"Ask the Danes, and they will tell you that the Norwegians are the most insular and xenophobic of all the Scandinavians, and it is true that since they came into a bit of money in the 1970s the Norwegians have become increasingly Scrooge-like, hoarding their gold, fearful of outsiders."
I wish UK had a story of successful multiculturalism to tell.
True. And Norway's a sovereign country, free to introduce immigrants at a rate that works for them. The New York Times just featured an article about how Norway's immigration is creating ethnic ghettos.
I am a dane and I have never heard that prejudice before (xenophobia) about Norwegians and when comparing immigration numbers with Sweden remember that there are only about half as many Norwegians as swedes.
Not to mention that Sweden is having issues with it's high rate of immigration: increased crime in areas with concentrations of immigrants specifically.
All this does is show that human societies are big, complicated, and flawed, even the successful ones. And you can always cherry-pick statistics to point that out. I don't think anyone is under the illusion that Scandinavian countries are perfect, but it's quite true that they also have many statistics going in their favor and programs other countries can learn from.
Also, some of the statistics are questionable. Quoting ecological footprint and suicide rates without adjusting for climate? Not sound, but what do you expect from an article that just presents a random grab-bag of out of context statistics?
Look to me like dear Michael has been forming his view largely by asking assorted grumpy people for their personal opinions about people in their out-groups.
I want my four minutes back.
Yes, I think it's a bit tongue in cheek. There are few countries that compare to Scandinavia and Finland in terms of quality of life - Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Austria, Switzerland...nothing else really springs to mind.
The lesson here is... The US should discover a really, really, really large amount of oil?
I mean, I don't take Booth's takedown of the Nordic countries very seriously, but the reason that Norway is in such great shape financially is that they have an enormous amount of oil that they sell. It's not exactly a reproducible strategy for nation-building.
To put things in context. The oil industry is producing 20% of the total GDP of Norway and 50% of all exports. It's very important and it will be painful when it ends, but Norway will not be much worse than other European countries when the oil runs out.
The US holds ~$250 trillion in total assets in its economy.
Household wealth alone is now ~$80 trillion per the latest Fed numbers.
That private wealth is what the US Government's liabilities actually rest against. Whether we're talking using inflation to pay the bills, in which case what's actually happening is existing dollar denominated assets are being eaten to pay the bills, or direct taxation is used.
Apple alone is sitting on $142 billion in cash. Norway's sovereign fund, which is the big reference point, is ~$800 billion. I can probably put together a list of 50 US companies that together have that much cash (not total assets, just cash).
meh, while there are certain truths in what he says, it only paints a very small picture of Scandinavia. I mean which nation doesn't its faults? Uninteresting.
Woha, does this really qualify as journalism? It seems more like the author has been been holding a grudge and urgently needed to spew out all the things he doesn't like about Scandinavia. This coupled with a few backing quotes from natives. The short "description" of Iceland really tells the tale.
This kind of slanted view would present any country in a bad light.
> Why, asks one expert, does everybody think the Nordic region is a utopia?
Is this a satire? Expert of what exactly? According to his profile at the Guardian :
"Michael Booth is a freelance journalist and author of several books including Sushi and Beyond: One Family's Remarkable Journey Through the Greatest Food Nation on Earth."
Oh, well in that case...
On a less cheeky note, it's obvious that any claims of 'Utopia' (anywhere) are misguided - it's just hero worship in another form. That said - it's perfectly rational to examine positive aspects of another society without either deifying or demonizing it.
This article does no one any favors with its weird mixture of opinion and hyperbole.
There are also other points that are completely wrong:
> in September the rightwing, anti-Islamist Progress party – of which Breivik had been an active member for many years – won 16.3% of the vote in the general election, enough to elevate it into coalition government for the first time in its history.
Although I feel weird as a norwegian and voter of a different party to come to the defense of FRP, the party was founded in 1973 on reducing taxes and reducing the states influence on the economy. And this still seem to be their primary goal and was all they talked about during elections when I still lived in Norway.
I have seen the statement repeated by others more familiar with Swedish and Danish politics that FRP is a racist party, but at least historically that has not been their call-to-action and I have not seen anyone make a convincing argument that this has changed.
> I have seen the statement repeated by others more familiar with Swedish and Danish politics that FRP is a racist party
To put it in context of American politics, FRP is no more "racist" than the Republican party - which also regularly runs on an anti-immigration platform.
There are certainly protectionist, and xenophobic, elements in both - but it's dismissive, and simplistic, to claim that either is "racist". The issues are more complex than that.
I agree. As a Norwegian who have never considered voting for them, I have to say they are misunderstood. I think it all started when the Swedes thought they were similar to the Swedish "SD" party. That caused a lot of attention in the Norwegian and Swedish press that unfortunately were picked up by other countries as well.
Definitely very biased and highly inaccurate in several places. I particularly reacted to these negative statements regarding Norway:
"..in September the rightwing, anti-Islamist Progress party – of which Breivik had been an active member for many years – won 16.3% of the vote in the general election, enough to elevate it into coalition government for the first time in its history."
This is absolute fear-mongering and demonizing of a respected political party (disclaimer: I voted for them about 10 years ago).
It's correct that Fremskrittspartiet has been calling on stricter immigration laws, and it's correct that it's negative towards islamic fundamentalism and extremism (as are most of the other parties).
It's also correct that they've had party members with slightly more extreme opinions than what is considered mainstream. Internal problems can be attributed to almost any political party.
Although the article is right about many other aspects of Scandinavia, I felt that this had to be pointed out.
He has some good points, but it mostly just sounds like a pointless rant. And nitpicking every flaw with these nations just because he has gotten tired of the positivity surrounding their "success" comes off as just childish.
It was a fun read, even without being well supported. This is something that would have been more enjoyable if it were delivered in the back room of a quiet pub by a slightly more buzzed version of the author.
As an Icelander I cant say I agree with his description of us. Its like saying Brittain sucks because of Margeret Thatcher, without considering she was not the sole inhabitant of that country.
32 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 79.7 ms ] threadI wish UK had a story of successful multiculturalism to tell.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12371994
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/24/world/europe/anti-immigran...
Also, some of the statistics are questionable. Quoting ecological footprint and suicide rates without adjusting for climate? Not sound, but what do you expect from an article that just presents a random grab-bag of out of context statistics?
I mean, I don't take Booth's takedown of the Nordic countries very seriously, but the reason that Norway is in such great shape financially is that they have an enormous amount of oil that they sell. It's not exactly a reproducible strategy for nation-building.
For the record, I think the US economy is just fine, but I also think that things in scandinavia are A-O.K.
Household wealth alone is now ~$80 trillion per the latest Fed numbers.
That private wealth is what the US Government's liabilities actually rest against. Whether we're talking using inflation to pay the bills, in which case what's actually happening is existing dollar denominated assets are being eaten to pay the bills, or direct taxation is used.
Apple alone is sitting on $142 billion in cash. Norway's sovereign fund, which is the big reference point, is ~$800 billion. I can probably put together a list of 50 US companies that together have that much cash (not total assets, just cash).
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/Current/
http://www.businessinsider.com/america-is-not-drowning-in-de...
http://rutledgecapital.com/2009/05/24/total-assets-of-the-us...
This kind of slanted view would present any country in a bad light.
> Why, asks one expert, does everybody think the Nordic region is a utopia?
Is this a satire? Expert of what exactly? According to his profile at the Guardian :
"Michael Booth is a freelance journalist and author of several books including Sushi and Beyond: One Family's Remarkable Journey Through the Greatest Food Nation on Earth."
Oh, well in that case...
On a less cheeky note, it's obvious that any claims of 'Utopia' (anywhere) are misguided - it's just hero worship in another form. That said - it's perfectly rational to examine positive aspects of another society without either deifying or demonizing it.
This article does no one any favors with its weird mixture of opinion and hyperbole.
> in September the rightwing, anti-Islamist Progress party – of which Breivik had been an active member for many years – won 16.3% of the vote in the general election, enough to elevate it into coalition government for the first time in its history.
Although I feel weird as a norwegian and voter of a different party to come to the defense of FRP, the party was founded in 1973 on reducing taxes and reducing the states influence on the economy. And this still seem to be their primary goal and was all they talked about during elections when I still lived in Norway.
I have seen the statement repeated by others more familiar with Swedish and Danish politics that FRP is a racist party, but at least historically that has not been their call-to-action and I have not seen anyone make a convincing argument that this has changed.
To put it in context of American politics, FRP is no more "racist" than the Republican party - which also regularly runs on an anti-immigration platform.
There are certainly protectionist, and xenophobic, elements in both - but it's dismissive, and simplistic, to claim that either is "racist". The issues are more complex than that.
"..in September the rightwing, anti-Islamist Progress party – of which Breivik had been an active member for many years – won 16.3% of the vote in the general election, enough to elevate it into coalition government for the first time in its history."
This is absolute fear-mongering and demonizing of a respected political party (disclaimer: I voted for them about 10 years ago).
It's correct that Fremskrittspartiet has been calling on stricter immigration laws, and it's correct that it's negative towards islamic fundamentalism and extremism (as are most of the other parties).
It's also correct that they've had party members with slightly more extreme opinions than what is considered mainstream. Internal problems can be attributed to almost any political party.
Although the article is right about many other aspects of Scandinavia, I felt that this had to be pointed out.