The stereotypical Dane, as seen from Norway, is friendly, liberal and relaxed, with a touch of continental refinement. By a curious coincidence, he has many of the qualities we miss the most in our own national character. He can drink without making a fool of himself. He does things to his body that would give Gro Harlem Brundtland a nervous breakdown - he eats well, he smokes, and he does it without shame. Always a welcome smile for the stranger he has, the jovial Dane.

I don't know how untrue this stereotype is, whether it's completely wrong or just inaccurate, but the Danes haven't given us much reason to question it, (it's good for tourism), so we tend to believe it.

Until 2001, that is, when something dreadful happened. Danish politics, which we had formerly assumed to be as safely social democratic as our own, took a turn to the right - no, a wild jump to the right, over the abyss that separates good and proper welfare statism from the land of the Nazi hordes. Not only was the new Danish government further to the right than our own (!), by itself a Bad Thing, it cooperated with a group of extreme, racist proto-fascists known as the Danish People's Party, who rumor had it were even worse than our own extreme, racist, proto-fascist Progress Party. Or so it went. The Danes began introducing "racist" laws and joining "imperialist" wars abroad. For many, this became the excuse unlooked for to finally question the Danish stereotype. Unsurprisingly, those who did found that it wasn't completely accurate - there was more to the Danish character than beer and good food. This was a terrible disappointment, and as tends to happens, disappointment turned unwarranted love into bitterness.

A new Danish stereotype arose among our educated people, of the xenophobe and nationalist, of the racist and the soulless free marketeer. The Danish dream was dead, they proclaimed, as they thirty years ago proclaimed that the American dream was dead - back when they discovered that America wasn't the heaven of fast cars, beautiful people and golden opportunities they had thought it were, that it had poverty and politicians who told lies, that it fought pointless wars, that in fact it had some of the same faults as Europe. (We still haven't recovered from this discovery.) Now it was Denmark's turn for naive negative stereotypes to replace naive positive stereotypes.

I've mentioned an example of this new "We who loved Denmark" genre before, and here's another, by Simen Sætre in Aftenposten, who moved to Denmark three months ago, and is already an expert. He started out believing in the above-described stereotype, of the open, liberal and worldly Dane. But then ..

.. things happened that slowly [3 months is slow? -bs] made me change my mind. The first was the new foreigner law. We had heard about the new Danish foreigner law, but had never imagined what problems our student friends from Ghana and the US would meet when entering the country. It became embarassing to be a Scandinavian. It became embarassing to explain that you had to be 24 years old to marry a foreigner in Denmark. And that you had to have a closer connection to Denmark than to the country of your spouse, so that those Danes who had lived too long abroad and married, quite simply were refused reentry. It became embarrasing to explain about internment camps for asylum seekers.

Sætre doesn't say anything about why these restrictions on family reunions were introduced. As he explains it, it sounds like something the Danes thought up to annoy and harass immigrants - but on the contrary, it was introduced to protect them. A major problem in Scandinavia is that lax family reunion laws are exploited by immigrant parents, who bring in family from the home country through forced marriages. Immigrant children get "engaged" at an early age to a cousin back home, marries them as soon as the law accepts it, and "reunites" with the new spouse in the West. This, as I've written about before, is especially bad for the girls, for who this often appears as a combination of kidnapping, slavery and rape. The Danish ban on family reunions below the age of 24 gives these second generation immigrants the chance to get an education and a mind of their own before their parents start talking about marriage, increasing the chance that they will marry in Denmark. It's inconvenient for those who marry early for love, but for young immigrants this is about a lot more than "convenience", it's about not being sold on the residency permit market to some illiterate cousin from the old country.

Next came the Iraq war. I had thought of Denmark as a small, humanistic and relatively innocent country. But then came the question from a Le Monde journalist: How come the Danes are the only people in Europe who support a war on Iraq? Denmark went to war. And prime minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen went back to World War 2 for arguments. "It's taken for granted that Denmark should adjust itself humbly, eagerly and passively to what the dominating European powers say ... Not look, not touch, not speak. Not subject itself to criticism. But now this ends."

Suddenly Denmark was there with a military force, and in the Danish People's Party's newspaper, a general wrote about how Denmark could use its army to promote Danish foreign policy. The army needs a "size that makes sure it isn't overlooked", he wrote, and wanted 20 000 battle ready soldiers. Did we really sense Denmark the colonial power?

Sure you did. They'll be reviving their old feud with Sweden next, then reclaim Norway, and make a grab for Scleswig and Holstein. I'll worry when they do, but I haven't seen anything to scare me yet. Denmark's contribution to the liberation of Iraq from Saddam's tyranny is a bright moment in modern Scandinavian history. It stands in contrast against the attitude of Norway and Sweden, who would let the Iraqi people rot for our prejudice against America.

Sætre worries about the Danish People's Party, with its "burning stranger-hatred", and talks to a small town ex-mayor, who now feels free enough to reveal that he is worried about Islam. This strikes Sætre as odd, as there aren't many immigrants in this town. As we all know, criticism of immigrants comes from xenophobia, and xenophobia is just a reaction to the different color of a stranger's skin, and as there aren't many immigrants in Nykøbing Mors, it is extremely odd of its ex-mayor to believe that Islam discriminates against women. No wait, that didn't sound logical. I'll let Sætre explain it himself:

At some point the Danes have noticed how well off they are. They have felt themselves threatened by the outside world, and romanticized their home country. They think: "We have it well in Denmark, others shall not come here and disturb our peace ... this as opposed to for instance the nationalists and separatists in Catalonia in North-East Spain, who says: We too have a role to play, and we shall prove it!", says professor of sociology Dominique Bouchet. [..]

- Denmark lies in the shadow of Germany, militarily inferior, [says Hans Mouritzen from the Institute of International Studies]. This has created a peaceful, but powerful nationalism which may be activated as a match against a can of gasoline. When Danes are skeptical to globalization it's not that they are racists, but that they are afraid that others may come and take these good things from them.

In other words, it's all in their heads - their concerns about the failed integration of Muslim immigrants, their support for the American war on terrorism, their otherwise very moderate turn to the right. This attempt to psychologize the debate is a cheap rhetorical trick - it should at least be accomponied by an attempt to criticize these views and actions on a factual level. Sætre offers none of that. His best explanation for Denmark's contribution to the Iraq war appears to be that it has an inferiority complex towards Germany. Maybe it does, but foreign policy is rarely as simple as that.

I for one will admit to not knowing all that much about Danish politics and culture, but the more I hear about what is happening there, the more I feel it deserves the attention of the Norwegian right. They may not have walked away from the Scandinavian model yet, but at least they're pointing the way.

I lived for about 5 months in Denmark, and so I guess that makes me an expert, too. All I can say about Denmark is that it's more urban and urbane than Norway. And, yes, the food is good.

I don't know a lot about what's happening in Denmark right now, but it's my impression that the political change in direction is toward a more realistic, not oppressive, immigration policy.

I recall reading, with amusement, an article in Information some months ago. Information is a Danish leftist daily. Information had been extremely critcal of Denmark's turn toward fascism, as Information saw it then. The article that so entertained me reported on a meeting of radical islamist groups in Copenhagen. The meeting had been called to protest Denmark's (at that time) new immigration policy. Information's reporters were shocked when the meeting's islamist organizers violated democratic principles and refused to yield the floor to certain groups and individuals. In the end, the organizing committee formulated all of its demands and denunciations without input from a number of ostracized muslims and leftists. Information's well-meaning Marxists were appalled and had to condemn the unparliamentary immigrant junta, despite the best of intentions. Information's idealistic young reporters had collided with reality as a car collides with a speeding locomotive. Their disappointment was palpable and endearing.

- Gill

I thought it amusing that the sudden surge of anti-Danish writings in the Norwegian press started after Danes teased us in the press just before the Euro qualifier in football.

It is easier for countries like Norway and New Zealand to be poseurs when it comes to immigration and issues related to defense due to their relative geographic isolation. Countries closer to the the world's potential trouble spots and troublemakers sometimes have to act like adults and make some sober decisions. Denmark closer? Well they are on the continent and the Nazi's were their neighbours so maybe that helps clarify things for them.(I noticed Norway was on al-Queda's hitlist so maybe you are doing something right).

I have stayed overnight in Copenhagen so I guess that makes me an expert on Denmark too. My observation about the Dane is racially based. I grew up in an Australian town surrounded by redheads. Nowhere else in the world has as many redheads as my hometown or...Denmark. I was always told we got it from the Irish. Why weren't we told? Pappa!

Two quibbles:

1.) Mr Sætre gave the lamest definition of "smørhullandet" (aka, "verdens smørhul") I've ever seen.

2.) Bjørn, why did you translate "fremmedhat" as "stranger-hatred" instead of "xenophobia"? Are there some nuances of meaning that I'm missing?

Haney:

1) I've never even heard the word before. Was going to quote&translate that part, but stumbled on the word and decided to be lazy. What would have been a good translation/explanation?

2) We have two words, _fremmedhat_ (lit. stranger-hatred) and _fremmedfrykt_ (lit. stranger-fear). The first is stronger than the second. A phobia is a fear, so I believe it's more correct to translate fremmedfrykt as xenophobia, and fremmedhat as stranger-hatred (in lack of better terms.)

Bjoern: "We have two words, _fremmedhat_ (lit. stranger-hatred) and _fremmedfrykt_ (lit. stranger-fear). The first is stronger than the second. A phobia is a fear, so I believe it's more correct to translate fremmedfrykt as xenophobia, and fremmedhat as stranger-hatred (in lack of better terms.)"

Compound and complex English words don't normally break into their component parts especially neatly, despite what some prescriptivists might say or wish.

In this particular case I'd say Norwegian (or Danish? or both?) is/are just a bit richer than English which doesn't distinguish fear and hatred of foreigners and most English speakers (at least this one) think of xenophobia in terms of hatred rather than fear. If you think the distinction is absolutely necessary, I'd say use the Norwegian terms with explanations, mayube they'll catch on like schadenfreude or fahrvergnuegen ...

I think Norwegian is a great language -- particularly in the hands of someone like Knut Hamsun. Its vocabulary is more meager, in general, than what English offers us, but it allows us, as do most other Germanic languages, to create our own compound words. Someone creates a compound word, and it catches on.

I find neither fremmedfrykt nor fremmedhat in my own Norwegian-English dictionary. (Haugen's dictionary, copyright 1967.) I think that's indicative of changes in Norwegian society. In 1967, there were so few immigrants to Norway. Fremmedhat was a fremmed begrep -- a foreign concept. Who needed the word then to describe social phenomena in Norway?

If we look at the online Norwegian-Norwegian dictionary (a pretty decent dictionary)

http://www.dokpro.uio.no/ordboksoek.html

we find the word fremmedhat, but not the word fremmedfrykt. I am surprised then to see that a google search on these two terms favors fremmedfrykt. Google finds ca. 37,000 instances of fremmedfrykt, but just 744 occurrences of fremmedhat.

4550 cases of "fremmedhad" (the Danish spelling). Not surprising that the Danes are more concerned about the issue than are the Norwegians, since it is there that policy has changed.

But wait a sec. Just 500 instances of "fremmedfrygt" (again, the Danish spelling). A MUCH lower incidence than found for the Norwegian spelling of the same word.

Wow. Why so many occurrences of the word "fremmedfrykt" on Norwegian websites? I would have expected to find the higher incidence on Danish websites. It seems that this is an issue that Norwegians really obsess about. What do you think, Bjørn?

- Gill

Wow, Bjørn, you'd never seen "smørhul" before? I guess I need to stop snickering when you talk about there being major differences between Norwegian and Danish culture.

The description I've heard of smørhul involves making a little hole in the center of your bowl of oatmeal or porridge (or probably some distinctively Danish equivalent) to put the butter in so that it will melt. Even after you stir the butter around, the smørhul is still likely to be a particularly tasty part of the meal.

P.S. I agree with Mr Farris. The English word "xenophobia" is more likely to carry the connotation of "fremmedhad" than "fremmedfrygt".

I decided to throw up a couple of "translations" of "verdens smørhul" for you:

--the Tootsie Roll center of the global Tootsie Roll Pop.
--the cream filling of the global doughnut

In other words, there's not a good literal translation.

"Smørhul" I've always wondered what it was called when you piled up the mashed potatos into a volcano shape, then make a little lake of gravey in the center.

What's the Danish/Norwegian word for eating corn on the cobb like a typewriter? And don't give me this "we don't eat corn on the cobb" stuff. All the major corn producing states were settled by the Danes, Swedes and Norwegians. So they way I see it is... you all started it.

If anyone asks "what's a typewriter?" Then it's official, I'm old.

Gill: As far as I know, both those words came in regular use in the 80's, along with other stranger-words, fremmedkulturell (stranger-cultural, ie. from a non-Western culture), fremmedfiendtlig (stranger-hostile), fremmedspråklig (stranger-linguistic, as in children having a fremmedspråklig background.) I don't know why we prefer fremmedfrykt and the Danes fremmedhat, but fremmedfrykt is broader and implies the same thing (racism), and also much harder to disprove, so it could signify a different attitude towards racism. Or maybe they just use another unrelated word. For instance, in Norway, immigrants are called innvandrere (immigrants), in Denmark they're often referred to with the more inclusive (and p.c.?) _nydansker_ (new-Danes).

James: Ah, you mean smørøye (butter-eye). There aren't many _major_ differences between Norway, Denmark and Sweden, but there are quite a few confusingly subtle ones.

Charles: I don't think corn is a traditional part of the Norwegian diet.

And of course I know what a typewriter is. Saw one in a museum once. It's kind of like a printer attached to a keyboard, isn't it?

Bjørn, that brings me back to my original point. Why couldn't Mr Saetre have simply told his readers that "smørhul" is the Danish word for "smørøye" instead of that pathetic description he gave? Are he and his editors both that ignorant?

Ok Bjørn, you're keeping it a secret. I guess it's all that fremmedfrykt stuff I've been reading about.

The lower Mississippi (New Orleans) was settled by mostly the French. The Middle Mississippi (St Louis) by the Germans. And the Upper Mississippi (St Paul) by the Nordic countries (Sewdes, Danes, and Norwegians). Go to the old cemeteries there and you will see the tomb stones are carved in the language and style of the regions back in Europe. And the upper Mississippi is the corn belt.

Come on, look who wins the state fair contests. Becky Ann Skogstrom blue ribbon for corn relish. Skogstom, what kind of name is that? It ain't Welsh because it doesn't end with an "s". Look at the names: Larson, Anderson, Ihle, Erickson, Imgrund, Laska, Dammer, Rustebakke, Weimek, Kvernmoe, Linden, Baarstad, Snobeck, Lindstrom.

And what's with the letter "a" with the hats? There is no letter "a" with a hat in English. I'm sure of that. But they keep writing that in those corn producing states. "Gedneyâ â Most outstanding Jam" and "Sure Jellâ â" so and so. What language uses those dang hats? They're the ones to blame for this corn on the cobb stuff! If it isn't the Norwegians, I appologize. Ok, now fess up. Which one of you guys puts hats on your letter "a"?

Charles,

Maize is a plant indigenous to North America. Even if corn farmers in the Upper Missippi have Scandinavian surnames, I very much doubt that they brought the corn with them. Also, I don't believe that Norway's climate or geography lend themselves to corn farming. Corn farming does not appear to be big in Denmark either (bacon and butter are much more common Danish exports).

So I don't believe that eating corn on the cob was ever a prominent enough activity in Scandinavia to inspire its own words a la smørhul/smørøye.

However, "at spise majskobler som om det er en skrivemaskine" might be a Danish way to express the idea. You could probably turn that into one of those ridiculously long adjectivial phrases that is favored in Scandinavian bureaucratese, but that's about the best you can hope for. Some ideas can be expressed more poetically in English; others work better in Scandinavian languages.

For example, the Danish expression (I forget what it is) for "brain drain" isn't nearly as concise or euphonious as the English, but the Danish expression for "tax freeze" has a nice bit of alliteration: "skattestop".

Denmark didn't put the halos on its a's until after a spelling reform law was passed by their national parliament in 1948. Prior to that, they used "aa", which has made a bit of a comeback in the age of Anglo-centric Internet protocols.

Sweden has used the "å" for centuries.

Norway was governed by Sweden for 100 years before it became independent, so it probably adopted the "å" a little sooner than Denmark. Bjørn can probably elaborate for you on that if you like.

Now it's suddenly all so clear. I had wondered why the Danes allowed the Oresund Fixed Link to be built to Sweden. Obviously the bridge was put there for the Danish armies to take back Scania!

You aren't fooling anyone Bjørn. Yeah, sure maize is indigenous to the Americas. But so is the tomato, the potato and quinine. Do Italians go bonkers over tomato sauce? They sure do. The largest US tomato company is Dimare for Pitre's sake. Do Blegians go bonkers over potatos? Yes they do. What's the major potato producing state? Idaho. Where in Idaho? Coeur d'Alene! That's a Belgian name if I ever heard one. That's right, Idaho is a maelstrom of Belgians. Belgians as far as the eye can see. Twice as many if you use both eyes. But I wouldn't advise that as you gotta always keep one eye on your wallet there. If you've been to Brussels you know exactly what I'm talking about. And do the English go bonkers over their gin and tonics? Yep again.

So don't be giving me this "Scandinavian types know nothing about corn on the cobb" stuff. Now, Norwegians are off the hook if, as you said, they didn't start using the "a" with hats stuff till the 40's. But the Swedes? If they been doing that hat thing for centuries, then it's their fault. It was the brothers and sisters of their great grandparents that started all this. Why? What on earth possesed them to do something like that? That's all I want to know. Why?

For the record I'm an American of German (mostly) heritage (German or Germanic) with ancestors in this country (the U.S.) going back to the early 1600s, and eating corn-on-the-cob has never seemed normal or something that I've considered to be normal (in that way that things are unconsciously comfortable or not). Eating something where you have to knaw on it like a rodent seems strange to me.

Popcorn is OK.

Remember too that 'corn' in England is 'wheat' in America. I don't think anybody here was mixing the two, but I'll just throw it in...

(An article about Norway vis-a-vis Denmark and not one mention of Sissel...)

That's just the kind of petty rambling that one would expect from the Germans. Ok, what our friend ct was trying to say, in his own unique way, was maybe people should look at this from an American's point of view.

It starts with an individual leaving somewhere in Europe (or not, I'm just using Europe as a case study example) for America. It's the 1600's, so that's a pre industrial Europe. An iron age Europe. He knows that may not make the trip alive (many don't) and probably will never return. A one way trip forever. Realising this, it is natural for a person to gather all the important things of his life, his surroundings, his village. Maybe it's a favorite book, a plant or wild flower, a sample of the local beer or wine, a musical instrument to play their favorite songs. They gather all the best and precious they can find to remember the land of their birth and place them in a trunk as big as they can, but not too big to carry. A sort of miniature cultural Noah's arc if you will. And then sets out to sea.

If he makes it, he then tries to duplicate the society he left. If possible, he mates with someone from the same European tribe and speaks at home the same language as back in Europe. He raises their children showing the momentos and teaches the language of the land he left behind. The next generation likewise, but they learn a little colonial English. Then they mate with someone from a different, but similar European tribe and show them the momentos and try to teach the languages of the lands they left behind. They learn a little more colonial english, but still mostly speak in the original languages. Their children (the 3rd genration) then mate with another more different European tribe and raise their children (4th gneration) but they can't teach them all the languages, so they settle on one main language and a few words of the others, but show all the momentos from the land they left behind. The 4th then learn more English and probably speak it outside the home, but inside the home. They mate with an even more different European tribe member, and their children (6th generation) completely give up on learning 12 languages speak colonial English inside and outside the home. They learn a few of the old words, especially those that are let loose during the more heated moments. But they still pass all the momentos. See the pattern?

Each generation gets further and further distant culturally and linguistically, but ALL of the momentos are passed on to the next generation. They are kept safe and well cared for with love and admiration.

Now it comes to the current generation in the US. An informational age US. We are so far removed from the mother cuture we only know, only have heard, a few words of the original language. Usually from grandmothers screaming because you knock over one of the momentos fighting with you brother in her living room. Other than that, no knowledge of the language or culture. But we still got all the momentos.

Only they are old now. Very old. No longer momentos, but relics. Iron age relics from an iron age past for an iron age use. We take them out during family gatherings along with photo albums at times like Christmas. We pass them to each other and hold them up to the light. We look at them up close and rotate them to see on all sides. And we all, every one in the US, then say, "What the fuck is this?"

We don't know. Maybe it's an agricultural thing. Maybe a musical instrument. Maybe a mid wifing thing or a femine hygine aparatus. We have no idea. All we know is that we are supposed to take care of these things and pass them to the next generation. We don't even know what they are made of. Maybe it's bone. Maybe it's antler horn. Maybe it's an ancient alchemist pre industrial age plastic. We don't know. We even aren't sure where they came from. It was never clearly explained what ancestor brought over what relic. And to make things worse, Europe keeps changing borders every few years, so we can't even be sure if that ancestor actually left from that country.

But now things are different. Europe is soon to be one nation, one country, one people. You can't pass this off to another country anymore. It doesn't matter whether they were from Sweden, Norway, Demark, Poland or not. It's just Europe now. So we have a few questions for you guys.

Why?
What the hell is this thing?
When will it ever end?

Sorry, Charles, but spuds in Coeur d'Alene are in found only in the supermarket. You're about 400 miles off.

But if you'd said Boise (les bois), you'd be geographically close enough. I think it was frogs, however, who named Boise.

What is possible would never have been achieved if, in this world, people had not repeatedly reached for the impossible.

Trackback URL: /cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/346

AlphaPatriot: The Danish Move to the Right, July 26, 2003 05:28 AM

I remain fascinated by European politics, which is why I was so pleased to run across a rather good entry by Norwegian blogger Bjørn Stærk about Danish politics. Excerpted here, this is a must read for those following our Euro-cousins: Until 2001, that...