3 ms·

Is that a like for like comparison? In Sweden, percentage of foreign born may paint a relatively accurate picture of homogeneity, whereas the same is not true

by doktrin 14y ago

Is that a like for like comparison? In Sweden, percentage of foreign born may paint a relatively accurate picture of homogeneity, whereas the same is not true in the US. Mass - immigration is very recent for the former, but not for the latter.

sebcat 14y ago
I don't know if it is. I think it can be, but it's not just about who's foreign born. It's an interesting subject. The US has been formed by immigration. Though at some point you should be considered assimilated. If my grand-grand parents emigrated to the US, are their descendants still Swedish? What about my grand-parents? What about my parents? What about me? From a generational standpoint that is. I would say most parts of the US is very homogeneous. It's just that it's very segregated. Based on race and class. You don't see a lot of rich Caucasians in Compton. I think homogeneity is about community. About feeling related. Relating to others. Empathy. State of mind. Speaking a different language than the rest is definitely a barrier. But learning a new language doesn't take that long if you're being accepted by the community. Integration. Immigration is not new to Sweden. Sweden is not a country built on immigration like the US, but I dare say that people have immigrated here for at least a couple of millennia. Look at the big picture. The native Americans immigrated too. All swedes did too. Is origin important, or assimilation/integration?
pc86 14y ago
Not only that, but someone born and raised in Los Angeles is going to have nothing in common with someone born in Oregon, or Tennessee, or Michigan, or Vermont.
- vacri 14y ago
  What? Not even speaking English?
- legitsource 14y ago
  Someone born and raised in New York City probably doesn't have that much in common with someone from upstate New York either.
- _delirium 14y ago
  Really? I was born and grew up in a suburb of Chicago, but have since then lived in Los Angeles, Houston, Atlanta, and a few other places, and have rarely felt that my born-in-Chicagoness was at all an important or a distinguishing factor. There are Americans I don't have a lot in common with, but it doesn't have much to do with where we were born. For example, I don't tend to get along with people who have anti-intellectual views, but you find those (and their opposite) anywhere. I think of myself as "American", but I would be hard-pressed to think of anything particularly "Chicagoan" about me. It'd be something trivial like hot-dog or pizza preference, probably. As far as geography goes, I see more differences within than between regions. I don't have a lot in common with people who live in very rural areas, for example. But e.g. a coffee shop in Midtown Atlanta doesn't feel that much different from a coffee shop in Brooklyn or Westwood. And the Atlanta suburbs don't feel that different from the Chicago suburbs.

by doktrin 14y ago

sebcat 14y ago

I don't know if it is. I think it can be, but it's not just about who's foreign born. It's an interesting subject. The US has been formed by immigration. Though at some point you should be considered assimilated. If my grand-grand parents emigrated to the US, are their descendants still Swedish? What about my grand-parents? What about my parents? What about me? From a generational standpoint that is. I would say most parts of the US is very homogeneous. It's just that it's very segregated. Based on race and class. You don't see a lot of rich Caucasians in Compton. I think homogeneity is about community. About feeling related. Relating to others. Empathy. State of mind. Speaking a different language than the rest is definitely a barrier. But learning a new language doesn't take that long if you're being accepted by the community. Integration. Immigration is not new to Sweden. Sweden is not a country built on immigration like the US, but I dare say that people have immigrated here for at least a couple of millennia. Look at the big picture. The native Americans immigrated too. All swedes did too. Is origin important, or assimilation/integration?

pc86 14y ago

Not only that, but someone born and raised in Los Angeles is going to have nothing in common with someone born in Oregon, or Tennessee, or Michigan, or Vermont.

vacri 14y ago
What? Not even speaking English?
legitsource 14y ago
Someone born and raised in New York City probably doesn't have that much in common with someone from upstate New York either.
_delirium 14y ago
Really? I was born and grew up in a suburb of Chicago, but have since then lived in Los Angeles, Houston, Atlanta, and a few other places, and have rarely felt that my born-in-Chicagoness was at all an important or a distinguishing factor. There are Americans I don't have a lot in common with, but it doesn't have much to do with where we were born. For example, I don't tend to get along with people who have anti-intellectual views, but you find those (and their opposite) anywhere. I think of myself as "American", but I would be hard-pressed to think of anything particularly "Chicagoan" about me. It'd be something trivial like hot-dog or pizza preference, probably. As far as geography goes, I see more differences within than between regions. I don't have a lot in common with people who live in very rural areas, for example. But e.g. a coffee shop in Midtown Atlanta doesn't feel that much different from a coffee shop in Brooklyn or Westwood. And the Atlanta suburbs don't feel that different from the Chicago suburbs.