[zaccus]

Not true. People have been migrating from place to place for all of recorded history. Cultural homogeneity is nothing more than a "good ole days" fallacy; it's never really been a thing anywhere, except in the most remote parts of the world.

[deogeo]

Look at the "Population by country of birth 1900-2016" graph for Sweden [1]. It is at ~100% in 1900, and ~82% in 2016.

The US went from 87.9% white in 1900, to 72.4% in 2010 [2]. Unfortunately, I couldn't find such demographic histories for other countries. But search for "US/Europe becoming more diverse", and you'll find countless articles, from mainstream publications, asserting this. So to claim otherwise is extremely fringe.

And there is mathematically no way for a place to be becoming more diverse, while keeping historically constant migration. If the migration hadn't changed in some way, then it would already be diverse. It also means that, if it's becoming more diverse, that it was less diverse, i.e. more homogeneous, in the past.

Looking at the present, China is 91.6% ethnically Han [3], and Hungary is 93.5% ethnically Hungarian [4]. So unless you think China or Hungary or US in 1900-1970 are "the most remote parts of the world", then no, homogeneity is provably not a fallacy.

So yes, "People have been migrating from place to place for all of recorded history", but both the rate and nature of this migration changed, and just a quick glance at the headlines of virtually any news source is enough to tell you this.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Sweden#History

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_State...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_China

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Hungary

[danharaj]

You realize civilization is older than 120 years right?