6 ms·

Yep. that's what happens we decide 4 million people get the territory the size of Western Europe more or less. They were there first so ... makes sense.

fastball 3y ago
Were they there first or were they there last?
namaria 3y ago
What? Norway is smaller than Spain. And why do you think countries were distributed to people by some sort of collective decision?
- oblio 3y ago
  I'm guessing they're counting the EEZ and maybe the fishing zone?
- weatherlite 3y ago
  > And why do you think countries were distributed to people by some sort of collective decision? Countries were not "distributed I obviously don't think that, hence what I wrote. I think they were in many cases fought for and the strong got the best land for the most part. There was no collective decision making. And I'm hinting that maybe the current situation doesn't make much sense for team humans.
  - namaria 3y ago
    > I think they were in many cases fought for and the strong got the best land for the most part That's an incredibly simplistic way to see History. Lands are not ranked from best to worse. How a modern population ended up where is a long and complicated process of migration and moved back and forth several times. Great lands have been scorched and abandoned and changing technology, trade and population patterns change drastically what is great land from one generation to another. Not to mention until very, very recently, Norway was very poor land. The people who ended up being there for the oil boom in the 70s were not, by any means, some very strong people who fought their way into prime land.
    - weatherlite 3y ago
      You don't see extreme inequality here? OK guess we'll disagree then. Also - very poor compared to who? Compared to Africa - probably not. Compared to China, also probably not. It was very poor compared to itself and a few super wealthy entities. When was the last case of extreme hunger in Norway ? Happened quite recently in both China and India and still happening in Africa.
  - heavenlyblue 3y ago
    When Norway fought for it's territory we didn't know how to use oil yet
  - heywhatupboys 3y ago
    lmao, when Danes, Swedes, Norwegians travelled as vikings it was because our lands were horrible and we searched for fertile lands... Norway was poor until recently. Like really poor.
    - karencarits 3y ago
      I guess it depends on your measures, but it's nuanced. For example, in 1900, Norway had the longest life expectancy in the World https://www.faktisk.no/artikler/z25rp/hvor-fattig-var-norge-for-hundre-ar-siden https://www.faktisk.no/artikler/z25rp/hvor-fattig-var-norge-...
      - magicalhippo 3y ago
        Our relative wealth[1] has a lot to do with a lack of wars and conflicts, and a fairly progressive, social mindset. Not just that we had a lot of natural resources to export. [1]: https://www.norgeshistorie.no/industrialisering-og-demokrati/1561_hvordan-kom-norge-ut-av-fattigdommen-.html https://www.norgeshistorie.no/industrialisering-og-demokrati...
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
_Algernon_ 3y ago
>They were there first so ... I'm pretty sure the Sámi would disagree on that one.
- anon0023 3y ago
  That's inaccurate. The current Sami people may have been first in the northern parts of Norway. The actual time line is difficult to establish (politically charged). What we can say is that the current Sami people were first in the northern parts of Norway compared to the "germanic" group living in the south. Most discussions end up in agreeing that there were two main groups in Norway. One started from the south of Norway and spread north, while the Sami people started from the north and spread south. Finding out who occupied a certain area first is very difficult, and have a tendency to be based more on politics and patriotism, than scientific facts. (on both sides) Both groups have been in Norway for thousands of years, so there is actually not much point in debating who was first in Norway. What they can agree on is to make sure that the rights of all are protected. That was not the case historically, where the Sami people were not treated well.

fastball 3y ago

Were they there first or were they there last?

namaria 3y ago

What? Norway is smaller than Spain. And why do you think countries were distributed to people by some sort of collective decision?

oblio 3y ago
I'm guessing they're counting the EEZ and maybe the fishing zone?
weatherlite 3y ago
> And why do you think countries were distributed to people by some sort of collective decision? Countries were not "distributed I obviously don't think that, hence what I wrote. I think they were in many cases fought for and the strong got the best land for the most part. There was no collective decision making. And I'm hinting that maybe the current situation doesn't make much sense for team humans.
- namaria 3y ago
  > I think they were in many cases fought for and the strong got the best land for the most part That's an incredibly simplistic way to see History. Lands are not ranked from best to worse. How a modern population ended up where is a long and complicated process of migration and moved back and forth several times. Great lands have been scorched and abandoned and changing technology, trade and population patterns change drastically what is great land from one generation to another. Not to mention until very, very recently, Norway was very poor land. The people who ended up being there for the oil boom in the 70s were not, by any means, some very strong people who fought their way into prime land.
  - weatherlite 3y ago
    You don't see extreme inequality here? OK guess we'll disagree then. Also - very poor compared to who? Compared to Africa - probably not. Compared to China, also probably not. It was very poor compared to itself and a few super wealthy entities. When was the last case of extreme hunger in Norway ? Happened quite recently in both China and India and still happening in Africa.
- heavenlyblue 3y ago
  When Norway fought for it's territory we didn't know how to use oil yet
- heywhatupboys 3y ago
  lmao, when Danes, Swedes, Norwegians travelled as vikings it was because our lands were horrible and we searched for fertile lands... Norway was poor until recently. Like really poor.
  - karencarits 3y ago
    I guess it depends on your measures, but it's nuanced. For example, in 1900, Norway had the longest life expectancy in the World https://www.faktisk.no/artikler/z25rp/hvor-fattig-var-norge-for-hundre-ar-siden https://www.faktisk.no/artikler/z25rp/hvor-fattig-var-norge-...
    - magicalhippo 3y ago
      Our relative wealth[1] has a lot to do with a lack of wars and conflicts, and a fairly progressive, social mindset. Not just that we had a lot of natural resources to export. [1]: https://www.norgeshistorie.no/industrialisering-og-demokrati/1561_hvordan-kom-norge-ut-av-fattigdommen-.html https://www.norgeshistorie.no/industrialisering-og-demokrati...
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

_Algernon_ 3y ago

>They were there first so ... I'm pretty sure the Sámi would disagree on that one.

anon0023 3y ago
That's inaccurate. The current Sami people may have been first in the northern parts of Norway. The actual time line is difficult to establish (politically charged). What we can say is that the current Sami people were first in the northern parts of Norway compared to the "germanic" group living in the south. Most discussions end up in agreeing that there were two main groups in Norway. One started from the south of Norway and spread north, while the Sami people started from the north and spread south. Finding out who occupied a certain area first is very difficult, and have a tendency to be based more on politics and patriotism, than scientific facts. (on both sides) Both groups have been in Norway for thousands of years, so there is actually not much point in debating who was first in Norway. What they can agree on is to make sure that the rights of all are protected. That was not the case historically, where the Sami people were not treated well.