I think it may belong in GQ but on the other hand I’m taking the safe side. In many threads where the Swedish Democrats came up they are usually referred to as a racist but what evidence do they have for that? It may be true that there were some Nazi members of the party but that it can be argued that parties such as our own American parties had our own share of racists (Thurmond, Wallace, Duke etc.).
Because they’re Democrats and that makes Nazi commies. Duh.
I know nothing about Swedish politics so won’t comment on that, but…
American political parties had and have prominent racist members because they are in whole or in part racist. Being an American political party doesn’t exempt them from the possibility of being racist; the Republicans are quite heavily racist (and sexist, and homophobic, and…)
I don’t know that they’re actually a racist party right now, but like the Wikipedia article points out, there were a bunch of openly racist and fascist politicians involved in their founding, which taints them as racist in a lot of people’s minds. Also, they’re aggressively nationalistic, anti-immigration, and anti-Muslim, and those positions tend to get associated in a lot of Northern European’s minds with racism, fascism, and the far right.
To be sure, these are far-right positions, but it is quite possible to hold anti-immigration beliefs without being racist. In the case of Muslim immigration, I think many people who oppose it actually see it as a progressive policy: they want to preserve their country’s liberal values against values that, for example, do not accept the equality of men and women. But others tend to misrepresent anti-immigration beliefs (or even beliefs that immigration, while desirable, should be restricted) as automatically racist.
Now, I have no idea if this is the case with the Swedish Democrats, which appear to hold far-right ideas and to have had some racists in their midst, at least at some point.
Without going off-topic racist policies are not part of the platform of the Republican Party (or the Democrats or any other notable party for that matter) irrespective of the view of individual members of the party.
Incidentally their criticism of homosexuality has attracted some Moslem support.
First up Sweden Democrats are the fringiest of fringe parties. From the OP’s own cite
Also, I’m wondering whether the OP read his own cite
Party was founded in 1988. I’m fairly sure that’s recent history
When you align your party with Jean Marie LePenn in order to make yourself look tolerant, you’re pretty much a textbook racist.
Yet they now have seats in the Swedish legislature.
Also parties change-even individual politicians-both Robert Byrd and George Wallace were nasty racists until they changed.
You asked why a Swedish political party is racist. I gave (what I thought) was a pretty straightforward answer. Why are you trying to conflate a bunch of crazy Swedish racists with the American Democratic Party. What’s next? Is the Australian Republican Party proof that Sarah Palin plays the didgeridoo?
Because of the extremes of the Nazis, after WWII the idea of nationalism, or a society seeking to maintain a particular ethnic/cultural character has been controversial in Western countries. Multiculturalism has become the orthodox position, and opposition to it is seen as morally wrong.
It varies across countries, but in some places even pointing out that some groups or cultures are causing problems will be hugely controversial (even if most people privately acknowledge it to be true). I think this is slowly changing though, as Thilo Sarrazin had a hugely popular book last year about problems with Germany’s immigration policies & even UK Labour politician Jack Straw pointed out there was a problem with Pakistani men targetting european girls as “easy meat”. This was soon followed by Hindu and Sikh leaders saying their girls had the same problem! So maybe those taboos are breaking down slightly.
One reason why these groups are getting more support is that liberals are seeing that their idea of a tolerant society is also being challenged by immigration. For instance gay men being assaulted in Amsterdam & in Tower Hamlets in the UK, or Jewish people getting harrassed in Sweden.
Please. Sarrazin is a publicity-hound, an asshole out for a quick buck, and a proven incompetent, bribed ex-public official. There was a furor over his book not because he “dared to say” something controversial, but because he spewed forth stupid, idiotic nonsense (biologic determination, including a jewish gene) without any basis in facts or reality, offending a lot of people along the way, with the sole motivation of hogging the spotlight, making loads of money from the book sales and the following talk show appeareances.
He didn’t contribute anything worthwile, new or enlightening to a charged debate.
The taboos that need breaking down in the case of Germany would be the lie of consie politicans that we are not an immigration country, when we obviously are and have been, and instead to get off their asses and help the Turks and other foreigners to get integrated into society. As long as we keep rejecting people with dark hair, an accent and a turkish last name, it’s no wonder that they choose a different society instead.
Or the taboo that needs breaking down is that assimilation is a one-way street, a 100% process, including religion, because as long as you’re Muslim, you’re still suspect. Instead we need to get people to accept that assimilation is about shared values, but that cultures will and should and can be different, and that you don’t have to give up your whole way of life.
Well, the fact that he sold a lot of books is itself somewhat indicative that there are a lot of Germans who feel the same way.
There is a certain crowd, what we call “Stammtisch”, who are more or less racist. That segment exists across all polled countries, in Germany as well as the US (Rednecks and similar), in Denmark, Sweden, France etc.
But whenever you generate a controversy, a lot more people will buy the book believing that they need to read it in order to talk about it (although with abhorrent books, a few excerpts show well enough how bad they are. I don’t have to travel to the South Pole myself to know that palm trees don’t grow there, either).
How many books are we talking about? The Turner Diaries is probably the best-known recent-ish US book which openly promotes a racist view (and is a work of fiction), and has sold about half a million copies in 32 years.
I mean, that paedophile’s guide that people were up in arms about a few weeks ago generated significant controversy, but I seriously doubt it sold a lot of copies.
RNATB, if you’re trying to imply that Germans are more racist than the USians based on the number of books sold, then I’d say you’re comparing apples to oranges.
The Turner Diaries, as you say yourself, is a work of fiction; Sarrazin’s dreck purpoted to be a non-fiction book (despite it’s gross inaccuries).
It sold 1.2 mill. copies, making it the best-selling non-fiction book in Germany in 2010. More about Sarrazin here.
A better comparison would be with Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and all the dozen other hatemongers, who in the US broadcast not only on Radio, but also on major mainstream TV “news” - not only Fox, but CNN and CNBC(?) employs them. Are you telling me that their books aren’t lapped up by their followers?
For example, wikipediasays
Beck and Limbaugh are far from open racists, and it’s difficult to ascribe the racist label to them at all. Limbaugh is at worst a race baiter.
ETA: Perhaps I am misinterpreting the level of Sarrazin’s vitriol.
EETA: In reviewing his Wikipedia page, it appears I am.
I don’t know what counts as racist in the US - does somebody have to use the N-word to be one?
I have never (and don’t want to) seen Beck or Limbaugh directly, but the quotes that Dopers or Stewart on the Daily show or the satire on South park show, they are hate-mongers, frothing-at-the-mouth, lying-when-opening-their-mouth, radicals. We don’t call that “racist” but more Neo-Nazi or right-wing radical over here. It’s not only what somebody says about one group (the blacks, the Turks), but also about women, gays, conservative politics in general, that puts a person in that corner. Together with the craziness and rigid ideology.
There might be a distinction that some of these hate-mongers believe what they spew, and some are only milking a franchise to make money, but frankly, I don’t care for that level of detail, only about the horrible results on simple-minded people who lap that stuff up without understanding how they are being manipulated, extorted and being lied to.
Slacktivisthas alot ofessayson this topic, and posits that after a while, it doesn’t matter because if you tell lies long enough, you start believing them yourself.
Well, Limbaugh wouldn’t be considered a radical (or a reactionary) here, although he’s had choice things to say about women and gays. He’s very careful not to say anything that can be interpreted as racist.
The Swedish Democrats, if you mean the party, is not racist. There are no racist elements in the party programme. It is however anti-immigration, and many people conflate the two. But if you mean members of the Swedish Democrats, then there are members of the party which are racist. Also the party has a back-history where it, or a previous incarnation of it, was racist.