3 ms·

There seems to be a strong homogeneity in eastern europe (what's the percentage of foreign born - totalling first and second generation not coming from neighbou

by guylhem 14y ago

There seems to be a strong homogeneity in eastern europe (what's the percentage of foreign born - totalling first and second generation not coming from neighbouring countries? I'd guesstimate it would be <10%). Except in Bulgaria, resentment seems more direct against people who left than people who came. I'm not pissed of about anything. At a time, I also believed I had a bad experience but should not jump to any conclusion. Many isolated experiences point to another conclusion. I'm not sure I fully understand what is happening, but something definitely is. And It just feels like a really really bad idea to stay in a place where trouble is brewing.

dalke 14y ago
"Foreign born" does not include the second generation. As someone brought up in the US, the idea that someone who is second generation should be considered "foreign" is a strange concept. Someone born and raised in the US is an American. They might be a Cuban-American, Filipino-American, or Irish-American, but they are American. It wasn't until I visited Europe where I heard people regard the second- and even third-generation descendants as a foreigner. I still find it to be an odd and slightly disparaging view. In any case, your guesstimate is silly, for three reasons. One: you can research it easy, so there's no need to guesstimate. If you want a serious discussion, then give actual numbers. Two: the US is probably also less than 10%, given the restrictions you placed and using the actual definition of 'foreign born.' Of the 31,107,890 foreign born US residents for the 2000 census, 9,177,485 were from Mexico and 820,770 from Canada. The population of the US in 2000 was 250,314,015, so excluding neighboring countries, giving a non-neighboring-foreign-born population of 8.4%. And three: you paint Eastern Europe with a wide brush. Look even at the languages. Romanian is a Romance language, Hungarian is the most widely spoken non-Indo-European language in Europe, Czech is a Slavic language. And as to culturally homogeneity in general? English has a phrase to describe the patchwork of cultures in south-eastern Europe - "Balkanization." > Balkanization, or Balkanisation, is a geopolitical term, originally used to describe the process of fragmentation or division of a region or state into smaller regions or states that are often hostile or non-cooperative with each other. Have you perhaps forgotten the Yugoslavian wars? > The wars were complex: characterized by bitter ethnic conflicts among the peoples of the former Yugoslavia, mostly between Serbs (and to a lesser extent, Montenegrins) on the one side and Croats and Bosniaks (and to a lesser degree, Slovenes) on the other; but also between Bosniaks and Croats in Bosnia Your idea that there "seems to be a strong homogeneity in eastern europe" now is a complete denial of the observed facts.
- guylhem 14y ago
  Don't make any mistake - I'd love to be proven wrong, and you have great points. The eastern european countries I was referring to were the former communist countries now part of (or soon to be part of) Europe - to which the Czech republic belongs. Yugoslavia is not part of it, even if Slovenia could be considered as a edge case as it was part of Yugoslavia and is now part of the EU. The definition I proposed may look strange, but it's the best explicative variable I have for the situation in Europe - and you're right, it's quite shocking that the second generation should be considered foreign. It is shocking to me. Yet that's how european seems to think and self classify. If with the given definition the US has a "diversity" of less than 10%, while troubled european countries such as France do have a greater number, then maybe this definition is in fact explicative and predictive of the situation in Europe - except Yugoslavia, which I totally agree is a special example.

by guylhem 14y ago

dalke 14y ago

"Foreign born" does not include the second generation. As someone brought up in the US, the idea that someone who is second generation should be considered "foreign" is a strange concept. Someone born and raised in the US is an American. They might be a Cuban-American, Filipino-American, or Irish-American, but they are American. It wasn't until I visited Europe where I heard people regard the second- and even third-generation descendants as a foreigner. I still find it to be an odd and slightly disparaging view. In any case, your guesstimate is silly, for three reasons. One: you can research it easy, so there's no need to guesstimate. If you want a serious discussion, then give actual numbers. Two: the US is probably also less than 10%, given the restrictions you placed and using the actual definition of 'foreign born.' Of the 31,107,890 foreign born US residents for the 2000 census, 9,177,485 were from Mexico and 820,770 from Canada. The population of the US in 2000 was 250,314,015, so excluding neighboring countries, giving a non-neighboring-foreign-born population of 8.4%. And three: you paint Eastern Europe with a wide brush. Look even at the languages. Romanian is a Romance language, Hungarian is the most widely spoken non-Indo-European language in Europe, Czech is a Slavic language. And as to culturally homogeneity in general? English has a phrase to describe the patchwork of cultures in south-eastern Europe - "Balkanization." > Balkanization, or Balkanisation, is a geopolitical term, originally used to describe the process of fragmentation or division of a region or state into smaller regions or states that are often hostile or non-cooperative with each other. Have you perhaps forgotten the Yugoslavian wars? > The wars were complex: characterized by bitter ethnic conflicts among the peoples of the former Yugoslavia, mostly between Serbs (and to a lesser extent, Montenegrins) on the one side and Croats and Bosniaks (and to a lesser degree, Slovenes) on the other; but also between Bosniaks and Croats in Bosnia Your idea that there "seems to be a strong homogeneity in eastern europe" now is a complete denial of the observed facts.

guylhem 14y ago
Don't make any mistake - I'd love to be proven wrong, and you have great points. The eastern european countries I was referring to were the former communist countries now part of (or soon to be part of) Europe - to which the Czech republic belongs. Yugoslavia is not part of it, even if Slovenia could be considered as a edge case as it was part of Yugoslavia and is now part of the EU. The definition I proposed may look strange, but it's the best explicative variable I have for the situation in Europe - and you're right, it's quite shocking that the second generation should be considered foreign. It is shocking to me. Yet that's how european seems to think and self classify. If with the given definition the US has a "diversity" of less than 10%, while troubled european countries such as France do have a greater number, then maybe this definition is in fact explicative and predictive of the situation in Europe - except Yugoslavia, which I totally agree is a special example.