3 ms·

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."

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."