(edit title) Is Sweden an Apartheid State? De Facto and De jure any difference? Options

[Schomberg]

I see no signs here saying no Irish, no blacks, no dogs...ah ah?

just for the record, those signs never existed. made up shite by republicans to further their MOPE symdrome

[Blackman_for_Blondes]

We have revisionist in here, so Irish republicans went around the east of London putting up them signs then?...lol..you believe what you want

[Bender B Rodriquez]

so...basically, you're saying..it's like everywhere else? immigrants are always competing for low skilled work. we cant speak the language so unless you have a very pa ... (show full quote)

so...basically, you're saying..it's like everywhere else? immigrants are always competing for low skilled work. we cant speak the language so unless you have a very particular skill, you're going to be looking for jobs which are usually given to people connected to the particular company. either through family or friends. any place i worked for at home who had openings just told the factory workers and they always filled the job that way. ... (hide full quote)

Yes, but I would say that it is more prevalent in Sweden than in many other countries, especially the English speaking ones.

[superturbo]

You make many strong points. I agree with you that Sweden is not an apartheid state officially, however, we may disagree that unofficially it is. What you are saying about SFI ... (show full quote)

You make many strong points. I agree with you that Sweden is not an apartheid state officially, however, we may disagree that unofficially it is.

What you are saying about SFI is absolutely true...and SFI DOES NOT prepare immigrants for the job market. Immigrants that complete level D can only handle basic blue collar jobs. ... (hide full quote)

That's partly true, SFI teaches only basic Swedish and basic knowledge about the society. The rest is up to the student to find out on his/her own. There are several other alternatives to SFI when it comes to learn Swedish that probably are much better at it.

With your definition of an apartheid state you can probably blame most countries for being 'apartheid'...

[krigeren]

Lets break it down to a simple definition...

The aim of apartheid was to separate all the people of South Africa into small independent nations. But the National Party government did not want to spend a lot of money on this project. Also, they wanted to keep most of South Africa's land for white people. Especially the rich parts of the country, like the gold mines of Johannesburg. They also wanted black people to work in these mines for little money. But they did not want black men's families to live in the same area.

Then you are correct in some regards...Norway and Denmark even more Apartheid like states than Sweden.

The concept of the nation state...its antiquated.. The federalization of Europe and the free movement of labor help to further fragment the nation state conceptualization. If people think they have more to gain by holding onto their cultures at all costs and repelling other cultures other ways of thinking...than your nation is behind the times...because the trend of the world..is to be global..to be integrated as a planet. Nations that lead the way in this trend, those that are proactive, will gain from the benefit of a multi-cultural society which far outweighs any benefit from a largely homogeneous society. With a multi cultural society you bring forth more points of view, more knowledge, more possibilities. Too many people only focus on the negative aspects of it...they are the small minded ones.

Now, lets tackle your second point, it really makes no sense that after SFI the immigrant is "on their own" you have to stop looking at this as an individual immigrant and instead a plethora of immigrants...if SFI does not properly prepare immigrants for the workforce and their are high levels of unemployment amongst immigrants..then that is bad for Sweden as a whole and not just the immigrants in question. You have to think bigger, small minded thinking is counterproductive.

On the other hand, you might think the status quo is fine. High levels of unemployment here are fine..an insider and outsider culture are fine...you might think all of those things...and very well then you would be a part of the problem and not part of the solution. Come up with some real solutions that work instead of advice that is relatively useless.

[astrogenic]

The concept of the nation state...its antiquated.. The federalization of Europe and the free movement of labor help to further fragment the nation state conceptualization. If ... (show full quote)

The concept of the nation state...its antiquated.. The federalization of Europe and the free movement of labor help to further fragment the nation state conceptualization. If people think they have more to gain by holding onto their cultures at all costs and repelling other cultures other ways of thinking...than your nation is behind the times...because the trend of the world..is to be global..to be integrated as a planet. Nations that lead the way in this trend, those that are proactive, will gain from the benefit of a multi-cultural society which far outweighs any benefit from a largely homogeneous society. With a multi cultural society you bring forth more points of view, more knowledge, more possibilities. Too many people only focus on the negative aspects of it...they are the small minded ones.

Now, lets tackle your second point, it really makes no sense that after SFI the immigrant is "on their own" you have to stop looking at this as an individual immigrant and instead a plethora of immigrants...if SFI does not properly prepare immigrants for the workforce and their are high levels of unemployment amongst immigrants..then that is bad for Sweden as a whole and not just the immigrants in question. You have to think bigger, small minded thinking is counterproductive.

On the other hand, you might think the status quo is fine. High levels of unemployment here are fine..an insider and outsider culture are fine...you might think all of those things...and very well then you would be a part of the problem and not part of the solution. Come up with some real solutions that work instead of advice that is relatively useless. ... (hide full quote)

You above statements are full of inaccuracies and contradictions. Let me clarify a couple.

For example, you say that the notion of "nation state" is "antiquated", yet further down your comments, you say "Nations" that lead the way in this trend, those that are proactive, will gain from the benefit of a multi-cultural society which far outweighs any benefit from a largely homogeneous society."

So, who or what is this "nations" that you say will benefit from "multi cultural society", as you put it??? You say the idea of "nation" is "antiquated" on the one hand, and then say that "nation" will benefit, on the other? Your argument makes no sense.

Also, you say nations must accept the idea of "multi cultural society" where native population and immigrants work together for the benefit of each other. Yet, there are a large number of immigrants whose aim it is to keep their cultural identity and thus segregate themselves culturally from the mainstream society.

You cannot simply argue always for the natives to accept multi-cultural society, while say nothing at all of the need for those immigrants to learn and respect the cultural identity of natives as well.

Overall, your arguments are driven by subjective, rather than rational, motives that are incapable of being sensitive to the cultural, but also ecnomic, needs of BOTH immigrants and natives as well.

Without such sensitivities, and in the present times of heightened cultural conflicts and tensions, I consider your contributions to be highly dangerous.

[krigeren]

You above statements are full of inaccuracies and contradictions. Let me clarify few.For example, you say that the notion of "nation state" is "antiquated" ... (show full quote)

You above statements are full of inaccuracies and contradictions. Let me clarify few.

For example, you say that the notion of "nation state" is "antiquated", yet further down your comments, you say "Nations that lead the way in this trend, those that are proactive, will gain from the benefit of a multi-cultural society which far outweighs any benefit from a largely homogeneous society."

So, who or what is this "nations" that you say will benefit from "multi cultural society", as you put it??? You said "nation" is antiquated on the one hand, and then say that "nation" will benefit? Your argument makes no sense.

Also, you say nations must accept the idea of "multi cultural society" where native population and immigrates work together for the benefit of each other. Yet, there are a large number of immigrates whose aim it is to keep their cultural identity and thus
segregate themselves from the mainstream society.

You cannot simply argue always for the natives to accept multi-cultural society, while say nnothing at all for the need of immigrants to learn and respect the cultural identity of natives as well.

Overall, your arguments are driven by subjective, rather than rational, motives that are incapable of being sensitive to the cultural, but also ecnomic and political, needs of BOTH immigrats and natives as well. ... (hide full quote)

There is no contradiction. Not all nations are built under the nation state concept...one nation one people. Some nations have learned to adopt multiculturalism and benefited from it, the USA and Canada being two examples.

I think you have it completely bassackwards, I think the immigrant populations that arrive in a "nation state" style nation often do not integrate at a rate nearly as fast as those who find themselves in a multi-cultural nation such as The United States.

For example, in the US most immigrants fully integrate into the culture within a generation, sometimes even the first generation that arrives integrates in only a few years. That is the magic of a multi cultural society where integration is a world of broad possibilities for people, whereas when trying to integrate into the nation state with a homogeneous population, the immigrants path is much more narrow, limited, and often more so hampered and frustrating.

I don't know of many immigrants who don't make an honest effort to be productive in Swedish society. Right now I am trying to staff an engineer from Russia who is in his 50's. He has three kids and is a super hard worker and is brilliant. His weakness is languages however, given tasks and duties that are clear he would happily work all the time for a modest wage...I feel really bad for the guy because he has been used by others for praktik positions over and over with no real job at the end..I am determined to find this guy work...his only weakness is language..he should not suffer from it..hell the guy built oil pipelines in all conditions from the arctic to the desert...he deserves better than his lot in life now..he deserves the dignity of going home to his kids knowing he earned an honest wage for honest work.

PS...I see you added a highly dangerous part...Highly Dangerous for who?

Neither myself nor anyone I know is throwing rocks or causing riots. Its important to have a healthy discourse. Not all people may agree some may even despise what I am saying..however, I have the right to say these things..Further more, in times of conflict - either overt or covert conflict - the worst that can happen is for dialogue between people to cease.

[astrogenic]

There is no contradiction. Not all nations are built under the nation state concept...one nation one people. Some nations have learned to adopt multiculturalism and benefited ... (show full quote)

There is no contradiction. Not all nations are built under the nation state concept...one nation one people. Some nations have learned to adopt multiculturalism and benefited from it, the USA and Canada being two examples. ... (hide full quote)

I think you'll find that you got your definitions of "nation" and "nation state" wrong. When people say "nation", they mean "nation state". Therefore, your argument about "nation" idea is antiquated - in other words, you believe nation does not exist - is wrong. There are many people who still adhere to that ideal. Whether you think this ideal is right or wrong should not blind you from this fact.

There is another disturbing aspect to your argument, and that is that you are simply incapable of even attempting to take into considerations of the opinions, views and values of those who still want to adhere to the ideal of "a nation" - one nation, one people.

One of the most important task at hand is not to just reject the views and values of these "nationalists" out of hand. Such an approach will do nothing but to heighten already explosive cultural tensions and conflicts amongst natives and immigrants till all hell break loose - in other words, civil war.

You are an idealist. I can tell. But, don't let your idealist passion run away from "reality".

P.S.

I see you didn't understand why I called you "dangerous". The above is the reason.

[krigeren]

I think you'll find that you got your definitions of "nation" and "nation state" wrong. When people say "nation", they mean "nation stat ... (show full quote)

I think you'll find that you got your definitions of "nation" and "nation state" wrong. When people say "nation", they mean "nation state". Therefore, your argument about "nation" idea is antiquated - in other words, you believe nation does not exist - is wrong. There are many people who still adhere to that ideal. Whether you think this ideal is right or wrong should not blind you from this fact.

There is another disturbing aspect to your argument, and that is that you are simply incapable of even attempting to take into considerations of the opinions, views and values of those who still want to adhere to the ideal of "a nation" - one nation, one people.

One of the most important task at hand is not to just reject the views and values of these "nationalists" out of hand. Such an approach will do nothing but to heighten already explosive cultural conflicts amongst natives and immigrants till all hell break loose - in other words, civil war.

You are an idealist. I can tell. But, don't let your idealist passion run away from "reality".

P.S.

I see you didn't understand why I called you "dangerous". The above is the reason. ... (hide full quote)

I am more of a realist than you may contend. I would not try to press forward these same ideals in Norway or Denmark. Norway and Denmark have both mad choices to what kinds of countries they want to be. They want to stay nation states.


Sweden has let in massive amounts of immigrants, Sweden made a decision to enter the EU. I am not making these decisions the Swedish people have. The Swedish people decided these policies..I am not digging up dirt I am only looking at the clay in front of me and figuring out what best to make use of it for.

Sweden also has a very clear constitution...

Chapter 1 Article 2
(1) Public power shall be exercised with respect for the equal worth of all and for the freedom and dignity of the individual.
(2) The personal, economic and cultural welfare of the individual shall be fundamental aims of public activity. In particular, it shall be incumbent upon the public administration to secure the right to work, housing and education, and to promote social care and social security and a good living environment.
(3) The public administration shall promote the ideals of democracy as guidelines in all sectors of society. The public administration shall guarantee equal rights to men and women and protect the private and family lives of the individual.
(4) Opportunities should be promoted for ethnic, linguistic and religious minorities to preserve and develop a cultural and social life of their own.



Therefore, Sweden due the the combination's of high levels of immigration (20% of the population is foreign born or the child of two immigrant parents), Sweden's entry into the EU, and the rights afforded to all citizens; but specifically Chapter 1 Article 2 of the Constitution...

Well, in sum it gives immigrants a great opportunity to realize their own destiny in this country. The constitution provides an ample framework for immigrants to press forward their integration and success into the society by legal means if necessary.

It is very difficult to read Chapter 1, Article 2 of the Swedish constitution and say any thing other than that Sweden's true meaning of integration as provided for by the constitution is that of a multi-cultural society.

[Gustav- Fælbönnran]

Therefore, Sweden due the the combination's of high levels of immigration (20% of the population is foreign born or the child of two immigrant parents), Sweden's entry ... (show full quote)

Therefore, Sweden due the the combination's of high levels of immigration (20% of the population is foreign born or the child of two immigrant parents), Sweden's entry into the EU, and the rights afforded to all citizens; but specifically Chapter 1 Article 2 of the Constitution... ... (hide full quote)

The 20% number has to be seen in its proper demographic context. 20% of the total population is inclusive of the elderly Swedes, and those past reproductive years. When one spends time in Swedish schools, particularly urban schools, one starts to suspect that immigrants and children of immigrants are closer to 50% of young Swedes. We Swedes have a very low birth-rate, especially when compared to the birth-rate of some of our immigrant populations. We are the last generation of ethnic Swedes that will be in a majority here.

I am starting to wonder why we even bother teaching Swedish in school. If anything, it is a barrier to success in our globalised world. Teaching Swedish is a little bit like teaching Sami; it is desirable for ethnic Swedes and the Sami to maintain some connection with our cultures, but these languages have no future. Perhaps SFI should focus on English language instruction and job training. Or Chinese.

[krigeren]

If you could be in "god mode" within the realm of Sweden for a day and make sweeping changes...What are the top things you would do?

[astrogenic]

Sweden also has a very clear constitution...Chapter 1 Article 2(4) Opportunities should be promoted for ethnic, linguistic and religious minorities to preserve and develop a c ... (show full quote)

Sweden also has a very clear constitution...

Chapter 1 Article 2
(4) Opportunities should be promoted for ethnic, linguistic and religious minorities to preserve and develop a cultural and social life of their own.


Well, in sum it gives immigrants a great opportunity to realize their own destiny in this country. The constitution provides an ample framework for immigrants to press forward their integration and success into the society by legal means if necessary.

It is very difficult to read Chapter 1, Article 2 of the Swedish constitution and say any thing other than that Sweden's true meaning of integration as provided for by the constitution is that of a multi-cultural society. ... (hide full quote)

You seem to have forgotten the fact that democracy allows for change, and that's what good about it, and "the constitution" is of no exception.

Therefore, I still consider your opinions too dangerous.

[Gustav- Fælbönnran]

Stop global over-population.

From a Swedish perspective, we have always been open to people moving here from other countries. It has never been that big of an issue because it looked like we would maintain an essentially Swedish culture with a bunch of smaller cultural groups mixed in.

Now that the world's population is pushing 7 billion people, and rising steadily, we are coming to the realisation that Swedish culture is going to be a historical footnote soon.

It would probably bother me a lot more if I wasn't so heavily sedated.

[krigeren]

You seem to have forgotten the fact that democracy allows for change, and that's what good about it, and "the constitution" is of no exception.Therefore, I still ... (show full quote)

You seem to have forgotten the fact that democracy allows for change, and that's what good about it, and "the constitution" is of no exception.

Therefore, I still consider your opinions too dangerous. ... (hide full quote)

I really do not get where this "dangerous" line of thought is coming from?

In an earlier post you mentioned civil war?

Who would fight each other?

Swedes have not been to a war in a long time and when they did go to war they were really good at picking their battles generally...they sure as hell would not be dumb enough to fight on their own territory.

I don't know of any large cleavages of organized and violent immigrant groups. I know of organized immigrant groups and violent immigrant groups but generally they do not go hand in hand...yes, there are some gangs here, but the gangs here are really not very violent by any "gang violence standard". Gangs here may murder a civilian or two or pick someone off for the right price...but when met with any real resistance the gangs back down pretty quick...save the biker gangs who seem to have a pair.

Sorry to think out loud there in the last paragraph but I really don't see civil war in Sweden's future especially over my opinions or anyone elses opinions. Wars are generally started over actions.


Gustav...Sedated??? ;-)

[Gustav- Fælbönnran]

. Wars are generally started over actions.

Trowbridge and I are going to disagree with you about this assessment. The actions that appear to spark wars are nearly always engineered to provide a rallying cry.

When Hitler needed an excuse to invade Poland, he sent some German army troops across the border wearing Polish army uniforms to fire on German troops, so he could galvanise German public support for his war.

Wars are a product of power struggles between two (or more) empowered groups. The powerless almost never rise up, by the way. Usually the second most powerful group challenges the most powerful group, or the most powerful group senses the power of the second most powerful group and lashes out to pre-empt a power grab by their rival(s).

I agree that war is unlikely in Scandinavia, though. The future has already been determined, and there is no going back now.