That link is a bunch of people talking on a forum, with no numbers or analysis. As a counter-example to your thesis, one of the comments in the link you posted to starts:

> I have spent much time in Sweden, mostly in Stockholm and the surrounding area. However, I have been to Malmö and I really like it. It has a grit about it that most other Swedish cities lack albeit being charming at the same time. Malmö is also a visibly mixed city and there are ethnic swedes and "new-swedes" alike, often in each others company. I found Malmö to be pleasant, refreshingly integrated ( despite the fact that there are parts of the city that are indeed segregated in Swedish standards), and nothing like these articles that I have been reading that are persuading the reader that Malmö is an ethnic mix-up disaster and the lead example of Sweden's cultural fate.

Good for him - then what most people say abpit And Biskopsgården/Hammarkullen/Angered or Rosengård or Rinkeby/Sundbyberg must be wrong too.

I left Europe. I was initialy from the french city where the jihadist killer short jewish schoolchildren - along with their professor. My mom still lives there. She was attacked twice these last 2 years.

Europe is full of hate and hatred - no wonder why guns are outlawed. It keeps some balance.

I pray and hope I will never ever again have to live there - ever.

"Europe is full of hate and hatred - no wonder why guns are outlawed. It keeps some balance"

I dunno, you've lived in a smallish city in France (a country known for not being particularly welcoming of foreign folks) and you're generalising your experience to a fucking huge continent. Frankly it sounds like something else has pissed you off and I'd be really interested to know what.

Personally I live in the Czech Republic, itself seen as being rather insular and apprensive about outsiders particularly in the less-visited regions (I live in Brno, a few hours from Prague). Hate and Hatred are in short supply here, curiousity and unfamiliarity yes but not hatred. Although I'm Scottish, in my local (completely non-English speaking, outside the centre) pub I'm fondly received and often a subject of interest, particularly with my Indian girlfriend. I reckon you should reconsider whether or not your experience is a weird anomaly or post something slightly more critical of a particular area rather than an entire continent.

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.

"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.

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.

Yes, "what they say" is often different than reality. That was my point. The given link is worthless as a way to confirm or even strengthen your thesis.

I was born and raised in Miami which, during the early 1980s, had the highest murder rate in the US. A cop was killed a few blocks from our home, and a car chase ended on the street in front of our house. During college, two of my roommates were mugged, and once someone tried to break in while I was asleep, and threatened me with a pistol. My house has been robbed twice since then.

So... What's your point? That violence from poverty or greed is somehow better than violence from hatred?

As someone from France you must surely know that there is a large diversity in Europe. The Nordic countries, up there in the corner and with no inter-country wars for many generations, have mostly escaped the deep antagonisms of mainland Europe. They have also managed to escape the guest-worker trap that France fell in, where native-born children of immigrant parents are denied citizen status.

Also, you haven't been keeping up with the US rhetoric. "It doesn't help to ban guns because a killer can always find another way to kill people."

It's not about poverty and greed. There is a large social support system in european countries. It's not about being denied citizen status - most of the people who get themselves in trouble have been born in France, and by jus sanguinis are french citizen with valid IDs and passport all. It's not even about 'race' - many people from visible minorities, in mainland France and mostly in oversea french departments are quite happy about who they are and how they live, and their culture.

There is something else- more pervasive. It's hard to express.

The best analysis I have is people like to classify themselves and others. For some reason, many people - especially in France - want to self identify as 'not the same as the local people' if given the chance, and this is reinforced by how most people see them and judge them.

I know about diversity - hell, I'm only partially french myself - I could want to do that.

Luck or fate didn't make me do that - I do not classify myself as anything. But I notice people are sorting themselves like booleans - 'french' or 'not', regardless of any other variable such as money, origins or citizenship status. Even people I've known for a long time and who would have no reason to. And I've seen the same thing happening in the neighbouring coutries.

It is not like the US - where for some reason, the heavy majority people born in the US from different countries and background become proud of being associated with the country and claim themselves as americans, and do not hate the other - at least not too much. Not as much as I've seen in Europe - replace 'french' / 'not french' and it seems to work the same way.

I currently live in a french oversea departement, where I'm the visible minority. >90% of the population is african american, but for some reason, it all goes well, there are not major trouble. People are proud of themselves and do not self classify as anything. There is a strong unemployment and poverty. There are factual reasons why, according to the theories I had (similar to yours: poverty, greed) there should be some serious trouble.

It's no paradise, but yet it goes well, there is a kind of unity. So I don't believe it is just about social issues.

It's as if the "homogeneity" played a positive role - as in, people can relate to eachother and don't feel threatned by eachother, a kind of trust in the social contract, enforced by this homogeneity, a positive reinforcement.

I'm not sure this is the right explanation. I'm still trying to understand - if only for my own good!

Something very different is happening in Europe at the moment. It's a bit scary. I could be wrong, but I sincerely believe something bad is going to happen there - clans are forming, clans of people who hate eachother.

I do not want to take side, or to be classified on any side at all. The reasonable way is not being there.

And BTW You're right, banning weapons do not work. People with enough hate will find clever ways around that - boxcutters or anything will do.

I'm talking about poverty and greed in the US. Poverty helps lead to petty crime (mugging and home robberies). Greed helps lead to the murders I mentioned (in Miami in the early 1980s, mostly due to the illegal drug trade).

In any case, I concur with smcl. You are incorrectly extrapolating your regional attitudes based on French culture to the entire continent. It does not much apply to Sweden, where I live, nor to what I understand about Norway and likely the other Nordic countries.

"People like to classify themselves and others". Yes. The US author Vonnegut even termed the phrase "granfalloon" for "a group of people who imagine they have a connection that does not really exist." This includes football fans, who self-identify, say, as Man U fans.

"Homogeneity" is different than "relate to each other and don't feel threatned by each other." Some of the bitterest rivals can be between different members of the same family. While Switzerland is surely an example of a successful non-homogenous country in Europe.

If that's the case, then why not argue that the ability to relate to each other and not feel threatened is the key? Homogeneity seems like a false and bland goal.

(Great example with soccer fans!)

Homogeneity is just a proxy - but if people can better relate to eachother if they look the same and/or believe in the same things, maybe it's a valuable proxy?

But you're right, the ability to relate to eachother is more important in the end - and some countries do better on this, even with less homogeneity.

I'd call that the "social contract" - I don't know if there is a better way to understand it.