![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Cheapskate rude Swedes starving their visitors
I was born 1971 and I grew up in Gothenburg. I’ve got a few thoughts on the current kerfuffle, aka "#swedengate". (Note that a lot probably has changed since then; I don’t have any children so I’ve not needed to think about it, but I’m fairly sure it’s a lot more relaxed now.)
First, in the 1970's there was still a lot of “children should be seen and not heard” around. When I went to play with another kid, I’d expect to play only in their room, not in any common family area. I don’t think that’s necessarily the case anymore, but I really didn’t expect to interact with my friends’ families except for saying hi and maybe being given a glass of juice and a cookie or something. I’d just stay out of the way to “not be a bother”.
Second, we had a very strong tradition of family dinner. The rule was you could play where you liked, as long as you were home in time for dinner.
And third, there was indeed a poverty issue, but not in the way most people seem to take it. In the 70's we were only a generation away from being a very poor country indeed. People found taking handouts, “charity”, deeply shameful. So the poverty-related issue wasn’t “we can’t afford to feed an extra child”. It was “let’s not imply their parents are too poor to feed them or too uncaring to want them home for dinner”. Hanging around someone else’s family at meal times in the hope of being fed was a sort of freeloading, and you just didn’t do that. Sending your children to someone else’s house to eat, without their being expressly invited, was also freeloading. For Jane Austen readers, see chapter 15 where Aunt Norris complains of a child being sent over with a pair of boards for his carpenter father. “I knew what all this meant, for the servants’ dinner-bell was ringing at the very moment over our heads; and as I hate such encroaching people [...]” Or, for that matter, Edith Nesbit’s “The Railway Children”, when the children had the whole village join in giving birthday presents to their friend, and he was insulted because he thought it meant everybody thought he needed charity.
You really didn’t want to be considered one of those encroaching people, so you didn’t go to anyone’s house expecting to be fed. Offered a snack, a glass of juice, “saft” or lemonade for a child or a cup of coffee for an adult - definitely. But just showing up and getting dinner? God, no. I’d get told “don’t go there now, they’re probably having dinner”. Any unannounced drop-in visit would be at a time that wasn’t likely to coincide with dinner.
Note that this applies only to uninvited guests. If they’re invited for dinner, of course you feed them. And of course a parent could call the other child’s parent and ask them if it’s OK for their child to have dinner. But just assuming they need to be fed, because their parents wouldn’t want them home for family dinner or be unable to feed them? Rude!
Also, as for offering food to uninvited guests: there was fika! Coffee, some sort of biscuit, cookie or snack, that was what you’d give them, every time. Fika culture is strong!
First, in the 1970's there was still a lot of “children should be seen and not heard” around. When I went to play with another kid, I’d expect to play only in their room, not in any common family area. I don’t think that’s necessarily the case anymore, but I really didn’t expect to interact with my friends’ families except for saying hi and maybe being given a glass of juice and a cookie or something. I’d just stay out of the way to “not be a bother”.
Second, we had a very strong tradition of family dinner. The rule was you could play where you liked, as long as you were home in time for dinner.
And third, there was indeed a poverty issue, but not in the way most people seem to take it. In the 70's we were only a generation away from being a very poor country indeed. People found taking handouts, “charity”, deeply shameful. So the poverty-related issue wasn’t “we can’t afford to feed an extra child”. It was “let’s not imply their parents are too poor to feed them or too uncaring to want them home for dinner”. Hanging around someone else’s family at meal times in the hope of being fed was a sort of freeloading, and you just didn’t do that. Sending your children to someone else’s house to eat, without their being expressly invited, was also freeloading. For Jane Austen readers, see chapter 15 where Aunt Norris complains of a child being sent over with a pair of boards for his carpenter father. “I knew what all this meant, for the servants’ dinner-bell was ringing at the very moment over our heads; and as I hate such encroaching people [...]” Or, for that matter, Edith Nesbit’s “The Railway Children”, when the children had the whole village join in giving birthday presents to their friend, and he was insulted because he thought it meant everybody thought he needed charity.
You really didn’t want to be considered one of those encroaching people, so you didn’t go to anyone’s house expecting to be fed. Offered a snack, a glass of juice, “saft” or lemonade for a child or a cup of coffee for an adult - definitely. But just showing up and getting dinner? God, no. I’d get told “don’t go there now, they’re probably having dinner”. Any unannounced drop-in visit would be at a time that wasn’t likely to coincide with dinner.
Note that this applies only to uninvited guests. If they’re invited for dinner, of course you feed them. And of course a parent could call the other child’s parent and ask them if it’s OK for their child to have dinner. But just assuming they need to be fed, because their parents wouldn’t want them home for family dinner or be unable to feed them? Rude!
Also, as for offering food to uninvited guests: there was fika! Coffee, some sort of biscuit, cookie or snack, that was what you’d give them, every time. Fika culture is strong!
no subject
Granted, my memory for that sort of thing isn't very good, so it might have happened...