I'm not sure how you're interpreting that as the response to the political problem instead of "trying to calm down an agitated audience so that the response to the problem can actually be discussed". Peaceful, democratic govt doesn't work without dialogue, and this seems like a ham-handed attempt at getting back towards dialogue instead of yelling.

Precisely, it's ham-fisted. Dialogue means shutting up and listening as well as talking. Maybe she should have let the crowd vent their legitimate grievances for a while. Telling people to calm down when they have good reason to be angry is infantilizing them and demonstrates a disinterest in the depth of their feeling on the topic. It basically says 'I'm you're elected official but I don't actually feel like listening to you.'

It isn't obvious to me. Others have sung 'We Shall Overcome' as a gesture of solidarity after hate crimes or killings. For examples:

"'We Shall Overcome': Mourners Honor Orlando Victims At The White House" from http://dcist.com/2016/06/emotional_scene_outside_white_house...

"'If that young man thought he was going to divide this country he failed miserably': Thousands unite and sing We Shall Overcome at Charleston prayer vigil" from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3132292/Thousands-ga...

"NAACP leaders joined local clergy and others to call for police reform in Chicago. After speaking with media, protesters linked arms and knelt in the street while singing "We Shall Overcome," blocking traffic." from http://abc7chicago.com/news/jason-van-dyke-posts-bond-leaves... .

"Citizens were joined by religious leaders, city leaders and a Huntington police officer and walked through the streets singing, "we shall overcome," and chanting, "stop the drugs, stop the violence."" from http://www.wsaz.com/content/news/Prayer-for-peace-vigil-held... .

There are also examples of "We Shall Overcome" being sung by politicians for something other than murder:

"House Democrats sing 'We Shall Overcome' shame GOP during sit-in" from http://www.kens5.com/news/politics/national-politics/house-d...

Is the embarrassing part in the Swedish case the it was a politician who tried to organize the singing? Or was it the implication that immigrants in Sweden are treated like black people in America? Or the expectation that immigrants would both identify with the American civil rights experience and know the song? Or something else?

If a politician in Sweden were to lead people to sing The Internationale, would that also be seen as an "empty gesture of solidarity"? (My assumption is that socialist-leaning Sweden has politicians who sing the national anthem. https://www.thelocal.se/20090406/18692 says 'the [SDU] party also offered up renditions of socialist and communist songs such as "the Internationale" and "Song for Stalin"' so it's not like it's an uncommon song there like it is in the US.)

Notice how all those are Americans, for which "We shall overcome" means something historically, and nevertheless a lot of those are cringeworthy bogus political gestures (e.g. "House Democrats sing 'We Shall Overcome' shame GOP during sit-in") as well considering the legacy of the song.

Now put that in a totally unrelated situation, in a foreign country, and used not as a grass-roots song sung for solidarity, but as a top-down suggestion...

It's the difference between leading people who are asking for leadership and treating them like unruly children when they are trying to articulate issues in their own voice. In this case the crowd was expressing its dissatisfaction with the failure of the political authorities to keep their communities safe; they were critiquing leadership rather than asking to be inspired.

Context matters. The song itself isn't the issue; singing 'We shall overcome' might have been fine after a free and frank exchange of views in which the crowd had had a chance to articulate their grievances, and the politicians had had a chance to explain what they proposed to do about them, and common ground had been established.

I agree that context matters. I felt that your original description was too context-free to agree that your conclusion was "pretty obvious". Instead, it seemed more like a blanket dislike of politicians.

The embarrassing part is that the suggestion fell so flat but that she non the less went through with singing it. She should have read the mood of the crowd better - now it ended up as a blueprint for nightmares of people afraid of speaking to crowds.

> The embarrassing part is that the suggestion fell so flat but that she non the less went through with singing it.

Thank you. This is what was missing from Wikipedia and other comments.