While seen as a whole this might be true, but if you look at the major cities the story is very different. The latest statistic from Oslo[1] shows that 32.8% are immigrants and 40% of these are from Europe. So between 15-20% of Oslo are "non-western" immigrants which I think is what you are aiming for.

I don't know what counts as homogeneous and not, but if you walk around in Oslo you see a lot more colours than white :)

[1] https://www.oslo.kommune.no/politikk-og-administrasjon/stati...

I've never quite understood this argument.

Why does ethnic homogeny matter?

Cultural bonds tend to be stronger. I don't necessarily buy the arguments that follow from that premise but I do think there's some truth to that statement, especially because ethnic heterogeneity(sp?) tends to go hand in hand with immigration and hence mixing of cultures. I like the diversity of cultures that immigration brings, but some people like feeling as though they are part of a united whole.

Humans are tribal though, as in maximum 200 people. Everyone else is an "outsider". Everything above that number is the treated the same, regardless of ethnicity, as a foreigner.

You can't seriously suggest millions of people think the same because of their genetic markup.

> Humans are tribal though, as in maximum 200 people. Everyone else is an "outsider". Everything above that number is the treated the same, regardless of ethnicity, as a foreigner.

That's a cute idea, but it doesn't take more than a few minutes of reading the news, or a few hours of first hand observation, to find plenty of examples where people very much do not treat everyone outside their ≤ 200 person tribe “the same, regardless of ethnicity”.

> You can't seriously suggest millions of people think the same because of their genetic markup.

The grandparent post refers to culture and ethnicity (the latter being an identity of shared culture) not genetics. Culture is essentially shared ritual, values, and historical narrative, and, yes, shared culture is significantly about thinking the same way.

>>> That's a cute idea, but it doesn't take more than a few minutes of reading the news, or a few hours of first hand observation, to find plenty of examples where people very much do not treat everyone outside their ≤ 200 person tribe “the same, regardless of ethnicity

Um... Yeah, exactly. What's your point? It was a point of gossip to marry someone from the next village. So yeah, strangers were bad.

>>> The grandparent post refers to culture and ethnicity (the latter being an identity of shared culture) not genetics.

So... Like what is the relationship between a homogenous culture and crime rate again?!

You actually think people wouldn't kill themselves because they are from the same culture?

Ethnicity is not genetic. It's a social construct that refers to groups based on shared culture / language / nationality. The genetic similarity comes from reproduction among the population as a whole over a period of time. It's a consequence, not the cause.

I’m not saying it does. The parent post raised the issue preemptively.

I raised it because it is very commonly used as an argument against this system because "$ETHNIC_GROUP of people is so bad they can never be recovered".

And I don't think it matters, what matters is that all members of the society feels included and a part of it regardless of their origins.

But the latter is probably easier to achieve in a homogeneous society and you don't have to deal with xenophobia.

That didn't seem terribly large, I looked for UK and found c. 80% white-British. What's the median of these across countries?

The median across countries is probably quite high. E.g. Japan is 98.5% ethnically Japanese. The US is an extreme outlier. No single ethnic group makes up more than about 20% of the population.

I don't know about extreme outliers. Many countries are more diverse.

Um... I don't see why that matters. It isn't like this is the country of choice for a lot of folks. It is cold and dark sometimes. Things are expensive, and sometimes there isn't a lot of choice at the stores - especially in the smaller places.

I'm an immigrant in Norway - I'm from the US. A lot of folks I talk to are Norwegian, spouse included. (I'm in Trondheim, so there is much more diversity here in the city). Like everywhere, there is some anti-immigrant sentiment if you look in the right places.

But mostly, I feel included - that goes along with the general values of the nation. Heck, the kind gives speeches of inclusion. The linked speech is a common example [1, english subtitles]. The local school has messages saying "people are different, and that's OK" and "just because people are different, we still include people" (not direct translations).

Having a homogenous society doesn't matter so much when the society tries to be inclusive as a whole. That doesn't happen so much in the US, even as a citizen.

Edit: The US isn't even the most ethnically diverse place, so I fail to take that as an excuse. Both the US and Mexico are more diverse. [2]. Also, forgot to link the speech above.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQtLxYde-rw [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/05/16...

73% of the US is ethnically European, Germany is 81% ethnic Germans, France is 89% ethnic French (and another 5% from their colonies).

Yes, Norway is fairly homogeneous. But most countries are fairly homogeneous, Norway doesn't really stand out.

The US is 61% non-Hispanic white, which is not a single ethnicity but a grouping that includes everything from Irish to North Africans. And of course there is a long history of race-based conflict between those groups (e.g. see the local politics in Chicago or NYC).

> The US is 61% non-Hispanic white, which is not a single ethnicity

The idea that "non-Hispanic white american" is not a distinct ethnic identity (usually just "White American" or even "American", with Hispanics viewed as non-White , actual ancestry aside, outside of bureaucratic systems and foreign in ethnicity) despite recognition of distinct national origin, is somewhat dubious. Its true that some of those national origins historically were viewed more as distinct ethnicities and even treated as just as non-"White American" as Blacks (or, perhaps more germane to the point, White Hispanics) are now, but while the national identities persist, that treatment has largely changed. I mean, sure there is a time when by virtue of his mere name Bill O'Reilly would be a reviled enemy of the nativist defenders of White American identity, rather than in a position to be an icon of nativism. But that time is long past.

So white people who speak Spanish shouldn't count? It's 73% white, not that different practically speaking.

I get that white in the US means a lot of different things, but it's not like Spain or Germany are a homogenous glob.

It's not fair to say 'Ethnically European' in the same sentence as 'Ethnically German or Norwegian'.

France and UK are as different as France-USA, UK-USA. Europe is extremely diverse across borders.

So, the 75% of America that is 'Ethnically European' is already very varied.

Also - a good chunk of the 'non-Norwegians' in Norway are Swedes and Danes, which are pretty close.

>>> So, the 75% of America that is 'Ethnically European' is already very varied

Maybe genetically (although even that is debatable). But after a few generations you kind of iron out the differences between, say, a German - American and a Polish - American.

The differences between Germans and Polish are much larger. They speak German and Polish for instance vs just English.

I agree with your points, but I just don't think America is nearly as culturally homogenous as basically any European country.

I didn't say that (although I disagree with that too). But I'm addressing the comparison between European Americans and actual Europeans.

Where did you get the numbers for France? I though that it not possible to do any ethnic census there? Perhaps it could have been done by asking for countries of birth for the parents/grandparents.

Also when you are saying colonies, is it the former colonies (North Africa, Sub-Saharan Africa, Ex-Indochina) or the current overseas departments (in the Carribean, Guiana in South America and in the Indian Ocean)?

And? How does this relate in any way to the parent comment?