Frustration over Swedish politics

[Deleted]

A lack of long history that correlates with a specific identity probably plays a significant role.

I agree, but i dont think it is the major influencing factor.

Endus gave the answer in his reply which i will elaborate...


In a country abundance with space and resources and welfare, there is little multi cultural tension, because there is little tension PERIOD.


You could literally throw ANYBODY in Canada and society would work.



Why does it fail in England then?


For literally the opposite reasons...

There is little space, little resources and little welfare (in terms of disposable income), therfore there is lots of multicultural tension because there is tension PERIOD.

You could literally throw anybody in England and society will continue to worsen.


Multicultural tension derives from the same place tension derives...

Lack of space and resource available per capita.

[Kurioxan]

And to add, there's no such thing as a homogenous society. All countries have exchanged cultures and technology since the time countries started to exist.

Exchanging technology has nothing to do with anything O_o, and the culture was done in slow amounts at a time in contained groups - merchant classes that traveled and brought aspects of the culture with them that they themselves considered good, leaving the negative/clashing aspects behind, and was done over long periods of time.

This is an entirely different picture from the current sudden clash of cultures that have very different values and subtle actions/reactions and is seen as alien, sometimes "wrong" by host nations.
Not to mention that a lot of the people immigrating are running away from a hellish life, most with no education or equal moral notions and at a very different cultural level.
They require proper management from the governments side, which there isn't sadly, they just throw them out there. Doesnt...work very well, regardless of native population being racist or not, which in all honesty, most arent.

[Deleted]

Tell me again about how North Korea is performing better in their homogeneity than the United States and their melting-pot diversity.

North Korea?.
Really?.
you are saying that the definition of a communist dictatorship, does badly?.
Are you for real?.

Anyway, a homogeneous society has on average, a greater trust in your fellow man, a greater trust in the state, and less internal tensions.
Think Germany, or Sweden.
A heterogeneous society is for all intents and purposes generally not natural, think Syria.
Sunni and Shia don't like each other.
or think virtually any African state, they tend to have troubles here.

Now for the US, One, its melting pot thing is largely BS, they havent melted together.
And more importantly, the US, and to a degree canada, are founded on an IDEA(s), not you know, a Sociocultural subgroup (although, Wasp is not exactly without influence).
they are largely not comparable, but do more importantly share several of the key traits, about less trust and larger internal tensions.

- - - Updated - - -

Tolerance and understanding as a central national ethic
Strong social welfare platform that prevents undue hardship for those most vulnerable

Those are the big ones. Canada hasn't done a perfect job; our treatment of First Nations has been pretty broadly terrible, but that's a blemish on an otherwise fairly positive record. And that failure with regards to our First Nations peoples has, for the most part, led to their communities being riddled by exactly the kinds of increased crime rates I mentioned.

to an overwhelming degree only letting in people to work there, you know, Cheating.

In 2010, Canada accepted 280,681 immigrants (permanent and temporary) of which 186,913 (67%) were Economic immigrants;

only 67% came with absolutely no need, i mean that's almost not any large number at all.
also interestingly, at 250k /35, million Sweden only takes in 100k /9 mill, only takes in about 40% more immigrants, per capita, than Canada.

[Deleted]

Vote others into power then.

[Endus]

North Korea?.
Really?.
you are saying that the definition of a communist dictatorship, does badly?.
Are you for real?.

The person I was responding to was arguing that homogeneity within a nation was what established it as a success, rather than other factors. I was pointing out how ridiculous that is. If it were true, then the DPRK would be at least somewhat successful.

It isn't, because the idea that homogeneity is an advantage is complete and utter bullhockey.

Anyway, a homogeneous society has on average, a greater trust in your fellow man, a greater trust in the state, and less internal tensions.
Think Germany, or Sweden.
A heterogeneous society is for all intents and purposes generally not natural, think Syria.

Syria is roughly 90% Arab, and about another 9% Kurd. Who are closely enough related, in terms of ethnic background, that it's like the difference between, say, Norwegians and the French.

That is incredibly homogenous.

And significantly less homogenous than either Sweden or Germany. And that's when I just compare the difference to visible minorities in those nations, since if I included other European immigrants, under the same justifications that would apply in separating Syrian Arabs and Kurds, it would be even more weighted against you.

Your own examples directly contradict you.

to an overwhelming degree only letting in people to work there, you know, Cheating.

That's an outright lie. Canada has taken in more refugees per capita than either the UK or the USA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...gee_population

Sort the list by "natives per refugee", which is the per-capita ranking. Canada has taken in one refugee for every 203 citizens. The UK has taken in one for every 333 citizens, and the USA only one for every 1206 citizens.

Again, the evidence speaks directly against your claims.

[Deleted]

The person I was responding to was arguing that homogeneity within a nation was what established it as a success, rather than other factors. I was pointing out how ridiculous that is. If it were true, then the DPRK would be at least somewhat successful.

It isn't, because the idea that homogeneity is an advantage is complete and utter bullhockey.



Syria is roughly 90% Arab, and about another 9% Kurd. Who are closely enough related, in terms of ethnic background, that it's like the difference between, say, Norwegians and the French.

That is incredibly homogenous.

And significantly less homogenous than either Sweden or Germany. And that's when I just compare the difference to visible minorities in those nations, since if I included other European immigrants, under the same justifications that would apply in separating Syrian Arabs and Kurds, it would be even more weighted against you.

Your own examples directly contradict you.



That's an outright lie. Canada has taken in more refugees per capita than either the UK or the USA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...gee_population

Sort the list by "natives per refugee", which is the per-capita ranking. Canada has taken in one refugee for every 203 citizens. The UK has taken in one for every 333 citizens, and the USA only one for every 1206 citizens.

Again, the evidence speaks directly against your claims.

Actually he's right.

Canada only accpts useful people, and has extremely high standards of who gets in.


http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigra...plications.asp


Do you know what the standards are to get in to the UK?

Nothing.


All you need to be is an EU citizen.


Canada might not be racist, but they sure do not welcome everybody.

The UK is forced by Brussels to welcome everybody with no choice in the matter.


I might not use the word "cheats", but Canada sure is close to it, and doesn't really hold a moral right to criticise others in my opinion.

[Deleted]

It isn't, because the idea that homogeneity is an advantage is complete and utter bullhockey.

except its not.
sufficient to save you from a dictatorial hell-hole? no.

Syria is roughly 90% Arab, and about another 9% Kurd. Who are closely enough related, in terms of ethnic background, that it's like the difference between, say, Norwegians and the French.

yeah, Sunni and Shias don't hate each other.
Nope, no hatred going back a thousand years, no.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...o-complicated/

That is incredibly homogenous.

ignoring most of the picture here man.

Your own examples directly contradict you.

no.

That's an outright lie. Canada has taken in more refugees per capita than either the UK or the USA.

Yeah, because Sweden is a part of the US or the UK, oh wait, no it isn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...gee_population
yeah, and Sweden had a better position here.

31 Sweden 9,292,359 86,615 107

17 Canada 33,476,688 164,883 203

the later number is refugee/native, and unless i am mistaken 107 is smaller than 203.

Sort the list by "natives per refugee", which is the per-capita ranking. Canada has taken in one refugee for every 203 citizens. The UK has taken in one for every 333 citizens, and the USA only one for every 1206 citizens.

See you knew that.

Again, the evidence speaks directly against your claims.

No, it doesn't.

[Deleted]

Canadian immigration laws clearly discriminate against the un-educated poor.


In my opinion, that is actually a whole lot worse than being racist, morally speaking.

[TheImperios]

This might be hypocritical of me, an ethnic minority, to say, but I think that racism is so deeply ingrained in human nature that a multi-racial, multi-cultural state will be by definition more fragile than a monolithic one.

There needs to be something to unite the people. They may look similar, or speak the same language (as in Arabic countries - being an Arab as I know is more about speech as Arabs are racially diverse), or at least (as it is the case in the USA and formerly the USSR) a single ideology.

The very reason our union fell is because communism fell, and with nothing to unite the people, nationalism rose. While terrible (there was a time when my family was frankly afraid of leaving our home because we were Asian - and let us not speak of Russians in the Baltic states), that was an inevitable process, and we probably should take that into account.

What Sweden should do is either stop accepting immigrants and assimilate the remaining ones or create a new sort of ideology that would be equally accepted among Arabs, Africans and Europeans, like communism once was. Unfortunately, the current Swedish ideology is both not very strong and not accepted by many migrants, so it will probably have to go.

- - - Updated - - -

By God, I just realised that I posted in a 6 year old thread. Well, I have always thought I have something of a necromancer in me.

[Deleted]

Oh you crazy Swedes