It seems crime has been on the rise since the latest wave of migrants started coming to Sweden. [0][1][2] With global warming and lax immigration policies the country will probably experience massive waves of climatic migrants in the not so distant future. I wonder what Swedes think of the current situation.
Some theorize it's been on the rise since the first waves of migrants from the Middle East. But no one in power is really eager to keep track of such things, so the public perception of the situation may lag the reality by a large amount of time. Such is the reality of politics.
Europeans discover that the continent is not made of magic dirt that assimilates migrants into your society upon entry.
Europeans also discover that weapons restrictions only go so far when you have active organized criminal groups with the initiative and contacts necessary to smuggle firearms and grenades into Western/Northern Europe from a number of regions (Ex-Yugoslavia, Albania, former Soviet Union, North Africa, etc.) that are only a car-ride or fishing boat trip away.
In order to assimilate migrants you have to have strong identity that they find appealing. The problem Europe has is that it no longer has any identity. It tries to build itself on the values like tolerance, but what does tolerance even mean? The easiest way to be tolerant is to do not have any strong opinions on any matter, then you can tolerate everything. The only downside is - you lose your own identity along the way.
What identity did Europe have in the past? There are many independent countries on the continent. Countries with a long and unique history... and many of those countries still have a strong identity. It's bizarre how many commenters on HN seem to treat Europe as a single entity that is failing both ideologically and financially.
Off the top of my head: common law (sometimes codified), Catholic/Christian morality (as an accepted ideal) and ritual (less important but still cultural glue), lessons learned from the French Revolution, and some significant "my old enemy is my friend vs these new strangers" mentality born over hundreds/thousands of years of war with each other while natural geographic barriers mostly reduced interaction in the populace with those of particularly different looks (aka "racism" except far more nuanced).
Catholic morality represents a tiny fringe group in Finland. Catholicism has never been a part of "european identity", because Europe is not a culturally or religiously cohesive area. There are nations with many catholics and nations with only few catholics. You're trying to view Europe as a federation similar to U.S. and it's nothing like that.
The comment that the prior person was commenting on, if you re-read it, is what was it like in the past.
With Martin Luther posting his Ninety-five Theses in 1517, followed by the Edict of Worms in 1521, when the Reformation occurred, Europe indeed wat almost wholly Catholic.
After the Reformation, the Protestants were still almost identical to the Catholic Church. It's not like they started calling their god "Uglamtafreck", whose dog became the savior of the world.
Protestants and Catholics have more in common than dissimilarities. But this is not the first time this has happened. In 1054 AD, there was the Great Schism, where the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox split from each other. This was due to stupid little things, as religions usually are about. The Great Schism was caused by the procession of the Holy Spirit (Filioque), whether leavened or unleavened bread should be used in the Eucharist,the bishop of Rome's claim to universal jurisdiction, and the place of the See of Constantinople in relation to the pentarchy. The Filioque clause means that the words that the Holy Spirit proceeds "from the Father", without additions of any kind, such as "and the Son" or "alone". That's it. Omit 3 words, split the Catholic Church in half.
But even then, the Roman Catholic Church has more in common with the Eastern Orthodox Church.
Europe was never a federation, but there was travel and communication between them. Not many European people would travel to South Africa or India. But England is a short boat ride away from France, so there was a lot of trade. In 1066, when the Normans took over England, they still were dukes in France and were royalty there.
So while there was not a political federation, there sure was a common culture of sorts, however tenuous it might be in some places, stronger in other places.
Like the USA with the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, and only one country to the north (canada) that we share a border, and only one to the south that we share a border(Mexico), the USA has an excellent barriers to conquest from others.
It was the same in Europe. There was a Sea to the south, the Mediterranean, nothing north of Northern Europe except cold, and the east was protected by the Ural Mountains which go from far north to the Artic Ocean down to Kazekhstan/Uzbekistan. The Caucasus Mountains protect invasions from Iran/Persia. The Isthmus at Constantinople and the Iberian Peninsula (Spain) have always been the weak spots, and indeed, those were the areas where most attacks on Europe emanated from. But luckly, the Iberian Peninsula is separated from the rest of Europe by the Pyrenees mountains. Muslims conquered Spain in 711 AD and held on to it for almost 800 years, until 1492 AD, when the muslims were finally expelled in the Re-Conquista (re-conquest) by Queen Isabella and King Ferdinand, who also sent Christopher Columbus to the west in that same year of conquering the muslims in Europe. Furthermore, many of the Muslim elite, including Granada's former Emir Muhammad XII, who had been given the area of the Alpujarras mountains as a principality, found life under Christian rule intolerable and emigrated to Tlemcen in North Africa. Which just goes to bolster the argument that the two cultures of christianity and islam are more incompatible than one christian nation with another. By the way, the muslims did try to conquer Europe, but were stopped by Charles "The Hammer" Martel in France. If he didn't do that, we might all be talking in Arabic right now. The muslims were defeated in Aquitaine at the Battle of Tours in 732, and the muslims never really tried again after that.
All the languages in Europe descended from the Proto-Indo-European language, and with that came certain cultural identities and commonalities passed down through generations. Language is very important in proscribing much in culture and that is very strong. Whereas Arabic is descendant from a proto-Semitic language.
There were many people that traveled throughout Europe. Obviously not the serf who were tied to the land, but certainly there was cross border communications.
So in your opinion these cultural elements have disappeared? Common law, Christian morality, nationalism are all alive and well in most of European countries.
Disappearance of phenomena isn't instantaneous and global. Whenever something starts to disappear, it disappears from certain regions or societal groups first.
Heavily Islamic suburbs in Europe have a rather different set of cultural elements and while still geographically located in Europe, their cultural affinity is not that of the host country anymore.
Roman empire, for example, used to have a distinct identity that wasn't ethnicity-based and would be open to newcomers, provided that they did not seek to overthrow the current order.
Romans would tolerate a lot of cultural difference if it was of the non-threatening, non-destabilizing kind.
Nobody who lives in Europe has ever identified themselves as "european". It's not a thing. Europe with its nation states is not comparable to U.S. and its states. Whereas a person living in Washington might identify as an american (as opposed to Washingtonian), a person living in France will typically identify as French (not as european). Your statement that Europe "no longer has any identity" makes no sense, because Europe has never had an identity.
From a neighbor's point of view: former German nationalism seems to have transformed itself into European nationalism, which is sort of cute and hopefully harmless. But German newspapers seemed to be really deeply insulted about Brexit, much more so that, say, Polish ones.
No real response but oversimplification/staw-manning will do just fine, huh?
Are you trying to say that the situation in Europe is just "business as usual" or something?
Now I don't know if you've been paying attention these last few years, but in case you're not aware European countries have taken in a pretty unprecedented number of migrants over the last decade. Many of those migrants were/are young men from regions with cultural norms that are fundamentally different from the European countries that they end up in. In addition, many of these migrants lack strong proficiency in the standard language of the host country, and do not possess a level of education that would generally be commensurate with their age in the host country. Note that none of this is meant as a value judgement, it's just the reality of the situation. It's not an easy situation for the migrant or for the administration of the countries taking them in. It's not really any secret that integration/assimilation has failed in many parts of Europe, and this all has consequences.
With regards to gun violence, I don't know about Europe in General but Sweden's rate of gun homicides has risen consistently every year over the last decade. Obviously the numbers are nothing compared to what you'd see in the United States, but if the problem is getting worse, then it's probably worth talking about. Also, for a highly-developed Western country, Sweden experiences a large number of hand-grenade attacks every year in a pattern that also seems to be increasing.
But the main cause of violence tends to be organized crime, and as seen by the murder of Peter R De Vries earlier this year, a lot of European police agencies are simply not cut out to deal with organized crime in their current state.
> Many of those migrants were/are young men from regions with cultural norms that are fundamentally different from the European countries that they end up in.
What's interesting is that a lot of them should not even be eligible for asylum, yet they were still allowed in. Does Sweden has a plan to deal with this wave of illegal immigration?
Net migration rate in France [1] (as an example of a Western European country with a substantial migration over many decades) and Sweden [2] did not increase in any unprecedented way in resent years. In Sweden it's actually declining.
There was a lot of migration in Europe over the years, so arrogantly claiming that Europe is "discovering" something is not worth a serious response.
> net migration rate in France…and Sweden did not increase in any unprecedented way in resent years
Oh come on, the migration into Sweden in the 80s was educationally, financially and culturally distinct from that of recent years. That’s the big experiment Europe is engaged in. Is there something about European culture and institutions that can assimilate migrants? (America is quite good at this.) Or is the success not extensible.
This isn't true. In Denmark, just south of Sweden, organized crime by migrant gangs has far overtaken the native biker gangs in part because the tolerance of the migrant gangs for extreme violence, including of civilians, is much higher. Just as an example, bikers would never use civilians to send a message but this was a tactic employed by "Blågårds Plads" when they went in and started shooting civilians in Christiana. We've also seen a huge spike in rape cases attributable to migrants.
If you look over my post history, I'm resolutely against the new racist politics of our parties but your messaging is wrong on its face. I don't turn the numbers into fuel for further racism, however, unlike my fellow Danes. I blame the government for not having a plan to absorb the migrants they refuge. The Danish state creates the ghettos (which fuels the violence) by concentrating migrants in single neighborhoods. What should be happening is homing migrants evenly over the whole of cities and commiting to educating those people they take in.
But no, I don't think acceptance or tolerance of these egregiously violent actions is the right move. This is a country where women feel safe enough to walk alone at night at 3 am. And that's worth fighting for.
Being of migrant descent isn't the same as being a migrant, not everyone fails to integrate in the society but this is urgently raising problem so far with no solution in sight.
A lot of comments are about migrants. But there is a bit more to it. Most of this violence steems from gangs. And most of the actors are young men. And many are born in Sweden. But there are usually no problems with the young girls who are usually able to make very good results in the education system. Whereas the young boys have problems in school and end up in gangs. So part of the problem is how young boys are raised in families with "non-western" background.
Comments here are really focusing on blaming migrants for this but not the extreme inequality migrants and the hosts have between them.
Also, going and doing petty wars around the world has consequences.
Here let me get one more going: after trump left the JCPOA, Europe basically did nothing about it. Now there's a revolution going on in Iran. Where do you think a big portion of that population is going to escape to?
Europe, your actions have consequences. You're a good portion of the reason for migrants having to migrate from their countries. You're also still part of the reason why there's so much of a wealth difference between you and the average migrant.
And then it's again an issue where you keep passing laws fucking over migrants. Can't have hijab during work now? Really? Is this the important thing to spend your time on?
These are all going to create instability. Until you start ACTUALLY treating humans as humans, you're going to be subject to shit like this.
> Maybe aggressive able bodied young men should take their country's future in their own hands instead of bringing problems to Europe?
Sure, maybe stop interfering with their country then? Also, it's still going to be Europe's problems for generations after the west generally stops interfering with other countries. Until then, "deal with it."
> Also, it's still going to be Europe's problems for generations after the west generally stops interfering with other countries. Until then, "deal with it."
The electorate already is, and strong borders are becoming more and more popular among the citizens of many Europeans countries. Making the choice not to integrate has consequences, for everyone.
[0] https://time.com/4182186/sweden-feminists-sexual-assault-ref...
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-45269764
[2] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6095121/Eight-10-st...