Dark lands: the grim truth behind the 'Scandinavian miracle'

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?

"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.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12371994

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.

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.

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.

This article is deeply flawed.

> 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.

If Scandinavia is the "Dark Land" then the British model of society can only be called the "Black Hole".

Meanwhile, Norway has 1MM per capita in assets. Their net debt as a percent of GDP is -165% while the US is +88%

Add to this the fact that Greenland is the suicide capital of the world (most suicides per capita).

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.

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.

Satire? ... not very witty.

What a nice take-down.