The big government/big corp/big law collusion makes this almost impossible in the USA.
I would argue that it's impossible to do in the USA because the US is a very heterogenous culture whereas countries like Sweden are a very homogenous culture. Solidarity among people is much easier to achieve with individuals that have existing and reasonable bonds with each other.
It is not just a matter of being foreign born. The US is a very large country and different regions have markedly different cultures and societies with their own histories. Some of these regional cultures have a long history of not being able to cooperate, which is part of why the Federal government is often dysfunctional.
There is a tendency to treat the US as a homogeneous culture when it is far from it in practice. Despite a common language and currency, there is probably a greater cultural distance between e.g. the Pacific Northwest and deep South in the US than there is between many European countries. People identify with their regional culture, whether it is Southern, Cascadian (aka Pacific Northwest), New England, the Sagebrush (aka Mountain states), Midwest, or California.
This is laughable. I (surprisingly) see just as many regional differences within a single European country as in the US. For example, people from Gothenburg can't stand people from Stockholm, dialects and customs vary greatly. People very much identify with the region they're from. I'm from an island that historically had much German and Danish influence, hence it has it's own language (almost died out though) and very peculiar dialect. The island has its own customs, food even sports. Many people from the middle or north have trouble even understanding southerners, especially those with a rural dialect. The south also used to be part of Denmark for many hundreds of years which is partly why they have such a strange dialect. Sweden has its own indigenous people called Samer that live in the north, which have their own language. Sweden has a history spanning more than 1000 years, with vikings, invasions, kings and empire. Wherever you go in Europe, you'll see the same but EVEN MORE diverse. It seems you haven't really been to Europe much, or you wouldn't say something so hilariously wrong. On the other hand, I'm European, and have lived in 3 different US states and visited maybe 15. Whatever regional difference within the US that you are talking about is largely urban vs. rural, but the culture itself has become a blend of whoever immigrated, but there are only small remnants left of that. The US is largely a homogeneous country in my eyes, people move cross states here way more often than people do in Europe, because in Europe you'll get genuine culture shock, if you can even understand the language.
Your comment is derisive and not useful or appropriate. Not only do you mock the parent poster, but you don't provide any counter evidence besides a mixture of anecdotes and opinions.
I'm not the one making outrageous claims about there being bigger cultural differences between US states than between countries. It's just not true and it's laughable. I can't provide data on it because there is no way to measure such a thing. You can believe whatever you want, but I'm giving a counter-example and my experience from actually living in the two different continents. If you think that's derisive or not useful that's your problem.
I agree with your statement in reference to relative differences between cultures: "there is no way to measure such a thing."
I was wondering if you could expand on this part of your comment:
>>>I'm not the one making outrageous claims about there being bigger cultural differences between US states than between countries. It's just not true...
It seems like you are making a positive claim about the truth of the parent's statement about cultural differences.
>>>I can't provide data on it because there is no way to measure such a thing.
Now it seems like you are claiming that there is no (scientific, reality-based, data-driven) way to make any positive claims about the truth of the parent's statement about cultural differences.
Let me just make it clear that the reason I'm using this tone is that I've had this discussion way too many times, and not once has there been a single person agreeing with me. It seems Americans grow up in this extremely America centric bubble, where after hearing a slightly different accent in Boston, and maybe eating a local dish, feel safe to say "yeah, you know what? I bet Washington and Massachusetts are just as different as Norway is to Poland, cause I've just experienced these massive differences in my country". Sorry but it comes off as very naive coming from people who at most have spent 2 weeks on vacation in Paris once.
Americans underestimate how much more diverse and I mean EXTREMELY diverse Europe is. Even in tiny European countries with just 10 million people, the languages, dialects, traditions, mentality, civility, are insanely different. It's hard to described until you visit a few countries yourself.
Americans who have never left the country will be quick to chime in and say "we're diverse too, especially new york". But they still don't get it.
When you compare the North American continent with the European continent on diversity, you'd be a fool to underestimate Europe. Let me put it this way, America's a melting pot. Europe is a continent with hundreds of millions of people living side by side for thousands of years and they still don't get along, or speak the same lanugage, or see eye to eye on issues, they all have their own separate countries and governments and just recently tried to form a union (EU).
I'd endorse all of that. America isn't completely homogenous, but it's far more so than many other places. As a European I've certainly noticed (and been fascinated) by the different cultures and so forth in different US states, but they're more the same than they are different.
I don't think anyone said you were wrong. I'm certainly not. That doesn't make it called-for, does it? I'm not perfect at this, either, but if you're interested in a discussion rather than venting your spleen, you'll find more success if you tone it down.
I have come to realize that this is just a general psychological phenomenon. People tend to, if not overestimate the differences within their own group, then greatly underestimate the differences in outside groups.
> overestimate the differences within their own group, then greatly underestimate the differences in outside groups.
Like how all asians look the same.
The small differences you are used to distinguish between simply doesn't exist in the other group, and you are not trained to recognize the differences they see.
there is probably a greater cultural distance between e.g. the Pacific Northwest and deep South in the US than there is between many European countries.
This is a little overstated. Geography aside, there's a lot of similarity in the look, feel and culture of suburban USA no matter what part of the country it is. The big differences in the cultures in the USA are between the three or four largest cities and the rest of the country. There's also a handful of outlier areas like New Orleans or Honolulu that aren't really like anywhere else on the planet.
Having spent time in both cities I find Honolulu to be quite similar to Auckland in New Zealand. YMMV. If I had to come up with two unique American cities I would have gone for New Orleans and Las Vegas.
I'm not saying the US is homogeneous, I'm saying it's not all about immigration, it's about integration and assimilation as well.
"there is probably a greater cultural distance between e.g. the Pacific Northwest and deep South in the US than there is between many European countries" Right. Making a comparison to the countries in the Balkans is very interesting here.
If you've ever traveled across the country, you'd realize people in Seattle are much different than people in Phoenix who are much different than people in St Louis who are much different than people in Boston who are much different than people in Atlanta who are much different than people in Honolulu. You could easily the population of Kansas is as different from the population of California as Colombia is different than the population of Argentina, so I don't think "foreign-born" is a good metric for heterogeneity in the context of this question.
The point I infer from your post is only valid if all second-generation+ immigrants are fully assimilated into the country's majority culture. The existence of various racial and geographical cultures would go against this theory.
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.
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?
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.
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.
I think that's a very good point. When I was growing up in Norway, the 'others' were always far away. We were all so similar, in so many ways, it was very difficult to pit us against each other.
After 30-40 years of immigration, we're now much more heterogeneous and the solidarity and feeling of community is almost gone.
When I was growing up, we were taught in school that 'it must never happen again'. It's almost funny how violently people here cling to this understanding of WWII while at the same time seeming to accept all the 'this is who you should hate today' that the media here is peddling now.
A previously open and trusting society, experiencing real cultural clashes, mixed with misunderstandings and fear. This is unfortunately the perfect scenario for some real dark forces to appear, and I think it's not very long until it really goes off the rails here.
> This is unfortunately the perfect scenario for some real dark forces to appear
Well, they kind of did, and you handled it perfectly.
Anders Berivik killed 77 people (mosly kids). Compared proportionally to the population of the US, that would be 4822 people, a lot more than the 2977 victims of the 911 attack.
Yet Norway didn't start imprisoning people without trial, nor harass them at airports.
Not only is the US heterogenous, but that division is constantly being driven through the slave culture of the deep south that really never died.
So you have a large part of the country (13%) who are native-born, but are seen as the "other" but another large part of the country, and an institutional culture to keep this divide in place.
> I would argue that it's impossible to do in the USA because the US is a very heterogenous culture whereas countries like Sweden are a very homogenous culture. Solidarity among people is much easier to achieve with individuals that have existing and reasonable bonds with each other.
This is a really important point. Solidarity and diversity are on a spectrum in some fashion. If you are too other from the other, then both of you have a hard time relating and caring about the same things. I see this again and again in political threads: "others" arguing their POV, but the reality is that both of them simply have a terrifically minimal common ground.
I would argue that it's impossible to do in the USA because the US is a very heterogenous culture whereas countries like Sweden are a very homogenous culture. Solidarity among people is much easier to achieve with individuals that have existing and reasonable bonds with each other.