This article really shattered some of my illusions about Norway being a progressive utopia.
The accounts of human rights abuses, imprisonment without trial, judicially condoned murders perpetrated by police, and their coverups and falsification of evidence were truly terrifying.
The section on Norway's ill-informed and close minded drug war seemed to mirror the United States, and was the very opposite of progressive.
On the other hand, the country's political and social egalitarianism (for those compliant enough or fortunate enough to escape being victims of the police) certainly seemed to be quite admirable in comparison to what I know about most other countries.
It would be interesting to find out how things have changed since the article was written.
What does progressive really mean? If you think drugs should be legalised then relaxed drug laws are progressive to you. But if you think drugs must be eliminated then maybe you would think that harsh drug laws are progressive towards that goal? I'm not really sure 'progressive' means anything then. Anyone except literal conservatives not wanting to change anything thinks that the changes they want to make are in order to make progress towards a better world.
On this side of the pond, liberal is associated with the right. European liberals are more like moderate republicans in US. Nowhere near european left.
Who is literal conservatives though? If they're the ones who want to keep status quo, then center-left would be current europe's conservatives. The traditional right-leaning conservatives would be kinda progressive at the moment..?
The accusation towards conservatives which want to change the status quo is usually that they're being reactionary -- usually trying to change society back to some idealized, mythical "golden age" that never actually existed, and to bring society back from the ashes of moral decay to some kind of ancient purity (of "blood", race, ethnicity, culture, or nationality).
The golden age may not have existed as a reality, it reflects old ideals that did exist -- especially for those of certain privileged classes, sexes, and races, and to the detriment of the rest. That's why they're opposed and called regressive or reactionary by progressives.
I'm sure conservatives would consider it "progress", but I doubt many of them would want to adopt the term "progressive" to their cause, as that term has an anti-conservative connotation. And certainly those who do label themselves "progressive" would not call that "progress" but "regress".
Also, it should be pointed out that the golden age that conservatives often refer to did not exist as they describe, but aspects of it did exist in a much seedier and painful form.
For instance, the golden age that some conservatives paint of the institution of slavery being a benefit to and desired by slaves -- that did not exist. But slavery and slaves did exist. Those conservatives that do favor slavery would have us go back to a slave-owning society, and would paint a rosy picture to convince those gullible or uneducated enough to think it would be a good idea, or to try to give themselves a fig leaf of respectability or deniability.
So it's just a label for leftists. Even if they are being conservative at the time.
Fun story. During the collapse of USSR, a local band wrote popular song that had a line saying "conservative idiots strangled us in wires". Later on, most of independence movement formed Conservatives party. As in, the word itself is party title. Song quickly dropped the "conservatives" word :)
Yeah it's kind of an empty word. As this article and many other observations show, everything is multifaceted. You have a culture like America which embraces the outliers at the top and elevates them often at the expense of the average person. Creatives and ambitious types are well regarded but the downside is big egos and self-absorption are chronic, along with disdain and lack of support for the poor, and these types often rise to power in government and private organizations. Or you can look at how "more equal" societies always have some element of "tall poppy syndrome," conservative cultural outlooks, conformity, blandness and bullying of those who dare to be different.
There is no perfect society as some personalities will thrive in the same society that another personality will despise. I have met Scandinavian entrepreneurs who truly feel in their element in the US and have no real desire to go home (look below the surface eventually and you'll find a bit of narcissism and ego there too) and I have met Scandinavian salarymen who are seek a regular comfortable family life and eagerly seek to return home.
Nah, it's not that bad, but the police do protect it's own like in every other country on earth. And the drug "war" is ill-informed. This might be because Norway has historically had a very strong temperance movement. Some towns were practically dry as late as in the 70s.
Part of the article's main points (particularly in part 2) is that alcoholism was rampant and yet tolerated or even ignored in Norway, and alcoholic debauches were widely encouraged and are an accepted and even lauded part of Norwegian culture:
"There are several acceptable forms of non-conformism for the future ruling citizens of the land, beginning with weeks of drunken school-leaving Bacchanalia called
'Russ' that doubtless sets the style for many persons' lifetime of periodic heavy drinking. A sad example to youth, a sadder comment on the level to which one must sink
at the height of one's youth if one is to be not just in the swim, but to be included or reckoned at all. This form of rites de passage, staying up as many nights as
one can to drink as much as one can, sets the pattern for the average well-adjusted citizen... persons who will have social alcohol dependencies for the rest of their
normal lives and many of whom will be periodic heavy drinkers. This supposedly intelligent form of behaviour proves manhood and womanhood in Norway, and it sets a kind
of standard for a larger percentage of the future adults than one would believe." (much more detail on this in part 2 of the article[1])
That doesn't sound very temperate to me.
Then there's use of nicotine, prescription drugs, caffeine. Perfectly legal, but the fist two could have quite serious negative effects on one's health or the health of others (often much worse than many illegal drugs), and the latter is usually taken for non-medical reasons -- reasons which are usually considered immoral if the substance in question is illegal.
I'm American and have been living in Norway a few years now. My spouse is Norwegian, and I read him this passage.
And he laughed, then commented that he believed that sort of drinking was somewhat specific to cultures in Norway, Sweden, and Finland - and likely at least some parts of Russia, though he didn't mention that bit. It is socially acceptable enough that my Norwegian language class bought our teachers bottles of wine for a gift. This stuff is generally balanced out with responsibility. Take care of your kids, don't hurt others, definitely don't drive even a little drunk - or be a passenger with someone that is.
And honestly, what the poster said was that there has been a traditionally strong temperance movement. It doesn't mean that the core of society follows this, simply that it has been strong. There was a period of complete prohibition alongside the one in the US. Like the US, it was used to control others. Currently, some of the outcomes are that bars are closed at 2am. You can only buy beer and cider under 5% alcohol content at grocery stores. Wine, strong beer, and spirits must be bought at the state-run liquor stores (there are more than 2 locations where I live, they have expanded). Vinmonopolet has short hours: 10am to 6pm during the week and 10-3 on Saturday. Grocery stores can sell until 8pm during the week, 6pm on Saturday, and no Sunday sales. In addition, alcohol is really expensive.
There's never been a real "war on drugs" in Norway. Yes, drugs are illegal, but penalties are almost non-existent by US standards.
It's true that Norway had a strong temperance movement. I lived for a while in one of the last municipalities that still had a beer monopoly (Sula), it was removed with referendum when I lived there. Storeowners were actually divided on the issue, many of them didn't especially want to start selling alcohol. But the temperance movements have not lobbied for harsher penalties for drug use or possession.
I'm an immigrant in Norway. American, not British: I'm married to a Norwegian. As part of my experience, I got to take a couple years of language courses and civics (important stuff).
And the human rights abuses? Yep. Learned about them in the classes (they include some culture stuff in the language courses). So many different things in different times. But so much has changed as well, and progressive on other fronts for sure. I don't hear of imprisonment without trial happening today or things on that front. The police don't generally carry weapons, either. Most times they'll do their jobs and go on. I'm pretty happy in a fairly 'alternative' crowd (I personally have blue hair), and the stories are mild compared to the stuff I'd hear in the states. There are some bad ones, sure, but that happens most places. I'm much less apprehensive about police than I ever was in the US.
I'd say that some of the hardest part is some racial tension to a point. It isn't really the same sort of institutionalized stuff like it was in the US because it is socially unacceptable. For example, the King gave an absolutely inclusive speech a couple weeks ago, which can be seen with English subtitles here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQtLxYde-rw
At one time, Norway's drug war did mirror the US. Some of it today is much better, however. Drug treatment is covered by the state health care, for example, and time off work for that is standard instead of firings. From what I understand, hashish and pot get fines for most folks unless you are dealing. Prison sentences aren't nearly as long.
Could you elaborate some on that from an American perspective in contemporary Norway? The article comes mostly from a British one, where issues of class are quite different than in America, from what I understand. It would be cool to know how an American sees it now.
For me, there are a few things that sort it out. I'm in my late 30's, and have been here for a bit over 3 years.
I find less distinction between poor and rich folks. In the US, if you got below a certain money threshold, your life could be pretty miserable, while here there is a push to make sure everyone has internet and computers and cell phones - and these are the folks on complete public assistance. Even conversations about work are different. It is like I'm less defined by a job (though some are viewed as 'better' than others).
Health care is a lot more viewed as a basic human right. There is national healthcare, with its pros and cons, and a network of private places as well.
Schooling is basically free, including university level. They seem unversally good - as in, the royal family sent their children to a public school until a year or two ago. I'd nearly expect their children to go to private school if only for security reasons. Private schools must teach to the same standards as public ones, including sex education and such. Rich and poor can both access the same levels of education in country.
Families in the US are still pretty 'traditional' in the way the chores and such things are split up. In addition, a lot of financial circumstances dictate how you take care of children. I got out here and see a fairly equal number of men and women alone with kids or carrying kids. And it seems to extend to homes as well. Still some traditionalism, of course, it just plays out differently.
I have blue hair. This does not make me un-hireable any longer, and though I get a few funny looks and occasional avoidance, most folks are just nice and treat me no different. Some of this is because I'm in one of the few 'large' cities - maybe 200k people.
Police aren't so much a special class of people like in the US. I mean, sure, they are police and all. So naturally there will be tension points and looking after each other and stuff, but not quite like the US. Some one could tell the cops to "Fuck off" without fearing getting arrested so long as theyve done nothing wrong (not recommended in general, though).
And I both feel like I haven't described it all but yet have went on and on. But I'll leave it nonetheless since it is after 3am and I'm starting to get sleepy.
Historical material is warmly welcomed here, and some of the best posts we see. Interesting historical material that hasn't appeared on HN before is particularly great.
We've added 1986 to the title, although the author says he updated the article in 2015.
While the document may be labeled 1986, much of what he described was from the 50s-70s. And quite a bit of it is no longer valid, thanks to changes pushed both from above and below.
Hopefully people will take the age of the writing into consideration. As someone who has learned about Norway over the past several years, it was very interesting to read this account.
That was fairly obvious to me upon reading. I've learned enough of the history to be able to place some of the events. It is very true that a lot is no longer valid, but it is still interesting to read how some of the stuff has changed and how that sort of thing shaped the author's impression of living here.
I'm Norwegian and I find this to be a fascinating read. I don't want to comment on the content until I've read it all the way through. I just wanted to say that I would love for this to be a live document, kept up to date on a platform like GitHub. I wish I could see what those 2015 changes were. And it'd be even more amazing if you did another revision in 2035.
that goes in to a lot of detail on other aspects of Norwegian society as the author saw it.
I'd love to hear your reaction and that of other Norwegians. How accurate or fair is the depiction? How does your perspective differ? Would you have anything to add?
I'm not Norwegian, but I would be surprised if this was really a fair description. The author appears to be making an implicit comparison, where things are well if they are as in GB. Of course, there is no claim of objectivity.
Yeah, I tend to agree about the lack of fairness or objectivity, especially in part 2 (which I'm still making my own way through right now). The author really lashes out there, sometimes without very much justification. It almost sounds in parts like he's still undergoing culture shock. At the very least, the author is very opinionated. It does make for some interesting reading, but makes me skeptical of some of the conclusions and it would be nice to get a 2nd or 3rd opinion.
Example:
"At the personal level, the inferiority that seems to lie deep in the psyche makes itself known in all kinds of little ways. 'What made you come to Norway?', ask many
people... certainly hoping for a positive comment on their country and culture."
Asking what made one move to one's country is supposed to be a sign of having an inferiority-complex or begging for a compliment? Come on. There could be any number of reasons for asking that, ranging from simple politeness, to making small talk, not being able to think of anything else to ask, or amazingly enough: being genuinely interested in the answer or in the person its being asked of.
I'm always interested in seeing the world through other people's eyes, and that's one of the main reasons I ask people for their impressions.
> "At the personal level, the inferiority that seems to lie deep in the psyche makes itself known in all kinds of little ways. 'What made you come to Norway?', ask many people... certainly hoping for a positive comment on their country and culture."
Can confirm this is actually very accurate. Inferiority-complex is indeed a thing in Norway.
I'm an immigrant here and get asked, "what made you come to Norway?" Quite often. I don't view it as negatively as the author.
Most Norwegians seem genuinely proud of the country, but at the same time, realize that it is difficult at times, the climate is rough, it is expensive, and other such things. It is comparatively small. And as such, folks get curious about stories. It is easy small talk and more interesting than talking about the weather. Occasionally some folks get asked this in a nearly racist way: But racism isn't unique to Norway, and not sure that the racism of the US is better.
I do, in a way, understand where the author is coming from. Some immigrants are really miserable here or struggle with the society. Mileage varies, I guess, according to personal temperament and beliefs. I rather enjoy life here for the most part - even as I'm in the alternative crowd the author says has a rough time - so I'm probably more prone to positive reviews.
I'm a Norwegian (born mid '80s) and feel like this is a rare window into my country's past. A lot of what I have learned at school and trough other typical sources has never been able to give me a neutral and observing perspective.
Remember, the young people of today (below 30y) has only experienced the oil-fueled side of Norway, and a rapidly increasing globalized version of our culture.
Most recent immigrants only know the oil-fueled side of Norway, actually. I'm one of those, and found this reading absolutely fascinating. I'm probably also somewhat lucky - my Norwegian mother in law and extended family fill me in on some history. I did speaking practice in a nursing home, and learned quite a bit from some of the residents, and had a few language teachers that taught a broader view of Norwegian history in class alongside language.
I read some passages to my spouse (Norwegian) and he found some parts outright funny, though he agreed with some as well.. though, our perspective probably is slightly different as we are from the previous decade.
It's quite interesting. I've read some Bjørneboe, and I already knew about the case this author refers to (where a young delinquent was choked to death by a drunk off-duty policeman, and avoided conviction), so I knew these things used to be a lot worse. I guess the establishment of SEFO in 1988 helped quite a bit. Still it's kind of surprising to see Norway described as having a huge blue code/police brutality problem.
Yeah it may have some interest as a historical account. But should i no way, as seems to be the case with some commenters here, taken as any indication as to how the nation is today.
Interesting to see reactions to my old article (mostly composed for the 'Ragtime' magazine). It has not been up-dated radically, that is - by writing about changes in Norway since then. Just a few corrections and changes made last year. I wanted to provide a kind of 'second opinion' for Norwegians and inform foreign visitors of matters into which no tourist brochure or book would ever write about.
As to my writing about "the inferiority that seems to lie deep in the psyche", events have shown that this is no longer the case, so it was not so deep. However, in the 1960s there were many signs that this was so, since Norway was hardly on the map in the was it is today. Outside Scandinavia, the vast majority of people who knew anything about Norway was that it was the home of Thor Heyerdahl and Kon Tiki. Trygve Lie (UN Secretary General) was known, but few apparently knew he was Norwegian. The more educated (who were a minority both in Norway and UK too) may have read Hamsun, heard Grieg, heard about Ibsen... but little else. Munch was not known abroad except to well-informed art enthusiasts. Many persons expressed surprise that I was interested in their country enough to settle here, and there was a definite sense that they were often struggling with a sense of international neglect because the culture was not rich in variation, not up-to-date technologically or in social liberality. I often heard the phrase 'potet Norge', not least from those who disdained their government and all the restrictive cultural and social mores.
On the other hand, I found much fresh and positive from my viewpoint... as is often so before one becomes too knowledgeable and used to a culture.
Nowadays - with widespread international travel, influx of foreign culture (especially TV), and more lately the Internet many of those restrictions have been blown away, of course, but changing the mentality was a longish and laborious process. Unfortunately, some values have been lost...
36 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 80.3 ms ] threadThe accounts of human rights abuses, imprisonment without trial, judicially condoned murders perpetrated by police, and their coverups and falsification of evidence were truly terrifying.
The section on Norway's ill-informed and close minded drug war seemed to mirror the United States, and was the very opposite of progressive.
On the other hand, the country's political and social egalitarianism (for those compliant enough or fortunate enough to escape being victims of the police) certainly seemed to be quite admirable in comparison to what I know about most other countries.
It would be interesting to find out how things have changed since the article was written.
Somewhat like people say far right and mean nationalsocialists.
I'm sure conservatives would consider it "progress", but I doubt many of them would want to adopt the term "progressive" to their cause, as that term has an anti-conservative connotation. And certainly those who do label themselves "progressive" would not call that "progress" but "regress".
Also, it should be pointed out that the golden age that conservatives often refer to did not exist as they describe, but aspects of it did exist in a much seedier and painful form.
For instance, the golden age that some conservatives paint of the institution of slavery being a benefit to and desired by slaves -- that did not exist. But slavery and slaves did exist. Those conservatives that do favor slavery would have us go back to a slave-owning society, and would paint a rosy picture to convince those gullible or uneducated enough to think it would be a good idea, or to try to give themselves a fig leaf of respectability or deniability.
Fun story. During the collapse of USSR, a local band wrote popular song that had a line saying "conservative idiots strangled us in wires". Later on, most of independence movement formed Conservatives party. As in, the word itself is party title. Song quickly dropped the "conservatives" word :)
There is no perfect society as some personalities will thrive in the same society that another personality will despise. I have met Scandinavian entrepreneurs who truly feel in their element in the US and have no real desire to go home (look below the surface eventually and you'll find a bit of narcissism and ego there too) and I have met Scandinavian salarymen who are seek a regular comfortable family life and eagerly seek to return home.
"There are several acceptable forms of non-conformism for the future ruling citizens of the land, beginning with weeks of drunken school-leaving Bacchanalia called 'Russ' that doubtless sets the style for many persons' lifetime of periodic heavy drinking. A sad example to youth, a sadder comment on the level to which one must sink at the height of one's youth if one is to be not just in the swim, but to be included or reckoned at all. This form of rites de passage, staying up as many nights as one can to drink as much as one can, sets the pattern for the average well-adjusted citizen... persons who will have social alcohol dependencies for the rest of their normal lives and many of whom will be periodic heavy drinkers. This supposedly intelligent form of behaviour proves manhood and womanhood in Norway, and it sets a kind of standard for a larger percentage of the future adults than one would believe." (much more detail on this in part 2 of the article[1])
That doesn't sound very temperate to me.
Then there's use of nicotine, prescription drugs, caffeine. Perfectly legal, but the fist two could have quite serious negative effects on one's health or the health of others (often much worse than many illegal drugs), and the latter is usually taken for non-medical reasons -- reasons which are usually considered immoral if the substance in question is illegal.
[1] - http://www.robertpriddy.com/Nos/Nor2.html
And he laughed, then commented that he believed that sort of drinking was somewhat specific to cultures in Norway, Sweden, and Finland - and likely at least some parts of Russia, though he didn't mention that bit. It is socially acceptable enough that my Norwegian language class bought our teachers bottles of wine for a gift. This stuff is generally balanced out with responsibility. Take care of your kids, don't hurt others, definitely don't drive even a little drunk - or be a passenger with someone that is.
And honestly, what the poster said was that there has been a traditionally strong temperance movement. It doesn't mean that the core of society follows this, simply that it has been strong. There was a period of complete prohibition alongside the one in the US. Like the US, it was used to control others. Currently, some of the outcomes are that bars are closed at 2am. You can only buy beer and cider under 5% alcohol content at grocery stores. Wine, strong beer, and spirits must be bought at the state-run liquor stores (there are more than 2 locations where I live, they have expanded). Vinmonopolet has short hours: 10am to 6pm during the week and 10-3 on Saturday. Grocery stores can sell until 8pm during the week, 6pm on Saturday, and no Sunday sales. In addition, alcohol is really expensive.
It's true that Norway had a strong temperance movement. I lived for a while in one of the last municipalities that still had a beer monopoly (Sula), it was removed with referendum when I lived there. Storeowners were actually divided on the issue, many of them didn't especially want to start selling alcohol. But the temperance movements have not lobbied for harsher penalties for drug use or possession.
And the human rights abuses? Yep. Learned about them in the classes (they include some culture stuff in the language courses). So many different things in different times. But so much has changed as well, and progressive on other fronts for sure. I don't hear of imprisonment without trial happening today or things on that front. The police don't generally carry weapons, either. Most times they'll do their jobs and go on. I'm pretty happy in a fairly 'alternative' crowd (I personally have blue hair), and the stories are mild compared to the stuff I'd hear in the states. There are some bad ones, sure, but that happens most places. I'm much less apprehensive about police than I ever was in the US.
I'd say that some of the hardest part is some racial tension to a point. It isn't really the same sort of institutionalized stuff like it was in the US because it is socially unacceptable. For example, the King gave an absolutely inclusive speech a couple weeks ago, which can be seen with English subtitles here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQtLxYde-rw
At one time, Norway's drug war did mirror the US. Some of it today is much better, however. Drug treatment is covered by the state health care, for example, and time off work for that is standard instead of firings. From what I understand, hashish and pot get fines for most folks unless you are dealing. Prison sentences aren't nearly as long.
I rather enjoy the social egalitarianism bit.
Could you elaborate some on that from an American perspective in contemporary Norway? The article comes mostly from a British one, where issues of class are quite different than in America, from what I understand. It would be cool to know how an American sees it now.
I find less distinction between poor and rich folks. In the US, if you got below a certain money threshold, your life could be pretty miserable, while here there is a push to make sure everyone has internet and computers and cell phones - and these are the folks on complete public assistance. Even conversations about work are different. It is like I'm less defined by a job (though some are viewed as 'better' than others).
Health care is a lot more viewed as a basic human right. There is national healthcare, with its pros and cons, and a network of private places as well.
Schooling is basically free, including university level. They seem unversally good - as in, the royal family sent their children to a public school until a year or two ago. I'd nearly expect their children to go to private school if only for security reasons. Private schools must teach to the same standards as public ones, including sex education and such. Rich and poor can both access the same levels of education in country.
Families in the US are still pretty 'traditional' in the way the chores and such things are split up. In addition, a lot of financial circumstances dictate how you take care of children. I got out here and see a fairly equal number of men and women alone with kids or carrying kids. And it seems to extend to homes as well. Still some traditionalism, of course, it just plays out differently.
I have blue hair. This does not make me un-hireable any longer, and though I get a few funny looks and occasional avoidance, most folks are just nice and treat me no different. Some of this is because I'm in one of the few 'large' cities - maybe 200k people.
Police aren't so much a special class of people like in the US. I mean, sure, they are police and all. So naturally there will be tension points and looking after each other and stuff, but not quite like the US. Some one could tell the cops to "Fuck off" without fearing getting arrested so long as theyve done nothing wrong (not recommended in general, though).
And I both feel like I haven't described it all but yet have went on and on. But I'll leave it nonetheless since it is after 3am and I'm starting to get sleepy.
We've added 1986 to the title, although the author says he updated the article in 2015.
http://www.robertpriddy.com/Nos/Nor2.html
that goes in to a lot of detail on other aspects of Norwegian society as the author saw it.
I'd love to hear your reaction and that of other Norwegians. How accurate or fair is the depiction? How does your perspective differ? Would you have anything to add?
Example:
"At the personal level, the inferiority that seems to lie deep in the psyche makes itself known in all kinds of little ways. 'What made you come to Norway?', ask many people... certainly hoping for a positive comment on their country and culture."
Asking what made one move to one's country is supposed to be a sign of having an inferiority-complex or begging for a compliment? Come on. There could be any number of reasons for asking that, ranging from simple politeness, to making small talk, not being able to think of anything else to ask, or amazingly enough: being genuinely interested in the answer or in the person its being asked of.
I'm always interested in seeing the world through other people's eyes, and that's one of the main reasons I ask people for their impressions.
Can confirm this is actually very accurate. Inferiority-complex is indeed a thing in Norway.
Most Norwegians seem genuinely proud of the country, but at the same time, realize that it is difficult at times, the climate is rough, it is expensive, and other such things. It is comparatively small. And as such, folks get curious about stories. It is easy small talk and more interesting than talking about the weather. Occasionally some folks get asked this in a nearly racist way: But racism isn't unique to Norway, and not sure that the racism of the US is better.
I do, in a way, understand where the author is coming from. Some immigrants are really miserable here or struggle with the society. Mileage varies, I guess, according to personal temperament and beliefs. I rather enjoy life here for the most part - even as I'm in the alternative crowd the author says has a rough time - so I'm probably more prone to positive reviews.
Remember, the young people of today (below 30y) has only experienced the oil-fueled side of Norway, and a rapidly increasing globalized version of our culture.
I have not read everything yet, but sure will!
I read some passages to my spouse (Norwegian) and he found some parts outright funny, though he agreed with some as well.. though, our perspective probably is slightly different as we are from the previous decade.
It was the first HTML tool I tried. You may have better results with another tool.
As to my writing about "the inferiority that seems to lie deep in the psyche", events have shown that this is no longer the case, so it was not so deep. However, in the 1960s there were many signs that this was so, since Norway was hardly on the map in the was it is today. Outside Scandinavia, the vast majority of people who knew anything about Norway was that it was the home of Thor Heyerdahl and Kon Tiki. Trygve Lie (UN Secretary General) was known, but few apparently knew he was Norwegian. The more educated (who were a minority both in Norway and UK too) may have read Hamsun, heard Grieg, heard about Ibsen... but little else. Munch was not known abroad except to well-informed art enthusiasts. Many persons expressed surprise that I was interested in their country enough to settle here, and there was a definite sense that they were often struggling with a sense of international neglect because the culture was not rich in variation, not up-to-date technologically or in social liberality. I often heard the phrase 'potet Norge', not least from those who disdained their government and all the restrictive cultural and social mores. On the other hand, I found much fresh and positive from my viewpoint... as is often so before one becomes too knowledgeable and used to a culture. Nowadays - with widespread international travel, influx of foreign culture (especially TV), and more lately the Internet many of those restrictions have been blown away, of course, but changing the mentality was a longish and laborious process. Unfortunately, some values have been lost...