Hollywood Filmmakers Expose Evil Icelanders Putting the Melting Pot Ideology on Trial

Except for its subliminal sociopolitical sub-plot, The Mighty Ducks 2 is a movie not worth reviewing, both because it was produced in 1994 and because of its lack of cinematic merit, though it is entertaining as far as entertainment goes. The political message is evident, however, even though stated only visually, emotionally, as well as deceptively, and never conceptualized verbally and openly. The film is made for young teens and pre-teens, who are at an age highly susceptible to its message, and will indoctrinate them into misleading ideas if care is not taken regarding both this film and others of similar intent.

Mighty Ducks 2 spins a tale about a minor hockey league player played by Emilio Estevez who becomes coach of Team USA Hockey for the Junior Goodwill Games. His team turns out to be a ragtag group of young hockey players that he must transform into a group that can beat the world favorites — the mighty Icelanders!

A typical Hollywood plot ensues, with the Mighty Ducks being beaten and threatened with defeat until they rally to win in the end. To make them look good, the Team USA juniors are opposed by Icelanders, who are made to look mean and dominating compared to the klutzy American kids. By their uniforms and behavior, the Icelandic kids resemble nothing less than Nazis.

The first obvious message being conveyed by this film into the minds of naive youth is a negative image of Icelanders. A more subtle message is also being conveyed, however — that the people of relatively homogenous Icelandic society are morally inferior and depraved compared to Americans because of their mean and arrogant behavior when compared to the behavior of the lovable and scatterbrained melting pot Americans.

The melting pot angle is clearly projected in Mighty Ducks 2, with the American hockey players coming from all backgrounds. Along with ordinary European American and African American kids the film highlights boys with Chinese, Jewish, Mexican, and cowboy backgrounds as well as a girl goaltender. The other message of the film, along with the typical Hollywood themes of a) the underdog wins, b) the good guys win, and c) Americans win, is that the American melting pot society not only wins, but should win precisely because it is a melting pot and therefore by nature good when compared to a more homogenous society like evil Iceland with its population of 297,000. The precognitive equation is being instilled in youth that melting pot = good whereas greater homogeneity = bad.

Let us see how the sociopolitical message of this Hollywood film stands up against reality. American statistics on war and homicide will be compared with Icelandic and other Scandinavian data, since Iceland is part of Scandinavian culture, on the same to determine which culture and social system is more violent—the melting pot or the relatively homogenous Scandinavian.

Social Ideologies and Participation in War

First, as to involvement in wars, the U.S. government has been at war regularly since its independence in 1783. The major wars include the War of 1812 (1812-14), the Mexican-American War (1846-48), the Civil War (1861-65), the Spanish-American War (1898, major because the U.S. acquired Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines), World War I (1917-18), World War II (1941-45), the Korean War (1951-53), the Vietnam War (1960-75), Iraq (1990-present), Afghanistan (2001-present), as well as several actions against Amerindians in the 1800s. The list of minor and less major military actions is far longer.

Scandinavia, of which Iceland is a part along with Denmark, Norway and Sweden, since 1783 has been involved as a major protagonist in the wars following: Iceland: None, having gained partial independence from Denmark in 1918 and full independence in 1944. Its only “wars” have been over cod (a popular fish) with Britain. The country has no standing army.1 Sweden: Wars with Denmark 1788-89, 1808-09, 1813-14, 1814. Wars with Russia: 1788-90, 1808-09. Wars connected to the Napoleonic Wars: 1805-10, 1810-12, 1813-14. Wars with Germany: First Schleswig War 1848-50.2 Denmark, in addition to the above wars with Sweden: 1801 twice, 1801-02, 1807, 1807-15 (all with Britain); 1809 in Iceland, the First Schleswig War 1848-50, the German-Danish War 1864, and an insignificant tiff with Norway 1931-33.3 Norway: Only with Denmark in Greenland 1931-33 as mentioned, having gained independence from Denmark in 1814.4

In terms of military expenditures, the U.S. also spends more per citizen than any other Scandinavian country. The U.S. ranks third at US$935.63 per person, Israel is #1 at $1429.02, Singapore #2 at $1009.94, Norway #12 at $677.77, Sweden #18 at $488.22, Denmark #20 at $454.71, and Iceland #169, last on the list, at $0 per person.5

Thus, though Sweden and Denmark were very active militarily in the early years of the post-1783 period under discussion, after 1814 Sweden and Denmark engaged militarily as principals only once, in 1864, 141 years ago, except for a minor Danish affair with Norway 1931-33. U.S. military engagement in turn has yet to end and the nation is at war in Iraq as of this writing. War itself does not prove a militaristic character, since some wars are defensive or otherwise morally justified. Evidence of U.S. provocation or aggression leading to war is available, however, particularly for the Civil War, the Spanish-American War, World War II, and the current war in Iraq, suggesting its melting pot social theory is not itself conducive to peace, whereas the long period of peace in Scandinavia suggests relative cultural homogeneity is not by itself a cause of war. The Scandinavian countries also spend significantly less on their militaries than the U.S. Nevertheless, since the moral responsibility for war can be vague, confusing, or obscured, another measure of violence by which to compare cultures and social paradigms will be used—homicide. Rape will also be discussed though in less detail.

Social Ideologies, Homicide and Rape

The gaps between murder rates in the U.S. and the Scandinavian countries are wide. In terms of murders per capita, the U.S. ranks 24th highest at 4.28 per 100,000, between Bulgaria and Armenia. Iceland in turn ranks 42 at 1.68 murders per 100,000 or 39.4% of the U.S. rate. Denmark is #53 with 1.07 per 100,000, or 24.9% of the U.S. rate. Norway is #54 at 1.02 per 100,000, also 24.9% of the U.S. rate.6 Sweden is not on this list of 62, but another source puts it at 2.06 per 100,000, or 48% of the U.S. rate.7 Qatar’s murder rate is at the bottom of this list of 62 at 0.12 per 100,000, or less than 2.71% of the U.S. rate. Another source gives the U.S. a 1998-2000 homicide rate of 5.87,8 however, and the U.S. Department of Justice claimed it was 6.3 per 100,000 in 1998,9 both of which would make Scandinavia rates even less than they are compared with the U.S. In terms of totals, the U.S. had 12,658 murders in 1999, between Mexico and Venezuela, whereas Sweden had 175 in 2000, Denmark 58 in 2000, Norway 49 in 2000, Iceland 5 in 1999, and Qatar, with its 1 homicide in 2000.10 Another source puts the U.S. total significantly higher in 1999 at 15,522.11

Lest anyone think poverty necessarily causes higher homicide rates, several countries poorer than the U.S. have lower per capita rates than the U.S. India, with 41% of its population in poverty, by far the highest rate in the world,12 is the most notable, with a rate of 3.44 per 100,000, or between 80.4 and 54.6% of the U.S. rate. Yemen has a rate of 3.36 per 100,000, Dominica 2.90, Azerbaijan 2.86, Malaysia 2.30, Mauritius 2.11, and Tunisia 1.12, compared to the U.S. rate between 4.28 and 6.3.13

Nor is distribution of family income necessarily related to homicide rates. According to the Gini Index, 13 out of the 23 countries with greater per capital murder rates than the U.S. have less disparity in family income than the U.S. Once again, the country classification for homicides is incomplete, comprising only 62 countries, but this does not change the fact that several nations with higher murder rates show less extreme income family-wise. Jamaica, Russia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus, Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Poland, Georgia, Uruguay, and Bulgaria all have greater homicide rates than the U.S. but are more moderate in terms of income range.14 Neither poverty nor family income distribution (relative poverty) are correlated with homicide rates according to this data.

Further, in its recent annual corruption index, Transparency International has rated Iceland as being perceived to be the least corrupt country in the world. The United States ranks 17th, and all other Scandinavian countries do better than the U.S. as well. Denmark is ranked 4th, Sweden 6th, and Norway 8th.15

The facts, not the film, show that The Mighty Ducks 2 is actually a nifty piece of propaganda, on several counts. First, it is the U.S., not Iceland or any other Scandinavian society, that is more violent, not only in the somewhat controversial category of modern warmaking, but also in the self-evident category of homicide. The film is thus deceptive and disingenuous, portraying Icelandic boy ice hockey players as more violent and aggressive than Americans when in truth the latter have a more violent society. This is a direct insult to Icelanders and by extrapolation the rest of Scandinavian culture, one of the most peace-loving in the world.

Second, the film also inverts reality by implying that relatively homogenous cultures like that of Iceland are more mean and violent than melting pot nations like the U.S. Though relatively homogenous nations have engaged in war and even committed atrocities domestically and in foreign affairs, the violence of melting pot nations like the U.S. (as well as of the multiethnic former Soviet Union) confirm that the thesis that cultural homogeneity is by nature a cause of violence is nothing more than gaseous disinformation. This conclusion should not encourage xenophobia against foreigners, since cultures can learn a lot from each other, but it does demonstrate that just as relative cultural homogeneity is not a crime or cause of violence, the melting pot sociopolitical ideology is not inherently a virtue or cause of peace.

The sad fact is, however, that Scandinavia has already started down the road of melting pot-ism in spite of the above revelations about relations between the world’s primary melting pot society and violence, and its crime statistics are showing the corresponding results. In Oslo, the capital city of once-idyllic and majestic fjord-graced Norway, Police Inspector Gunnar Larsen of Oslo’s Vice, Robbery and Violent Crime division says the rising number of rape cases as well as a non-Scandinavian immigrant background of rapists are both clear trends. A full 65% of those charged with rape in Oslo are not of European background even though those of their background are only 14.3% of Oslo’s population, and 80% of the victims are Norwegian women. Rape charges in the capital were 40 percent higher in the year 2000 over the previous year, and are up 13 percent so far this year. The Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet has reported that 65 percent of rapes of Norwegian women were performed by “non-Western” immigrants.16

In Sweden, which used to be relatively homogenous and was one of the world’s most prosperous and respected countries of the world because of its “middle way” between American-style jungle capitalism and socialism and now has 11% foreign-born, perhaps 20% if their children are included, crime and social discontent are escalating. In Malmö, Sweden’s second largest city and across the sound from Copenhagen in Denmark, the number of rape charges is 5-6 times that of Copenhagen even though the latter is a much larger city; Copenhagen also has a lower percentage of immigrants.17 Nor is this just an increased willingness to report rape on the part of the victims: Reported rapes against children have almost doubled in Sweden during the past ten years as well. Further, there are now 136 ghetto areas in Sweden, whereas 14 years ago there were only 3, in spite of well-funded government efforts to integrate immigrants. At least 139 schools in Sweden suffered arson attacks during 2002 alone.18

In Denmark this year, the perpetrator in 68% of all rapes was of other than Scandinavian ancestry.19

Whatever the situation in these still relatively comfortable welfare state countries today, crime like burning down educational institutions or especially rape is neither a moral nor a humanistic response. Most of the perpetrators would probably be far poorer if they had not been given entry into Scandinavia. The transformation of once idyllic Scandinavian cities into breeding grounds for crime constitutes further proof that melting pot-ism as a social ideology is not only defective, it is a retrograde or counter-evolutionary movement in the social dynamics of the advanced industrial countries discussed herein in terms of its relation to violence.

Social Ideology and Criminal Liability

New social situations require new political concepts. According to the relative degree of warmaking but especially the relative degree of homicide in melting pot America and predominantly homogenous Scandinavia, as well as the increase in crime in U.S. want-to-be’s Sweden and Norway as a result of adopting the melting pot ideology, a rational analysis would conclude that the melting pot ideology should be rejected as a founding sociopolitical principle: Its correlation with an increase in violence is too great too ignore. Rather, at the present time and for the foreseeable future, factors contributing to melting pot-ism should be strictly curbed.

Second, political leaders have to be brought to account for their part in causing social breakdown and increased criminality. Normally, political leaders are held to account at the ballot box, and the consequences of their misbehavior political only, as in being voted out of office. Current circumstances are different, however. Assuming that Scandinavian political leaders know that increasing immigration is resulting in increasing rape and perhaps other crime, their refusal in Norway and Sweden to strike its causes at the root is not just political irresponsibility but criminal negligence, if not criminal malfeasance. That is, since increasing physical harm and destruction of public property are established, known, and now foreseeable results of their policy of melting pot-ism, legal grounds for bringing the appropriate political leaders to court on charges of criminal negligence or malfeasance should be considered legitimate and developed for inclusion in law. Politicians do not themselves commit these rapes and other crimes, but they have created the primary condition for a larger number of rapes. The condition in question is certain politicians’ melting pot policy, so the causal relation between their policy and the acts themselves is rather easy to determine. Without that policy, rapes would be less in number.

Ideological changes have led to the current degradation of Scandinavian society, and legal development is necessary to keep in step with those changes on a rational basis. Melting pot violence is neither moral nor humanistic, and its primary causes in the misguided ideologies of political leaders need not receive the shelter of law or morality. Subjecting citizens to additional criminal violence is not a right or privilege of political leaders. Current circumstances show that democracy needs greater accountability, an accountability on a par with the nature of the abuse of power or deliberate irresponsibility in question. Since the abuse of power under discussion here has resulted in criminal activity, and is not just evidence of political disagreement, almost inevitably with the knowledge of Scandinavian political leaders, the appropriate remedy for this abuse of power should be in the criminal courts and not only the political arena, and legal theoreticians should develop the law accordingly. The next time a Scandinavian woman or child is the victim of melting pot rape, she should be able to bring charges against the politicians responsible for maintaining melting pot policies. As in any democracy, she should be able by law to obtain statistics on the national origin of rapists from the government in deciding how to present her case. Politically, those who refuse to protect the dignity of women do not deserve to be in office and should be thrown out like the scoundrels they are.

Further, politicians and other elites who think rape is worth the price of inculcating tolerance, a purported goal of melting pot-ism, have distorted values and essentially expect people to tolerate rape just for the sake of a confusing moral lesson, even though rape itself is immoral. Any valid moral imperative applies to all people, however, and should thus apply to those increasing Scandinavian rape rates, not only Scandinavians. Rape is neither moral nor is it an act of tolerance, but powerful political interests are pressuring Scandinavians to accept an increase in this crime nevertheless. Moreover, self-defense, both individual and national, is also an accepted moral principle. Its application as a national principle is simply somewhat undeveloped and generally limited to military- and illegal drug-related matters.

Conclusions

The Mighty Ducks 2 is a highly misleading film and conditions viewers to think the American melting pot is a morally superior ideology and form of social formation when in fact the U.S. is more violent in terms of engagement in major wars and homicide rates than Iceland and, by extrapolation, the rest of mainly non-melting-pot Scandinavian culture defamed in this not-so-innocent film for youth. Statistics further show that the recent adoption of the melting pot ideology by Norway and Sweden is not only not improving conditions of life in these countries, it is making them more internally violent like the U.S. In other words, though supposedly an ideology intended to promote tolerance, the melting pot-ism being promoted by this film increases violence against those who are being told to be tolerant. If violence and other crime evidence values that are to be avoided, the melting pot ideology can longer be considered a viable, healthy, or even moral social philosophy, and a more rational foundation for social formation will have to be found.

Further, demonstrated and foreseeable increases in violence can no longer be dismissed as political errors or disagreements whose only authority is the democratic process. Criminal violence falls within the jurisdiction of criminal law, not politics. If political leaders knowingly pursue policies that not only make a majority of people unhappy but subject them to increased crime, this is equivalent to criminal, not just political, liability and malfeasance, and the remedies should be legal as well as political if moral and humanistic values, as well as social peace, are to be preserved.

Notes
• The Hon. Consulate General of Iceland in Tokyo, Japan. “History,” http://www.iceland.or.jp/Files/iceland/his.htm.


• Högman, Hans. “Swedish Wars 1521 - 1814,” http://www.algonet.se/~hogman/svenska%20krig%20eng%20-%20grafiskt.htm, as well as World History at KMLA: History of Warfare. “History of Sweden,” http://www.zum.de/whkmla/military/scandinavia/milxsweden.html, downloaded Oct. 26, 2005.


• World History at KMLA: History of Warfare. “History of Denmark,” http://www.zum.de/whkmla/military/scandinavia/milxdenmark.html, downloaded Oct. 26, 2005.


• Http://www.norway.org/1905-2005/separation/.


• CIA World Factbook, 28 July 2005. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/mil_exp_dol_fig_cap, downloaded Oct. 25, 2005.


• United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention, “Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems,” covering the period 1998 - 2000, http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_cap, downloaded Oct. 20, 2005.
• 
  
• Barclay, Gordon, and Cynthia Tavares. “International comparisons of criminal justice statistics 2000,” http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb502.pdf. p.10.
  
• . Ibid.


• Farrington, David P., Patrick A. Langan, and Michael Tonry, Eds. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. Cross-National Studies in Crime and Justice, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/htius98.pdf.


• United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur, except for Sweden, from Barclay and Tavares, op. cit.


• Barclay and Tavares. Op. cit.


• Poling, Janice. “Country Responsibilities in Achieving the Millennium Development Goals,” April 8 2003, http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/eco_pov_sha_of_all_poo_peo, downloaded Oct. 25, 2005.
  
• United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. Op. cit., http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_cap.


• CIA World Factbook, 28 July 2005.
  http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/eco_dis_of_fam_inc_gin_ind&int=-1#, downloaded on Oct. 18, 2005.


• Transparency International. Transparency International
  Corruption Perceptions Index 2005, October 18, 2005, http://www.transparency.org/cpi/2005/cpi2005_infocus.html, downloaded Oct. 26, 2005.


• “Muslim Rape Epidemic in Sweden and Norway - Authorities Look the Other Way,” Feb. 20, 2005, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AmericansInNorway/message/1807?viscount=100, downloaded Oct. 26, 2005.


• Fjordman. “Is Swedish Democracy Collapsing?” http://www.invandring.se/arkiv/2005/05/is_swedish_demo.html, downloaded Oct. 26, 2005.


• Ibid.


• “Muslim Rape Epidemic,” op. cit. 2005,the author.