3 ms·
I do have two comments on this. 1. The comparison to the 90s is frequently made in the media and by politicians from the government parties, but rarely put int
by imartin2k 7y ago
I do have two comments on this.
1. The comparison to the 90s is frequently made in the media and by politicians from the government parties, but rarely put into context. From what I understand, the early 90s were actually the worst period so far in modern Sweden (I moved to Sweden in 2006 so this was before my time). The country underwent a massive economic crisis, similar to what happened in the US in 2008. It saw, for the first time, the establishment of well-organized criminal gangs (as you mention), first large waves of war refugees (with the social and societal frictions and tensions this brought), as well as a wave of intense neonazi violence. And all this had to be handled by utterly ill-prepared, understaffed police, which until then, had basically never really been tested on that scale.
On a side note: Police might be more skilled now, but is still massively understaffed (at least when it comes to those working outside the offices). This alone is quite a scandal in my opinion, considering the demographic and socioeconomic changes that the country voluntary went through during the past 30 years. You cannot take upon yourself the challenge of welcoming hundreds of thousands of people from war countries and totally different backgrounds, who often come with nothing more than a suitcase, place them all together in the suburbs in an otherwise extremely homogeneous, wealthy and famously "introvert" (for lack of better term) society (which makes it really hard for outsiders to connect and become a part of it), and then just hope that everything will be alright.
2. Regardless of the relative number of physical casualties, I'd argue that there is a lot being destroyed right now in Sweden in regards to trust (between people, into authorities) and perceived safety. This matters because one of the biggest advantages and success factors of Sweden has been people's high level of trust in each other (and into the state). If this erodes, it'll have many second order effects. Some of them will only become visible over time.
- nabla9 7y agoYour #1 is a good point, but it emphasizes the relative normality of things. This is symptom of change and some distress in society. However, the narrative is 'west is burning' collapse of society. Society changes. Immigrants change things. People with lower education and soci al status are more likely to be criminals. #2 The destruction of trust is trough propaganda narrative pushing moral panic, not by the actions themselves. There is clear ill will and bigotry that tries to make this problem into question of survival.
- imartin2k 7y ago#2 How can you be so sure? What makes you so confident that you got it right that its not the incidents itself that destroy trust? Imagine you live in the area in Linköping where this big bombing happened. You don't need to be exposed to any "propaganda narrative" to look at your neighbors and wonder if he/she is involved in something or has enemies. That is eroding trust. Propaganda narratives might amplify this in some cases for some people. But it's important, in my eyes, to be honest with the order of things. The problems are there. That they are used by some bigots doesn't justify talking the problems smaller. This has been done for the past decade. Meanwhile, hundreds of mostly young men have been shot in gang violence.
- lumberingjack 7y agoIt's not really propaganda when history has taught us that this type of immigration changes a nation permanently better or worse sometimes
- lumberingjack 7y agoYou elegantly described number one there's no word for the opposite of gentrification but Sweden basically should be the ones who invent it.