And it is a tiny bit racist, ypur comment I mean.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338563093_Migrants_...
All of the bombings are gang related, and gang members in Sweden have a disproportionately foreign background.
There is nothing to gain here by pretending this isn't happening. People are literally dying. No one mentioned any races, and conflating "immigrant" with any particular race is misleading at best.
https://www.gulf-insider.com/almost-all-gang-members-in-swed...
There is no use in splitting hairs on this one. The issue is clear.
Swedish immigrants are susceptible to this because Sweden did a spectacularly poor job at integrating these people. The idea was to liberally accept immigrants to solve the demographic crisis and the pension system, but along the way most of the immigrants who moved to the country were let down and given fairly shitty life prospects.
Turns out these people aren't filled with grateful joy over having undignified dead end jobs and living in dinky apartments in segregated communities in derelict apartment buildings from the '70s. Quelle surprise.
I think there has been a somewhat conceited attitude among the Swedish political class to assume that Swedish values and ideals are an inevitable logical conclusion from enlightenment, and if someone doesn't share these values, it's because the poor souls haven't been informed of the correct way to think yet, and when encountering superior Swedish values, they willingly abandon their unenlightened opinions and assume the enlightened values of Sweden in their place.
Well as it turns out these values are a logical conclusion only if you've been indoctrinated in them since you were a toddler.
The Swedish population includes a large number of Finns, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Sweden says even 50 years ago 10% of the population was born to foreign born mothers.
If Sweden isn't a monoculture then your argument suggests integration should be possible, yes?
That doesn't mean it would be easy to integrate refugees. Just look at how hard it was for Miami to integrate Cuban refugees. Anti-Castro extremists, for example, set off car bombs in the 1970s and 1980s. http://cuban-exile.com/doc_051-075/doc0073.html
Knowing this, yes, other European countries should have done more, to helped share the effort needed.
To make sure I understand the topic, I researched more about Sweden's multicultural history.
https://www.informationsverige.se/en/om-sverige/individens-r... says "There are five recognised historical national minorities in Sweden: Jews, Roma people, Sami people, Sweden Finns, and Tornedalians" and historically they were deliberately oppressed by monocultural policies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tornedalians gives one example:
> Tornedalians were the targets of extensive so-called "racial biology" and swedification policies. In the early-to-mid 1900s Herman Lundborg and others from the State Institute for Racial Biology performed skull measurements on Tornedalians, with Lundborg performing the first measurements in 1913. At the same time speaking Finnish in schools was banned in parts of the country, including the Torne Valley. This ban was only revoked by the Riksdag in 1957.
How does that fit into your concept of "monoculture" in Sweden?
Minorities like the Roma have been permitted to exist, but they've had zero place in the public sphere.
Yes, historically Sweden has been overbearing consensus culture, including using so-called "race science" to justify their positions, as with the Tornedalians.
But didn't official policy change long before they accepted many poor refugees from the non-West, which is the criteria shrimp_emoji used at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37336674 ?
That change, as I understand it, included creating the autonomous Sámi parliament back in the 1990s, and recognizing the Tornedalians and Sweden Finns, yes?
Plus, by the time of the Middle Eastern refugees, Sweden had accepted Western refugees, like Chileans back in the 1970s and Balkan refugees of the 1990s?
How then is Sweden a still meaningfully a monoculture even by, say, 2005?
I mean, I can understand how a government can be a monoculture, even if the country is not (eg, Afrikaans and South Africa), but I took shrimp_emoji to refer to the overall population, not the government.
[1] https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/J-passen
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Det_h%C3%A4r_%C3%A4r_en_svensk...
But, that thing you're citing about a limited number of cities that could handle immigration is a good example of why it might be different for Sweden vs Germany.
There's some other cause (which can't be said aloud).
I don't think the problem here is what you're thinking but not saying. I think the problem is that suckers get took, to be crass. And to continue in that spirit, no self respecting nation of people would spread their buttcheeks and let the whole world have a go. It seems to me the Swedish have outlived their lifespan as a nation. I suppose it's the natural order of things, meek, defenseless tribes and nations don't last very long.
In bigger German train stations you regularly see machine-gun armed police.