Denmark's Ghetto Package
August 19, 2020 12:03 PM Subscribe
Facing Eviction, Residents Of Denmark's 'Ghettos' Are Suing The Government Earlier this summer, after it became clear that his housing project, called Mjølnerparken, would be targeted as part of a sweeping plan to rid the country of immigrant-heavy areas by 2030, Mehmood and 11 of his neighbors filed a lawsuit against the Danish government, with support from the Open Society Justice Initiative. The lawsuit, which alleges discrimination and seeks to invalidate a section of the government's so-called "ghetto package," comes as the country begins to grapple with broader questions about racism in light of global focus on the issue.
How Denmark's 'ghetto list' is ripping apart migrant communities (The Guardian, March 11 2020)
How Denmark's 'ghetto list' is ripping apart migrant communities (The Guardian, March 11 2020)
But the most stringent part of the plan came into force on 1 January 2020, when these areas must slash their public housing stock to no more than 40%. To achieve this within 10 years, entire blocks will be emptied and converted into private and co-operative housing, from which people on low incomes will be barred. In some cities (though not Copenhagen) the blocks will simply be demolished.In Denmark, Harsh New Laws for Immigrant ‘Ghettos’ (NYT, July 1 2018)
Starting at the age of 1, “ghetto children” must be separated from their families for at least 25 hours a week, not including nap time, for mandatory instruction in “Danish values,” including the traditions of Christmas and Easter, and Danish language. Noncompliance could result in a stoppage of welfare payments. Other Danish citizens are free to choose whether to enroll children in preschool up to the age of six.
Interesting... Haven’t heard about it before...
When I moved to Copenhagen last year, I lived a few blocks away from Mjølnerparken, and later a mile or two away. It felt “ethnic”, but not a ghetto.
It’s not racist, as in American racism, maybe a much milder form of discrimination (?)...
posted by growabrain at 12:40 PM on August 19, 2020 [1 favorite]
When I moved to Copenhagen last year, I lived a few blocks away from Mjølnerparken, and later a mile or two away. It felt “ethnic”, but not a ghetto.
It’s not racist, as in American racism, maybe a much milder form of discrimination (?)...
posted by growabrain at 12:40 PM on August 19, 2020 [1 favorite]
It’s not racist, as in American racism, maybe a much milder form of discrimination (?)...
Racism = systemic bias + systemic power. It takes many forms. This government action is racist. Full stop. It happens to be similar to some forms that racism takes in the US, as well, but that's neither here nor there.
posted by eviemath at 12:46 PM on August 19, 2020 [22 favorites]
Racism = systemic bias + systemic power. It takes many forms. This government action is racist. Full stop. It happens to be similar to some forms that racism takes in the US, as well, but that's neither here nor there.
posted by eviemath at 12:46 PM on August 19, 2020 [22 favorites]
It’s not racist, as in American racism, maybe a much milder form of discrimination (?)...
It reminds me a great deal of American racism: make it very expensive to live in white or mixed neighborhoods, blame residents of segregated housing projects, exclude people with criminal records, defund public housing, destroy minority neighborhoods in the guise of progress, encourage gentrification under the banner of "renewal".
posted by BungaDunga at 12:51 PM on August 19, 2020 [21 favorites]
It reminds me a great deal of American racism: make it very expensive to live in white or mixed neighborhoods, blame residents of segregated housing projects, exclude people with criminal records, defund public housing, destroy minority neighborhoods in the guise of progress, encourage gentrification under the banner of "renewal".
posted by BungaDunga at 12:51 PM on August 19, 2020 [21 favorites]
I found this part of the Guardian article linked in the post relevant in understanding why communities like this one have evolved. Bolding mine:
---
Meanwhile, far from non-Danish-born citizens wanting to live in “parallel societies”, the evidence suggests they overwhelmingly want to live in mixed neighbourhoods but struggle because of the national housing crisis.
“We actually did some research into this,” says Hans Skifter Andersen, a professor at the Danish Building Research Institute and author of Ethnic Spatial Segregation in European Cities. “We asked non-Danish-born people if they wanted to live in a neighbourhood where the majority came from a non-Danish background. Only 2% said yes.
“What a third of respondents did want, however, was to live close to friends and family for practical and emotional support. This proximity was far easier to achieve in the least desirable areas, because rents and waiting lists for housing there were notably shorter.”
---
I got to thinking: how community-based is the life of most non-immigrant Danes? We know that compared to, say, Italy, very few Danish young adults live with their parents. But does the desire for "practical and emotional support" tie in with caregiving responsibilities other Danes simply assume the state has a much bigger hand in than it actually does in communities of people perceived to be poor/non-Danish speakers?
I wonder, then, if part of this situation is really tied to multi-generational households being seen as unusual, and caregiving being officially seen as something one receives from the state rather than provides internally, within family units, in your own language. For example:
1. People from non-Danish speaking societies have moved to Denmark over the decades to work or study, eventually becoming residents. Other people have moved to Denmark to seek protection from persecution or to escape war.
2. Many working-age adults from these communities enter the workforce and learn Danish, integrating into society at least in some ways. Much of this filters into the home life and community of these adults. School-age children attend school and learn Danish relatively easily, though not without effort from caregivers and other community members.
3. Some elders and very young members of the community do not participate in employment or full-time education, and these non-working, non-studying members of the community also need care. This care is provided by both working and non-working adults and teens, particularly women and teenage girls, and the burden of this care is shared socially, between relatives and neighbors.
4. This extra labour of caregiving exacerbates social division over time, especially for female community members without recognized Danish language skills or qualifications recognized in Denmark. Therefore, the time that people already fluent in Danish (and with access to Danish-language assistance or Danish-language employers) have is time that caregivers in this community do not have not just to learn Danish, but to do anything but provide care.
As a language teacher myself, I'd love to hear from Danes in this thread. How much language-learning support is out there if you live in a community like this? Is it effective for people with caregiving roles? (That is, do you have to leave your home and go to a class, without the people you care for, for hours at a time?) Is a lack of Danish even a serious problem in getting people access to social services and employment?
posted by mdonley at 1:17 PM on August 19, 2020 [6 favorites]
---
Meanwhile, far from non-Danish-born citizens wanting to live in “parallel societies”, the evidence suggests they overwhelmingly want to live in mixed neighbourhoods but struggle because of the national housing crisis.
“We actually did some research into this,” says Hans Skifter Andersen, a professor at the Danish Building Research Institute and author of Ethnic Spatial Segregation in European Cities. “We asked non-Danish-born people if they wanted to live in a neighbourhood where the majority came from a non-Danish background. Only 2% said yes.
“What a third of respondents did want, however, was to live close to friends and family for practical and emotional support. This proximity was far easier to achieve in the least desirable areas, because rents and waiting lists for housing there were notably shorter.”
---
I got to thinking: how community-based is the life of most non-immigrant Danes? We know that compared to, say, Italy, very few Danish young adults live with their parents. But does the desire for "practical and emotional support" tie in with caregiving responsibilities other Danes simply assume the state has a much bigger hand in than it actually does in communities of people perceived to be poor/non-Danish speakers?
I wonder, then, if part of this situation is really tied to multi-generational households being seen as unusual, and caregiving being officially seen as something one receives from the state rather than provides internally, within family units, in your own language. For example:
1. People from non-Danish speaking societies have moved to Denmark over the decades to work or study, eventually becoming residents. Other people have moved to Denmark to seek protection from persecution or to escape war.
2. Many working-age adults from these communities enter the workforce and learn Danish, integrating into society at least in some ways. Much of this filters into the home life and community of these adults. School-age children attend school and learn Danish relatively easily, though not without effort from caregivers and other community members.
3. Some elders and very young members of the community do not participate in employment or full-time education, and these non-working, non-studying members of the community also need care. This care is provided by both working and non-working adults and teens, particularly women and teenage girls, and the burden of this care is shared socially, between relatives and neighbors.
4. This extra labour of caregiving exacerbates social division over time, especially for female community members without recognized Danish language skills or qualifications recognized in Denmark. Therefore, the time that people already fluent in Danish (and with access to Danish-language assistance or Danish-language employers) have is time that caregivers in this community do not have not just to learn Danish, but to do anything but provide care.
As a language teacher myself, I'd love to hear from Danes in this thread. How much language-learning support is out there if you live in a community like this? Is it effective for people with caregiving roles? (That is, do you have to leave your home and go to a class, without the people you care for, for hours at a time?) Is a lack of Danish even a serious problem in getting people access to social services and employment?
posted by mdonley at 1:17 PM on August 19, 2020 [6 favorites]
The bit about "Danish values," makes me cringe. How dare they?
posted by Alensin at 1:32 PM on August 19, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by Alensin at 1:32 PM on August 19, 2020 [3 favorites]
"these areas must slash their public housing stock to no more than 40%."
This is a very confusing policy. Encourage integration [of largely disadvantaged immigrants] by reducing housing?
posted by Phreesh at 2:15 PM on August 19, 2020 [7 favorites]
This is a very confusing policy. Encourage integration [of largely disadvantaged immigrants] by reducing housing?
posted by Phreesh at 2:15 PM on August 19, 2020 [7 favorites]
Home to the DPP, an OVERTLY capital-R Racist, nativist party, who got 21% of the vote in national elections 2015 and 9% in 2019, Denmark's racism is pretty damn structural.
posted by lalochezia at 2:38 PM on August 19, 2020 [7 favorites]
posted by lalochezia at 2:38 PM on August 19, 2020 [7 favorites]
I don't really disagree with the concept because I could see how these 'ghettos' could encourage disadvantages to be passed from one generation to the next, but at the same time as society is doing this it should also be making sure that people named 'Tarek' aren't being treated differently than those named 'Thomas' - I take that one personally. Right now I can see all of these changes being imposed on immigrants and 20 years down the line the same inequalities will persist because even though they will have been living in mostly 'Danish' neighbourhoods and going to schools with majority 'Danish' populations they're still not going to be viewed as being 'Danish' in their interactions with wider society. So they aren't going to get that job, or house, and 'Danish' politicians are still going to see them as the problem that needs to be solved.
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 2:39 PM on August 19, 2020
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 2:39 PM on August 19, 2020
One person's ghetto is another person's community. Any disadvantages of living in these communities could be addressed with better policies and resources. Perhaps people would choose to move out, if they had the choice; perhaps they would want to stay, if the quality of life and opportunities were better.
But these policies aren't about helping immigrants or people living in poor communities. They're about getting rid of undesirables. These people are not being offered meaningful opportunities to live elsewhere--they're just being demonized and targeted.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 3:25 PM on August 19, 2020 [12 favorites]
But these policies aren't about helping immigrants or people living in poor communities. They're about getting rid of undesirables. These people are not being offered meaningful opportunities to live elsewhere--they're just being demonized and targeted.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 3:25 PM on August 19, 2020 [12 favorites]
“ghetto children” must be separated from their families for at least 25 hours a week, not including nap time, for
mandatory instruction in “Danish values,”
Canada did this to First Nations kids. It does not go well and the repercussions are still be felt. The sexual molestation and murders are still being uncovered. Cultural genocide, not being a good thing, typically doesn't attract good people to participate in its programs (pograms?).
posted by srboisvert at 5:02 PM on August 19, 2020 [17 favorites]
mandatory instruction in “Danish values,”
Canada did this to First Nations kids. It does not go well and the repercussions are still be felt. The sexual molestation and murders are still being uncovered. Cultural genocide, not being a good thing, typically doesn't attract good people to participate in its programs (pograms?).
posted by srboisvert at 5:02 PM on August 19, 2020 [17 favorites]
"these areas must slash their public housing stock to no more than 40%."
This is a very confusing policy. Encourage integration [of largely disadvantaged immigrants] by reducing housing?
Dismantling your social democracy to own Muslim immigrants.
posted by GalaxieFiveHundred at 5:20 PM on August 19, 2020 [7 favorites]
This is a very confusing policy. Encourage integration [of largely disadvantaged immigrants] by reducing housing?
Dismantling your social democracy to own Muslim immigrants.
posted by GalaxieFiveHundred at 5:20 PM on August 19, 2020 [7 favorites]
It’s not racist, as in American racism, maybe a much milder form of discrimination (?)...
I'm wondering what "It" is in your statement, because this sounds alot like racism towards Black people in America (demolishing and removing public housing because they think its the housing that's the problem) and racism/cultural genocide towards Native Americans.
Starting at the age of 1, “ghetto children” must be separated from their families for at least 25 hours a week, not including nap time, for mandatory instruction in “Danish values,”
This right here sounds soooo super fucked up. It should be up to the parents to decide when it is time to start having the child spend less time with family. I know in the US this isn't always a choice and we dont have problems sending children to daycare at 6 weeks, but the view over here is very different. Including naps, we're talking over 30 hours a week, that's all day every workday.
How can the Danes not see the problems with this considering all the real-world examples of racism and genocide and cultural erasure that have been condemned by the world for years?
posted by LizBoBiz at 2:19 AM on August 20, 2020 [6 favorites]
I'm wondering what "It" is in your statement, because this sounds alot like racism towards Black people in America (demolishing and removing public housing because they think its the housing that's the problem) and racism/cultural genocide towards Native Americans.
Starting at the age of 1, “ghetto children” must be separated from their families for at least 25 hours a week, not including nap time, for mandatory instruction in “Danish values,”
This right here sounds soooo super fucked up. It should be up to the parents to decide when it is time to start having the child spend less time with family. I know in the US this isn't always a choice and we dont have problems sending children to daycare at 6 weeks, but the view over here is very different. Including naps, we're talking over 30 hours a week, that's all day every workday.
How can the Danes not see the problems with this considering all the real-world examples of racism and genocide and cultural erasure that have been condemned by the world for years?
posted by LizBoBiz at 2:19 AM on August 20, 2020 [6 favorites]
I'm half Danish and have spent a lot of time in Denmark. There's no understating the racism that exists, even from self-described progressives. From 'benevolent' racism to explicit Islamophobia I've encountered it all.
One thing that's only briefly mentioned in the NPR article is that Nørrebro is THE hot neighbourhood, mentioned in multiple articles as one of the hippest neighbourhoods in Europe etc. I'm sure this is part of the equation.
Someone also asked about languages - I'm not sure if it's still the case, but at least in 2014 there used to be state-funded, mandatory Danish classes for all new immigrants.
posted by toshicat at 2:38 AM on August 20, 2020 [4 favorites]
One thing that's only briefly mentioned in the NPR article is that Nørrebro is THE hot neighbourhood, mentioned in multiple articles as one of the hippest neighbourhoods in Europe etc. I'm sure this is part of the equation.
Someone also asked about languages - I'm not sure if it's still the case, but at least in 2014 there used to be state-funded, mandatory Danish classes for all new immigrants.
posted by toshicat at 2:38 AM on August 20, 2020 [4 favorites]
I thought some of the Danish class funding got removed sometime between 2014 (when I moved to Copenhagen and yes, took Danish classes) and now. Maybe 2017ish? Not sure. Let me know if you find out; I thought it was such a great thing to have.
But yes it’s definitely racism. As a white American living in Copenhagen, I definitely heard some strikingly racist comments from otherwise liberal Danes; comments about food or social habits or religion. It was kind of strange for me, because in liberal white America, one just doesn’t say those things (Well, one didn’t; now they are shouted from rooftops by the worst of us). I think plenty of Danes wouldn’t say those things either, but enough do that even as a white person I noticed.a
I also noticed that my fellow foreign colleagues of darker complexion had a harder time getting housing (and it was hard enough for me). I think if Denmark wants to increase community integration they’d be much better off having a strong enforceable version of the Fair Housing Act (I have no idea what the law is there, but I know there is some fairly blatant discrimination in who gets to rent an apartment, and Danish language skills are required to have full access to the market).
So it’s racism, both personal and structural, and in the case of the DFP it’s also virulent and vicious. It looks different than American racism because the history is different and the people are different and there is a social safety net even if it has some holes. But it’s still racism (and in the case of the bizarre idea about kids having to be out of the house, ranging into genocide).
posted by nat at 3:01 AM on August 20, 2020 [4 favorites]
But yes it’s definitely racism. As a white American living in Copenhagen, I definitely heard some strikingly racist comments from otherwise liberal Danes; comments about food or social habits or religion. It was kind of strange for me, because in liberal white America, one just doesn’t say those things (Well, one didn’t; now they are shouted from rooftops by the worst of us). I think plenty of Danes wouldn’t say those things either, but enough do that even as a white person I noticed.a
I also noticed that my fellow foreign colleagues of darker complexion had a harder time getting housing (and it was hard enough for me). I think if Denmark wants to increase community integration they’d be much better off having a strong enforceable version of the Fair Housing Act (I have no idea what the law is there, but I know there is some fairly blatant discrimination in who gets to rent an apartment, and Danish language skills are required to have full access to the market).
So it’s racism, both personal and structural, and in the case of the DFP it’s also virulent and vicious. It looks different than American racism because the history is different and the people are different and there is a social safety net even if it has some holes. But it’s still racism (and in the case of the bizarre idea about kids having to be out of the house, ranging into genocide).
posted by nat at 3:01 AM on August 20, 2020 [4 favorites]
> This is a very confusing policy. Encourage integration [of largely disadvantaged immigrants] by reducing housing?
Reducing available tenancy raises housing prices and makes it too expensive for them to live there. I would imagine that once they're gone the 40% cap will be lifted.
posted by at by at 5:20 AM on August 20, 2020 [1 favorite]
Reducing available tenancy raises housing prices and makes it too expensive for them to live there. I would imagine that once they're gone the 40% cap will be lifted.
posted by at by at 5:20 AM on August 20, 2020 [1 favorite]
It reminds me a great deal of American racism: make it very expensive to live in white or mixed neighborhoods, blame residents of segregated housing projects, exclude people with criminal records, defund public housing, destroy minority neighborhoods in the guise of progress, encourage gentrification under the banner of "renewal".
What is described in the articles so stunningly mirrors what U.S. has done that I kept saying "are you kidding me?" out loud. Read about Cabrini Green or the destruction of the "projects" throughout the U.S. We already did this and while it was a benefit for the rich mostly white people who wanted to live in the areas that previously housed poor Black and Brown people, it was just another method for further harming those people from intentionally divested communities.
Did the concentration of poverty result in drug and crime problems in public housing communities? Yes. The solution is to alleviate the poverty, not isolate people in unfamiliar neighborhoods, surrounded by others with different cultural norms and customs, away from any semblance of community and support, and without the location/transit advantages of the old neighborhood. And that's best case scenario accepting the claim that folks removed from these under-resourced communities were actually re-housed appropriately; many were not and were either thrown on the street or given Section 8 vouchers that are very difficult to use to find adequate housing.
And while tackling the issues that create poverty and crime (improving education, jobs, health care, access to fresh food, infrastructure investments, even parks and other amenities), you'll end up accidentally creating a "desirable" neighborhood so you need to have active anti-displacement policies in place so that it doesn't just become a slow-burn process of the more dramatic institutional displacement, harassment, and racist actions described in the articles and evident throughout U.S. history.
posted by misskaz at 6:23 AM on August 20, 2020 [5 favorites]
What is described in the articles so stunningly mirrors what U.S. has done that I kept saying "are you kidding me?" out loud. Read about Cabrini Green or the destruction of the "projects" throughout the U.S. We already did this and while it was a benefit for the rich mostly white people who wanted to live in the areas that previously housed poor Black and Brown people, it was just another method for further harming those people from intentionally divested communities.
Did the concentration of poverty result in drug and crime problems in public housing communities? Yes. The solution is to alleviate the poverty, not isolate people in unfamiliar neighborhoods, surrounded by others with different cultural norms and customs, away from any semblance of community and support, and without the location/transit advantages of the old neighborhood. And that's best case scenario accepting the claim that folks removed from these under-resourced communities were actually re-housed appropriately; many were not and were either thrown on the street or given Section 8 vouchers that are very difficult to use to find adequate housing.
And while tackling the issues that create poverty and crime (improving education, jobs, health care, access to fresh food, infrastructure investments, even parks and other amenities), you'll end up accidentally creating a "desirable" neighborhood so you need to have active anti-displacement policies in place so that it doesn't just become a slow-burn process of the more dramatic institutional displacement, harassment, and racist actions described in the articles and evident throughout U.S. history.
posted by misskaz at 6:23 AM on August 20, 2020 [5 favorites]
Mod note: Gentle nudge here, it's ok to talk parallels but please be careful not to re-center discussion on the US; instead please consciously keep focus on the Denmark situation that the post is about. Thanks.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 8:29 AM on August 20, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 8:29 AM on August 20, 2020 [2 favorites]
I'm a colored person who was raised in Europe. With regard to racism, I think there are both differences and similarities between the US and Europe. What I do think is particularly American is the formula "racism = prejudice + power". I think most Europeans would say that racism is the idea that, say, black people are fundamentally inferior to white people. On the whole, that's the sense I prefer, because I think the notions of "prejudice" and "power" are highly malleable and sensitive to context. Or, to put it differently: nobody I know is or wants to be a racist according to the "racial inferiority" definition, but there's generally some points of contention when it comes to the "power + prejudice" definition. So on the whole I find the "racial inferiority" definition a lot safer.
From that perspective I don't think the Danes feel they're being particularly racist. That's not a defense of the policy. I think it's fair for people to call it a racist policy, certainly on a US website. But if it is a racist policy, then unfortunately it's one that enjoys broad political support. Upthread someone commented about the nastily nativist DPP, but I think its instructive that the social democrats have also lauded the measures. From the main link: "The package of laws was passed at the end of 2018 by Denmark's previous center-right government, but the Social Democrats currently in power strongly defend it. In November, Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen called it "one of the best agreements made in Parliament.""
Ultimately Denmark is a country like any other, with people like any others. They certainly do well, even excel in many ways, when it comes to equality and justice. They have a great welfare system, great healthcare, etc. (fifth most equal country in the OECD). But these socially enlightened policies are underpinned by a largely unexamined expectation of social and cultural homogeneity, which can and increasingly does clash with notions of diversity and individual liberties.
But, seriously. Kids?
posted by dmh at 10:50 AM on August 20, 2020 [2 favorites]
From that perspective I don't think the Danes feel they're being particularly racist. That's not a defense of the policy. I think it's fair for people to call it a racist policy, certainly on a US website. But if it is a racist policy, then unfortunately it's one that enjoys broad political support. Upthread someone commented about the nastily nativist DPP, but I think its instructive that the social democrats have also lauded the measures. From the main link: "The package of laws was passed at the end of 2018 by Denmark's previous center-right government, but the Social Democrats currently in power strongly defend it. In November, Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen called it "one of the best agreements made in Parliament.""
Ultimately Denmark is a country like any other, with people like any others. They certainly do well, even excel in many ways, when it comes to equality and justice. They have a great welfare system, great healthcare, etc. (fifth most equal country in the OECD). But these socially enlightened policies are underpinned by a largely unexamined expectation of social and cultural homogeneity, which can and increasingly does clash with notions of diversity and individual liberties.
But, seriously. Kids?
posted by dmh at 10:50 AM on August 20, 2020 [2 favorites]
'[...]will be offered equivalent--as yet unspecified--housing units nearby'
I'll believe it when I flipping see it, and the residents in question clearly aren't fooled either. Are they saying they put this policy through without even deciding where they were going to house people first?! Did they draw it up during a séance with Baron goddamn Hausmann?! This sounds absolutely disastrous for the families involved: whole communities--with their own ecosystems of mutual aid, cultural memory, everything--are going to be ripped apart. It's going to make all the problems the policy ostensibly wants to improve, worse. As usual policymakers locate issues of assimilation and segregation within immigrant communities and their supposed stubborn refusal to integrate, rather than in a society which won't let them do it.
Though as toshicat mentions, I can think of one group that will do very well out of this, and it begins with 'r' and ends in 'eal estate developers'. Ah, a tale as old as time: we let the Others hold onto real estate in the city juuuuust long enough for their contributions to make it 'vibrant' with 'so much character!', and then push them out to extract maximum value at just the correct moment. Excuse me while I shriek into the wind.
The 25-hours-of-Danish-values thing would not shock me so much if it were for freshly arrived immigrants; but these kids are presumably in many cases being born, brought up, and educated in Denmark as it is. That's what sets my alarm bells ringing. That and the fact that if the articles I'm finding (admittedly all in English) are to be believed, it's only for children of immigrants in these areas? Does that mean that if I and my French spouse came to Denmark with our nonexistent child and chose the 'right' sort of neighborhood, we'd be exempt from the policy despite knowing far less than 'ghetto' families who've been in Denmark for decades? Even if that's not the case, this sounds like a whole lot of NOPE to me.
From an ABC article on the 25-hour measure, since NYT is paywalled for me:
[Nationalist politician] Mr Paludan believes being born in Denmark doesn't make you a Dane.
I'm sure there are more than a few Danes outside Mr Paludan's voter base who are relieved to hear that.
posted by peakes at 1:03 PM on August 20, 2020 [3 favorites]
I'll believe it when I flipping see it, and the residents in question clearly aren't fooled either. Are they saying they put this policy through without even deciding where they were going to house people first?! Did they draw it up during a séance with Baron goddamn Hausmann?! This sounds absolutely disastrous for the families involved: whole communities--with their own ecosystems of mutual aid, cultural memory, everything--are going to be ripped apart. It's going to make all the problems the policy ostensibly wants to improve, worse. As usual policymakers locate issues of assimilation and segregation within immigrant communities and their supposed stubborn refusal to integrate, rather than in a society which won't let them do it.
Though as toshicat mentions, I can think of one group that will do very well out of this, and it begins with 'r' and ends in 'eal estate developers'. Ah, a tale as old as time: we let the Others hold onto real estate in the city juuuuust long enough for their contributions to make it 'vibrant' with 'so much character!', and then push them out to extract maximum value at just the correct moment. Excuse me while I shriek into the wind.
The 25-hours-of-Danish-values thing would not shock me so much if it were for freshly arrived immigrants; but these kids are presumably in many cases being born, brought up, and educated in Denmark as it is. That's what sets my alarm bells ringing. That and the fact that if the articles I'm finding (admittedly all in English) are to be believed, it's only for children of immigrants in these areas? Does that mean that if I and my French spouse came to Denmark with our nonexistent child and chose the 'right' sort of neighborhood, we'd be exempt from the policy despite knowing far less than 'ghetto' families who've been in Denmark for decades? Even if that's not the case, this sounds like a whole lot of NOPE to me.
From an ABC article on the 25-hour measure, since NYT is paywalled for me:
[Nationalist politician] Mr Paludan believes being born in Denmark doesn't make you a Dane.
I'm sure there are more than a few Danes outside Mr Paludan's voter base who are relieved to hear that.
posted by peakes at 1:03 PM on August 20, 2020 [3 favorites]
Actually I should amend that second-to-last paragraph: if my nonexistent child were born to myself and my partner in Denmark, presumably to be educated in the Danish school system thereafter, would simply living outside the designated area mean they wouldn't have to do the 'values daycare'? I'll have to do more reading when I wake up tomorrow.
posted by peakes at 1:17 PM on August 20, 2020
posted by peakes at 1:17 PM on August 20, 2020
Minimum, the first year of nursery school Is brutal as their (and by extension, your) immune systems are besieged by all the germs. Pretty sure with my first 25 hours in a month might have been a reach for a while there. Whoever thought up that bit is not only a xenophobic fuck, but one who also has absolutely no idea how kids actually work.
posted by romakimmy at 1:40 PM on August 20, 2020
posted by romakimmy at 1:40 PM on August 20, 2020
What I do think is particularly American is the formula "racism = prejudice + power". I think most Europeans would say that racism is the idea that, say, black people are fundamentally inferior to white people.
Many Americans also have this ahistorical misunderstanding of racism (at least the varieties impacting formerly colonized peoples). Anti-Black (or anti-Indigenous) racism seems to primarily be a result, rather than a cause, of economic and political exploitation (structural power differentials) during colonialism. That is, people are generally pro-social and upset by injustice and unfairness toward other people. So in order to sustain the level of exploitation that enabled the level of profits that the architects of colonialism desired, they had to build racial prejudice and convince general citizens of European (and, later, North American) countries to believe inaccurate ideas around racial superiority/inferiority, to dehumanize the people they were exploiting.
It certainly is "safer" for those in a more privileged racial group to think of racism as just meaning intentional, personal prejudice, of course. For your average liberal European or North American white person whose prejudices operate on an entirely unconscious level, this definition requires little effort, self-reflection, self-improvement, or political or economic action. And thus likely also safer (in the short run, at least) in many respects for any racialized person who has to interact with lots of white people who hold that misunderstanding of racism, in a setting where the idea of the existence of structural racism hasn't really taken hold, I imagine. Neither correct nor helpful in the long run, of course. But structural racism does tend to be quite effective at making it so that not acknowledging or confronting structural racism is the path of least resistance in the short run.
posted by eviemath at 4:58 PM on August 20, 2020 [3 favorites]
Many Americans also have this ahistorical misunderstanding of racism (at least the varieties impacting formerly colonized peoples). Anti-Black (or anti-Indigenous) racism seems to primarily be a result, rather than a cause, of economic and political exploitation (structural power differentials) during colonialism. That is, people are generally pro-social and upset by injustice and unfairness toward other people. So in order to sustain the level of exploitation that enabled the level of profits that the architects of colonialism desired, they had to build racial prejudice and convince general citizens of European (and, later, North American) countries to believe inaccurate ideas around racial superiority/inferiority, to dehumanize the people they were exploiting.
It certainly is "safer" for those in a more privileged racial group to think of racism as just meaning intentional, personal prejudice, of course. For your average liberal European or North American white person whose prejudices operate on an entirely unconscious level, this definition requires little effort, self-reflection, self-improvement, or political or economic action. And thus likely also safer (in the short run, at least) in many respects for any racialized person who has to interact with lots of white people who hold that misunderstanding of racism, in a setting where the idea of the existence of structural racism hasn't really taken hold, I imagine. Neither correct nor helpful in the long run, of course. But structural racism does tend to be quite effective at making it so that not acknowledging or confronting structural racism is the path of least resistance in the short run.
posted by eviemath at 4:58 PM on August 20, 2020 [3 favorites]
nthing what eviemath says, plus with the dumb personal definition, you (and by you, I mean almost-always white people) get to say "but black people said something nasty about white people, they're racist too"...... as if individualized prejudice rather is the Most Important Thing, rather than interlocking systems of centuries-baked-in societal oppression.
posted by lalochezia at 8:17 PM on August 21, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by lalochezia at 8:17 PM on August 21, 2020 [1 favorite]
Today I saw that the front page of one of the Danish woman's magazines (maybe Elle) had a famous black woman saying: I regret that I thought racism was gone. Things are changing here, too.
The "ghetto package" is the disgusting climax of (at the time) 18 years of The Danish Peoples Party determining Danish policies. It's been weird to see "Denmark" being brought forward as an example by Bernie Sanders, when you knew the truth was that our country was being ruled by a bunch of corrupt and rabid racist right-wingers.
Now, however, things are changing. The Social Democrats co-signed the ghetto package, and thus can't change it without creating new legislation and finding a new majority for that. Signing it was a very cynical ploy to get back into power and it worked. The current Social Democratic government is the strongest government of any kind since the sixties. They still come out with racist rhetoric every now and then, but the facts on the ground are changing rapidly. Two years ago, the voices who protested against the inhuman and wasteful legislation were not heard and they were few and scarce, now their arguments are published almost daily while the racist right is being marginalized.
It's complicated, because the areas that are named as ghettos in the law are mostly very beautiful and well-kept developments, designed by famous architects and built by the very core of the workers movement as social housing. Signing that law for cynical reasons must have hurt hard. And I'm pretty sure the government wouldn't mind a bit if it turned out that is unconstitutional.
I didn't vote for the Social Democrats because of this, and I still find it racist and cynical, but I have to admit that because they did it, immigration has almost completely disappeared from the political discourse. The right is in total disarray.
Some information about how Denmark works:
The tenants in Mjølnerparken will be offered equivalent housing. Period. And that housing will be social housing at fair prices. If they don't have a full wage, they will receive rent subsidies. The former government may have been corrupt and racist but no-one is left on the street here. (There is still homelessness in Denmark, which is something I know a lot about, but it is not relevant in this context).
Most Danish children start in daycare at 12 months, when their parents' parental leave ends.It isn't mandatory, but there are many things that aren't mandatory because they are the social norm, in every country. Obviously migrants can't know this. Some refugee and immigrant families don't send their children to daycare because it is quite costly, and the law now makes sure they can afford it, not least because the intention is not only that the children learn "values" (racist rubbish, obviously, and also unenforceable), but also that the mothers can find jobs and meet other people.
Because the whole system here is based on children being in daycare from their first year, the child development nurse also visits the daycare rather than the homes from12 months on, and there have been some serious instances of disabled children whose health issues weren't discovered because of it.
About the "values". This is so ridiculous. Obviously the law must be changed asap. But, it's important to know that in the relevant areas, people are not very much into Christian values. I live in a "ghetto" area, gangsters and all, and I find it impossible to believe that the local daycares will begin educating 1-3 year-olds in any religion. What the law does is make less educated immigrants mistrust the people they should and can trust completely. I'm hoping that they notice that a lot of the women who work at our local daycares are Muslims.
My youngest, who is now adult, told me about a discussion they had at school about who was Danish. It was complicated. There was X, who was an immigrant, but loved to be here. There was Y, who was as pink as can be, and had moved to Africa, and Z, who was born in Denmark but had parents from two different countries. My daughter herself has two parents with roots going way back in Denmark, but her big sister has a father from a different country. In the end, the class decided that anyone who wants to be Danish is Danish. Unfortunately, they don't rule the country, but to me, they are proof that the future will be different.
Since we have a parliamentary system, we don't have to vote for either the Social Democrats or the rabid right. I voted for the far left party "Enhedslisten", which I normally won't vote for because they are the legacy party of the old stalinists. This time I was so angry about the racism that I wanted to send a clear message, and so did many other voters. The Social Democratic government is strong, but it is still a minority government, and its majority in parliament is based on anti-racist votes, both to its right and left.
In the same way, the right has several different positions, rather than one divided party. The Conservative party, which is quite small, is led by a man who is married to a black man. The biggest party on the right, Venstre, is divided on a number of issues, not least immigration and right now the racist fraction is losing. The rabid racist parties are fighting among each other, which is a good thing.
It's hard to calculate across the parties how many voters actively support a racist, anti-immigrant agenda. For instance, the Danish Peoples Party had a huge victory some years ago in the border areas near Germany, areas that are normally very pro-EU and somewhat positive towards immigrants. IMO, the reason was that their normal party, Venstre, was at the time riddled with corrupt local politicians. Then the now powerful DPP became just as corrupted and they too were fired. My guess is that immigration plays a role for about 40% of the voters, but it could be a bit less or a bit more.
posted by mumimor at 1:17 PM on August 25, 2020 [5 favorites]
The "ghetto package" is the disgusting climax of (at the time) 18 years of The Danish Peoples Party determining Danish policies. It's been weird to see "Denmark" being brought forward as an example by Bernie Sanders, when you knew the truth was that our country was being ruled by a bunch of corrupt and rabid racist right-wingers.
Now, however, things are changing. The Social Democrats co-signed the ghetto package, and thus can't change it without creating new legislation and finding a new majority for that. Signing it was a very cynical ploy to get back into power and it worked. The current Social Democratic government is the strongest government of any kind since the sixties. They still come out with racist rhetoric every now and then, but the facts on the ground are changing rapidly. Two years ago, the voices who protested against the inhuman and wasteful legislation were not heard and they were few and scarce, now their arguments are published almost daily while the racist right is being marginalized.
It's complicated, because the areas that are named as ghettos in the law are mostly very beautiful and well-kept developments, designed by famous architects and built by the very core of the workers movement as social housing. Signing that law for cynical reasons must have hurt hard. And I'm pretty sure the government wouldn't mind a bit if it turned out that is unconstitutional.
I didn't vote for the Social Democrats because of this, and I still find it racist and cynical, but I have to admit that because they did it, immigration has almost completely disappeared from the political discourse. The right is in total disarray.
Some information about how Denmark works:
The tenants in Mjølnerparken will be offered equivalent housing. Period. And that housing will be social housing at fair prices. If they don't have a full wage, they will receive rent subsidies. The former government may have been corrupt and racist but no-one is left on the street here. (There is still homelessness in Denmark, which is something I know a lot about, but it is not relevant in this context).
Most Danish children start in daycare at 12 months, when their parents' parental leave ends.It isn't mandatory, but there are many things that aren't mandatory because they are the social norm, in every country. Obviously migrants can't know this. Some refugee and immigrant families don't send their children to daycare because it is quite costly, and the law now makes sure they can afford it, not least because the intention is not only that the children learn "values" (racist rubbish, obviously, and also unenforceable), but also that the mothers can find jobs and meet other people.
Because the whole system here is based on children being in daycare from their first year, the child development nurse also visits the daycare rather than the homes from12 months on, and there have been some serious instances of disabled children whose health issues weren't discovered because of it.
About the "values". This is so ridiculous. Obviously the law must be changed asap. But, it's important to know that in the relevant areas, people are not very much into Christian values. I live in a "ghetto" area, gangsters and all, and I find it impossible to believe that the local daycares will begin educating 1-3 year-olds in any religion. What the law does is make less educated immigrants mistrust the people they should and can trust completely. I'm hoping that they notice that a lot of the women who work at our local daycares are Muslims.
My youngest, who is now adult, told me about a discussion they had at school about who was Danish. It was complicated. There was X, who was an immigrant, but loved to be here. There was Y, who was as pink as can be, and had moved to Africa, and Z, who was born in Denmark but had parents from two different countries. My daughter herself has two parents with roots going way back in Denmark, but her big sister has a father from a different country. In the end, the class decided that anyone who wants to be Danish is Danish. Unfortunately, they don't rule the country, but to me, they are proof that the future will be different.
Since we have a parliamentary system, we don't have to vote for either the Social Democrats or the rabid right. I voted for the far left party "Enhedslisten", which I normally won't vote for because they are the legacy party of the old stalinists. This time I was so angry about the racism that I wanted to send a clear message, and so did many other voters. The Social Democratic government is strong, but it is still a minority government, and its majority in parliament is based on anti-racist votes, both to its right and left.
In the same way, the right has several different positions, rather than one divided party. The Conservative party, which is quite small, is led by a man who is married to a black man. The biggest party on the right, Venstre, is divided on a number of issues, not least immigration and right now the racist fraction is losing. The rabid racist parties are fighting among each other, which is a good thing.
It's hard to calculate across the parties how many voters actively support a racist, anti-immigrant agenda. For instance, the Danish Peoples Party had a huge victory some years ago in the border areas near Germany, areas that are normally very pro-EU and somewhat positive towards immigrants. IMO, the reason was that their normal party, Venstre, was at the time riddled with corrupt local politicians. Then the now powerful DPP became just as corrupted and they too were fired. My guess is that immigration plays a role for about 40% of the voters, but it could be a bit less or a bit more.
posted by mumimor at 1:17 PM on August 25, 2020 [5 favorites]
Excellent background, thank you much for the time and effort mumimor!
posted by Meatbomb at 2:33 PM on August 25, 2020
posted by Meatbomb at 2:33 PM on August 25, 2020
Thank you mumimor for the very informative update!
I should have been clearer rather than launching into my bleeding-heart urbanist screed: I absolutely believe the residents of these neighbourhoods will be re-housed, so in that sense the comparison to Haussmann is overblown. What I was really doubting was the "nearby" part, and I do still really wonder about the effects of rehousing on these residents' overall health and community structure, especially if the authorities don't find a way to keep people in the area. BUT I could also be totally wrong!
What makes me nuts about policies like this, whether they be in North America or in Europe, is the focus on solving--very real--problems of societal integration by disrupting immigrants'/first-and-second-generation inhabitants'/otherwise marginalised lives (even when the ostensible goal is improving their material conditions), rather than examining wider forces within a society and demanding that we ALL make a collective effort on the issue. But like, I cannot think off the top of my head of a time or a place where this has ever happened, so it's really just a general gripe/crying-in-the-wilderness thing on my part.
Furthermore as you note, there are lots of other confounding factors and competing/conflicting concerns for policymakers, and the simple fact that urban projects like this can have wildly varying structures, timelines, and priorities from one country to another makes this pretty difficult to put into practice absent enormous legislative packages/overhauls that are unlikely to fly in the current political climate.
posted by peakes at 12:50 AM on August 28, 2020
I should have been clearer rather than launching into my bleeding-heart urbanist screed: I absolutely believe the residents of these neighbourhoods will be re-housed, so in that sense the comparison to Haussmann is overblown. What I was really doubting was the "nearby" part, and I do still really wonder about the effects of rehousing on these residents' overall health and community structure, especially if the authorities don't find a way to keep people in the area. BUT I could also be totally wrong!
What makes me nuts about policies like this, whether they be in North America or in Europe, is the focus on solving--very real--problems of societal integration by disrupting immigrants'/first-and-second-generation inhabitants'/otherwise marginalised lives (even when the ostensible goal is improving their material conditions), rather than examining wider forces within a society and demanding that we ALL make a collective effort on the issue. But like, I cannot think off the top of my head of a time or a place where this has ever happened, so it's really just a general gripe/crying-in-the-wilderness thing on my part.
Furthermore as you note, there are lots of other confounding factors and competing/conflicting concerns for policymakers, and the simple fact that urban projects like this can have wildly varying structures, timelines, and priorities from one country to another makes this pretty difficult to put into practice absent enormous legislative packages/overhauls that are unlikely to fly in the current political climate.
posted by peakes at 12:50 AM on August 28, 2020
Thanks for your comment peakes. I suspect that we strongly agree, but in Denmark the real absurdity is that we don't have actual slums/ghettos because of the strong welfare state and its protective laws as well as the high quality of the housing associations who provide public housing for about a third of all Danes, including millions of middle class people all over the country. I can rage about this for days. We do have less privileged people, and the majority of them are immigrants or refugees or their descendents.
What I was really doubting was the "nearby" part
Well, everything is relative, but Copenhagen is not a big city, and I doubt the politicians in Copenhagen will be able to convince any other municipalities to take on their poorer citizens. So no-one can be moved more than half an hour by public transportation away. This is a big reason that the municipality of Copenhagen fought against the legislation as it passed through parliament. With one law telling them to tear down housing and another telling them to provide equivalent housing for those who loose their homes because of the demolition, and a general pressure on housing within the city limits, the city is stuck in a very complicated situation. I suspect it will primarily hurt the homeless and people who are in some sort of crisis. For instance the municipality normally offers housing for parents going through a divorce, and for homeless people who are just learning to live in a home, and those services might be set on hold for a while.
I have done some work in Mjølnerparken, the area in the article, and it is one of the more problematic areas in Denmark, mainly because of the dominance of a very patriarchal group of refugees from a specific region who do everything they can to maintain a social order from their country of origin. They have taken over the democratic structure of the housing association by fully legal means and they rule through division and sometimes discreet threats. Since there are many, many other immigrant groups in the area, this is even more problematic than it may already seem on the surface. For instance, these men from country X have no business policing an amazing group of Somali women who decided they wanted to be bus drivers, with their families' full approval. In the end, the women went all the way to the ministry of the interior to get their bus drivers licenses, you couldn't stop them. But this was and is still a problem. People like these men are hard to deal with for refugees and immigrants who don't know how they are actually protected by Danish law. Still, the solution is education and legal aid and inclusion, not demolition, Goddamit...
posted by mumimor at 12:27 PM on September 2, 2020 [2 favorites]
What I was really doubting was the "nearby" part
Well, everything is relative, but Copenhagen is not a big city, and I doubt the politicians in Copenhagen will be able to convince any other municipalities to take on their poorer citizens. So no-one can be moved more than half an hour by public transportation away. This is a big reason that the municipality of Copenhagen fought against the legislation as it passed through parliament. With one law telling them to tear down housing and another telling them to provide equivalent housing for those who loose their homes because of the demolition, and a general pressure on housing within the city limits, the city is stuck in a very complicated situation. I suspect it will primarily hurt the homeless and people who are in some sort of crisis. For instance the municipality normally offers housing for parents going through a divorce, and for homeless people who are just learning to live in a home, and those services might be set on hold for a while.
I have done some work in Mjølnerparken, the area in the article, and it is one of the more problematic areas in Denmark, mainly because of the dominance of a very patriarchal group of refugees from a specific region who do everything they can to maintain a social order from their country of origin. They have taken over the democratic structure of the housing association by fully legal means and they rule through division and sometimes discreet threats. Since there are many, many other immigrant groups in the area, this is even more problematic than it may already seem on the surface. For instance, these men from country X have no business policing an amazing group of Somali women who decided they wanted to be bus drivers, with their families' full approval. In the end, the women went all the way to the ministry of the interior to get their bus drivers licenses, you couldn't stop them. But this was and is still a problem. People like these men are hard to deal with for refugees and immigrants who don't know how they are actually protected by Danish law. Still, the solution is education and legal aid and inclusion, not demolition, Goddamit...
posted by mumimor at 12:27 PM on September 2, 2020 [2 favorites]
« Older I'm Not Really Capable of Making Typos | Oakland’s original boogaloos speak out Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
“ghetto children” must be separated from their families for at least 25 hours a week, not including nap time, for
mandatory instruction in “Danish values,”
Not sure there can be any other description of this other than a program of ethnic cleansing.
posted by BungaDunga at 12:38 PM on August 19, 2020 [34 favorites]