to bad things.
The “homogenous population” argument is a canard intended to shut down discussion of Nordic-style social democracy in the US. The subtext is that we have too much racial animosity for people to trust each other, therefore socialism won’t work.
Running to the “homogeneity” argument is typically cast as racist because it’s often used as a justification for a white ethnostate. “You want socialism? OK, first we’re gonna have to get racially pure like Sweden because obviously that’s the only reason it works for them.”
As an afterthought, Washington and Oregon could be contenders in a comparison to Norway if one wants to consider the economic effects of a large ocean coastline, which neither Colorado nor Minnesota enjoy, though Wisconsin does have large waterfront areas on two of the Great Lakes.
All the above. The “homogeneous population” argument is a racist argument.
Point of interest: Oregon was founded as a whites-only state. The only reason that it was a non-slave state is that they didn’t want any black people within its borders, free or slave.
Your link doesn’t work (it just brings up a data service unavailable error message for me) , but I’m curious how you can make the claim that Sweden has a larger population of minorities (presumably by percentage of the population) than the US does…or whatever claim you are making. Because the largest ethnic group in Sweden is Finn…and that is fairly small. From the Wiki:
Sorry, but this doesn’t disprove the fact that the US is MUCH more racially diverse, or that racial and ethnic diversity is a major issue wrt our political make up. I think where folks are getting hung up here is they are still thinking that this is a black/white issue somehow, without understanding that each of those groups are very diverse in the US. Our ‘white’ people, who as a group do make up the majority of the population, aren’t any sort of coherent group, ether ethnically nor politically. It’s like asking why Norwegians and Italians in Europe think or vote differently or have different political views than Poles or the English. Hell, even in those countries there are differentiation…while in the US, we are made up of all of those groups and sub-groups plus groups from, literally, every other country and ethnic group on the planet. All of which have different outlooks, goals, expectations and political views. Of COURSE we are going to have a lot more variation, especially coupled with our very different political system.
It’s ironic that folks in this thread who are handwaving this all away as ‘racist’ are, themselves, locked into the ridiculous US view on race being so monolithic, when it’s not. There is no monolithic ‘white’ group in the US TOO vote in lockstep on anything…and they don’t. Yet they comprise the largest supposed group in the US. While back in Norway, ‘white’ means ethnically Norwegian for the most part, with a shared culture, heritage, history and viewpoint, with a few Finns thrown in for color…Finns who ALSO have a similar history, culture and heritage (though I’m sure they don’t see it that way). The difference between a Finn and a Norwegian probably seem huge to them, but it’s nothing like the difference between the ‘white’ people in the US who come from Norway, Finland, Ireland, England, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Poland, Russia and pretty much everywhere else there are white people…plus, we have immigrant white people from OTHER places they colonized who have yet another history and culture different from those in the old country. All these groups have very different outlooks.
As for the racist thing you put at the end, anyone advocating that is making the same mistake you are…and they are idiots. To get to some sort of fantasy homogeneous ‘white’ population in the US, you’d have to decide which ‘white’ racial and ethnic group we are talking about, or you’ll have exactly the issue we have now, because ‘white’ in the US means a huge range and mix of ethnic and racial groups, different history (even in the US), plus all of that baggage on top of regional differences in the US itself. It’s not possible.
Instead, we have to muddle through with what we have and work stuff out the way we do…one step forward, two steps back, until there is some sort of boiling point where suddenly there is enough of a sea change to see a change in the political system. Then everyone will be on board and we’ll move forward until the next major roadblock/crisis. Look at how things are changing wrt marijuana legalization as an indicator. Look how it is gaining momentum after years of misinformation, propaganda, and ridiculous enforcement. This is how our system works…very differently than that in Norway. And the reason is we don’t have that 12 generations or whatever of shared heritage, culture and history as well as ethnicity that brings us together on stuff.
By the way, what are the accomplishments of Norway that are touted in your other discussion?
Maybe 50-100 ethnic groups.
I don’t think your analysis is racist on its face, if you could back it up with facts, but your position may be the result of implicit bias. Not every small ethnically homogenous country is successful economically and socially.
I don’t think the issues in the U.S. vs. Norway are related to minorities vs. homogeneity. American culture skews to individualism where Norway skews to collectivism. That’s not a factor of diversity but rather of national history. It is harder to get a bunch of rugged individualists to pay for social programs that would benefit society as a whole but not them as individuals.
Even if it does benefit them an individuals, the temptation to say “fuck that other guy” is strong in the U.S., especially when there’s been a steady cohort of pundits going back decades clamoring that not fucking the other guy is COMMUNISM! :eek: * JEWISH BOLSHEVIK COMMUNISM!* :eek: :eek: :eek:
Yes, that’s part of Washington State’s Foundation Myth - a black person was turned away from Oregon Territory & he and his party headed north and were among the first settlers.*
As to the OP - the problem is that whatever your intention, you used words that are very like the ones that a lot of racists use and have used for hundreds of years. Their argument is roughly “The problem with the US is all the non-white people, if it weren’t for them, the US would be great. It’s their fault. They ruin the country.” It may not have been what you meant, but after hearing that argument so many times, it is not a giant leap to the conclusion that anyone who says anything similar is going to end up in the same racist place.
*obviously there’s more to the story. But that’s what was taught in schools.
If all ethnic and racial minorities were eliminated from the U.S., by what miracle would this cause whites to become unified and harmonious? You’d still have classism, you’d still have the divide between rural and urban, you’d still have the religious right pitting itself against secularists. You’d still have differences in fiscal values, like prioritizing military spending over social spending. You’d still have tension between conservativism and progressivism. You still have monied interests outmaneuvering the interests of the little guy. The notion that American whites could reach a consensus about anything is laughable.
But even more laughable is the notion that “consensus, buy-in, and agreement” is what makes governance effective. Quite frequently, bad decisions are made despite near-unanimous support. And good decisions are often produced through rounds and rounds of debate, dissection, and deliberation. So even if it is true that a racially homogeneous populace is conducive to consensus, it’s far from a given that this would strengthen a country rather than weaken it.
Your argument doesn’t hold up when critical thinking is applied to it, and that’s what makes it look like a low-key appeal to racist ideology.
I believe the fault lies in that you mixed up the “race” of Americans for the “nativity” of Americans.
Both countries populations are 86% native.
Both countries have minorities (Sami, Scandinavian Romani, Roma, Jews, Kvener, and a small Finnish community for the Norwegians, and North and Central American, European, Carribean, and South and East Asian for the US) and minority languages
Both countries have 13% immigrants.
I think the “racism” picked up was your excluding our solid populations of African Americans and perhaps Hispanic Americans from being “native” Americans.
That wasn’t my intent at all- I wasn’t even trying to make excuses for the US, so much as I was pointing out that Norway is not a good comparison.