What does this actually mean? What am I actually, substantively, getting wrong here in this discussion?
You are trying to apply your frame and that of your culture, with some modifications for cultures you are familiar enough with - primarily the UK.
The frame doesn't fit in many other places. For one, the concept of race that your culture has isn't universal. We've talked about this a couple of times now.
For another, the issues around majority Muslim communities' place in society differ from country to country.
You can find all the things you may be looking for in most of them. But in many cases they are just not that terribly relevant.
E.g. "race" or quasi "race" or whatever, religion and the latter as proxy for the former technically apply in most places.
But in many other issues dominate the negotiation of majority Muslim communities' standing to a degree that is very different to said negotiation in the US, or even the UK.
Like class, class based "culture", nationalism etc.
The Danish left shouldn't "learn" to have a platform from the US, the parties have had each of their specific electory platforms for decades (well, those that existed for so long at least). I'm actually really confused what you mean. I know that you aren't saying that the non-American world is just passively staring at the US to learn their policies, but it reads like that. So I wanted to exclaim my confusion and/or answer what you might have meant:
If this is about having a platform about race/immigration.
1. No, Narz doesn't mean what you interpreted.
He means that left-of-centre politicians, parties, what-have-you, should have their voice be mostly about clear cut causes of concrete socio-economic impact.
That can be something about money.
That can be something elemental that affects a clearly defined and sizeable class of persons, like marriage equality for LGB persons.
It should not be something symbolic that affects a small subset of some small class suffering from percieved or actual oppression.
The latter may be worthy of doing in its own right - it depends on the case - but it's not a substitute for substantial policies in the electoral arena.
Like, what are Social Democrats in Denmark running on?
I'm genuinely asking - i don't know.
2. What's the background of Muslim Danes anyway? And, presuming there are groups with different roles in political discourse which ones is this about?
You mentioned Somali Danes. Naive old me was under the impression that most Muslim Danes had some form of a Turkish, Kurdish or Iraqi background.
So can you tell us a bit about all of that?
I share the same sentiment with Lexicus and I believe Cloud_Strife also the same from the discussion about race with "hehehe" in the past thread, we believe the concept of race itself is arbitrary, there is no such thing as race.
Yeah, that's exactly why the concept is all kinds of malleable and doesn't work out the same in every culture just because that would be convenient to someone or another's worldview.
Like, nobody actually passed photographs of the unicorn around.
Because it doesn't exist.
There were drawings. And confusion. And some cultures have, like, tiny chequered unicorns with gills and whatnot.
(Meta said, gently testing the durability of the metaphor).