4 ms·

> radical anti-immigration Sweden Democrats What does "radical" mean? A return to pre-1975 immigration policy? - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_S

> radical anti-immigration Sweden Democrats What does "radical" mean? A return to pre-1975 immigration policy? - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Sweden#1968%E2%80%931991 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Sweden#1968%E2%... > The party has also undergone an extensive rebranding: replacing its burning flame logo with a more innocent-looking flower and scrapping its "Keep Sweden Swedish" slogan. The Overton window has shifted so far that an indigenous people cannot even keep one small corner of the world to themselves without being called "radical". Anything short of enthusiastically cheering for your country to be reduced to an economic zone for the global population to compete in is now far right.

cycomanic 4y ago
>The Overton window has shifted so far that an indigenous people cannot even keep one small corner of the world to themselves without being called "radical". Anything short of enthusiastically cheering for your country to be reduced to an economic zone for the global population to compete in is now far right. What do you mean indigenous? Sami? SD doesn't not even think they are swedish.
eesmith 4y ago
"A return to pre-1975 immigration policy" is a poor argument for if something is radical or not. In 1975, Sweden did not allow same-sex marriage. It does now. I believe a repeal of same-sex marriage and forced dissolution of existing marriages would be a radical move in modern Sweden. The Abortion Act of 1974 "states that up until the end of the eighteenth week of the pregnancy, the choice of an abortion is entirely up to the woman, for any reason whatsoever". A return to the pre-1974 abortion policy (only "serious medical consideration" and "social medicinal grounds") would be a radical change, yes? (Quoting Wikipedia.) > an indigenous people In 1976 the the Swedish Parliament recognized the Sami as an indigenous population that had been in Sweden as long as or longer than the majority population. I believe a return to the pre-1975 laws regarding the Sami people (and lack of protections thereof) would also be considered radical in modern Sweden. Am I wrong? How does "Keep Sweden Swedish" affect the Sami? Are the Sami Swedish? For that matter, are you using the term "indigenous" correctly? From what I can tell, the Swedish government doesn't consider the majority population as an indigenous people. Google Translate of https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ursprungsfolk https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ursprungsfolk says: ] In the Swedish report "The Sami: an indigenous people in Sweden", indigenous people are defined as "people who are descended from ethnic groups that lived in the country at the time of the establishment of the current state borders and who have fully or partially retained their social, economic, cultural and political institutions"[3] That definition would mean the Swedish majority population are not indigenous.
- tarakat 4y ago
  That Swedes are not considered indigenous to Sweden perfectly encapsulates how insane and hostile to their own people their government has become.
  - eesmith 4y ago
    Again, your argument is flawed. Just because something was the law 50 years ago doesn't mean returning to it wouldn't be radical now. When has the Swedish government ever considered the majority population to be "indigenous"? If it never happened then it can't be an indicator of becoming "insane and hostile." How does "Keep Sweden Swedish" affect the Sami? Are the Sami Swedish? Are Swedes the indigenous population of Sápmi?
    - tarakat 4y ago
      Isn't it interesting that as soon as one suggests Swedes are indigenous, i.e. have the same claim to their lands and cultures that peoples usually referred to as "indigenous" by the media have, suddenly the conversation turns extremely technical and only the most rigorous, water-tight definitions will do. This never seems to happen if one would say that the Dakota Indians are "indigenous" - one wouldn't ask "well how precisely can you define a Dakota compared to some other Sioux tribe? Exactly which regions are they indigenous to? They migrated and intermarried a lot - what about half-Dakota? How long, precisely, do they have to have inhabited an area before they can be called indigenous to it?" No, such rigor is demanded only when the wrong people try to claim they have a homeland or identity.
      - eesmith 4y ago
        Take a look at the definition I quoted above. The key part is "and who have fully or partially retained their social, economic, cultural and political institutions". Ethnic Swedes have fully integrated their "social, economic, cultural and political institutions" into the national system. Back to the main point - just because something was the law 50 years ago doesn't mean returning to it wouldn't be radical now. > one wouldn't ask "well how precisely can you define a Dakota compared to some other Sioux tribe? That's bullshit. The Dakota are recognized by treaty, and membership defined by the tribes. Tribal recognition in general is a long, slow, and, yes, rigorous process. Eg, the seven criteria in 25 C.F.R. Part 83, "Procedures for Establishing that an American Indian Group Exists as an Indian Tribe."

cycomanic 4y ago

>The Overton window has shifted so far that an indigenous people cannot even keep one small corner of the world to themselves without being called "radical". Anything short of enthusiastically cheering for your country to be reduced to an economic zone for the global population to compete in is now far right. What do you mean indigenous? Sami? SD doesn't not even think they are swedish.

eesmith 4y ago

"A return to pre-1975 immigration policy" is a poor argument for if something is radical or not. In 1975, Sweden did not allow same-sex marriage. It does now. I believe a repeal of same-sex marriage and forced dissolution of existing marriages would be a radical move in modern Sweden. The Abortion Act of 1974 "states that up until the end of the eighteenth week of the pregnancy, the choice of an abortion is entirely up to the woman, for any reason whatsoever". A return to the pre-1974 abortion policy (only "serious medical consideration" and "social medicinal grounds") would be a radical change, yes? (Quoting Wikipedia.) > an indigenous people In 1976 the the Swedish Parliament recognized the Sami as an indigenous population that had been in Sweden as long as or longer than the majority population. I believe a return to the pre-1975 laws regarding the Sami people (and lack of protections thereof) would also be considered radical in modern Sweden. Am I wrong? How does "Keep Sweden Swedish" affect the Sami? Are the Sami Swedish? For that matter, are you using the term "indigenous" correctly? From what I can tell, the Swedish government doesn't consider the majority population as an indigenous people. Google Translate of https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ursprungsfolk https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ursprungsfolk says: ] In the Swedish report "The Sami: an indigenous people in Sweden", indigenous people are defined as "people who are descended from ethnic groups that lived in the country at the time of the establishment of the current state borders and who have fully or partially retained their social, economic, cultural and political institutions"[3] That definition would mean the Swedish majority population are not indigenous.

tarakat 4y ago
That Swedes are not considered indigenous to Sweden perfectly encapsulates how insane and hostile to their own people their government has become.
- eesmith 4y ago
  Again, your argument is flawed. Just because something was the law 50 years ago doesn't mean returning to it wouldn't be radical now. When has the Swedish government ever considered the majority population to be "indigenous"? If it never happened then it can't be an indicator of becoming "insane and hostile." How does "Keep Sweden Swedish" affect the Sami? Are the Sami Swedish? Are Swedes the indigenous population of Sápmi?
  - tarakat 4y ago
    Isn't it interesting that as soon as one suggests Swedes are indigenous, i.e. have the same claim to their lands and cultures that peoples usually referred to as "indigenous" by the media have, suddenly the conversation turns extremely technical and only the most rigorous, water-tight definitions will do. This never seems to happen if one would say that the Dakota Indians are "indigenous" - one wouldn't ask "well how precisely can you define a Dakota compared to some other Sioux tribe? Exactly which regions are they indigenous to? They migrated and intermarried a lot - what about half-Dakota? How long, precisely, do they have to have inhabited an area before they can be called indigenous to it?" No, such rigor is demanded only when the wrong people try to claim they have a homeland or identity.
    - eesmith 4y ago
      Take a look at the definition I quoted above. The key part is "and who have fully or partially retained their social, economic, cultural and political institutions". Ethnic Swedes have fully integrated their "social, economic, cultural and political institutions" into the national system. Back to the main point - just because something was the law 50 years ago doesn't mean returning to it wouldn't be radical now. > one wouldn't ask "well how precisely can you define a Dakota compared to some other Sioux tribe? That's bullshit. The Dakota are recognized by treaty, and membership defined by the tribes. Tribal recognition in general is a long, slow, and, yes, rigorous process. Eg, the seven criteria in 25 C.F.R. Part 83, "Procedures for Establishing that an American Indian Group Exists as an Indian Tribe."