Category: All categories

Migrant Tales Literary: Poem – Beyond Recognition

Posted on by Mark

BEYOND RECOGNITION

Part I

Jella played with the sand, spade
digging earnestly at the dry earth.
Jaref thrust out a hand, grabbing
thief-like, as older brothers do.

Jella cried. First in despair, but
then in the corner of the yard,
there under the peeling gable,
standing troubled, forlorn,
like a totem of the oppressed.

Jaref knew himself declared,
a bully in the sight of the world.
Conscience prodded, but
he just stared – stubborn, defiant,
squatted in the shallow sand pit,
a small distance from the house.

And though he might deny it,
her pain dug at his callow heart.

The screaming rocket hit the upper floor.
Noise erupted, huge and flat
like a tolling bell,
clasping at Jaref, stealing him instantly
towards a soundless universe.
He watched, mute, as the gable wall fell,
smothering his sister in dust
and unearthliness.

Part II

The newspaper mentioned five dead.
In hidden rooms, crumpled maps
on wooden tables showed
pencilled roads towards retaliation.

Part III

Jaref knew nothing save an absence. An age
of gnawing deafness to the world.
The youth veered towards maturity
while hope and beauty lay feigned,
swathed in a stained white shawl,
sleeping in a dusty grave.

Pain wrapped in numbness,
a weight pushing on all sides.
Only one sure relief,
a raffish friend, seeking to console –

Revenge!

A force majeure mission,
for love brutalised beyond recognition.

Part IV

Jaref strapped on the belt.
His friends looked on solemn.
A remote trigger.
He walked away resolved
to find his place,
to stand among the unknown faces
as a totem of the oppressed
at the margins of the broken spaces.

Part V

Aschil, soon to be twenty and married,
busied herself among the stalls. A proud
father wafted like a shawl at her side,
offering the easy advice of one not
given to fussing over craft or colours.

He was there to serve, in a declaration
of his daughter’s worthiness.
His role merely to proffer his wage,
though he beamed with priceless joy
for his daughter’s coming of age.

Part VI

She peered inside the shadowed interior
beneath a gently billowing canopy,
at wares strung on bright yellow strings,
lights and lanterns of myriad crystal bounty,
all winking blithe in the morning sun.
A light, she reflected – a good omen.

As Aschil turned, the tented wall lit up.
Time becalmed. And piece by piece,
the thronged scene split asunder,
as flying shards of fevered metal roared at
the crowds with furious thunder.

Canvas and flesh yielded without rebuff.
Aschil fell, eyes staring at the final terror.
She let go her last breath, crushed.

A love brutalised forever.

Part VII

The newspaper mentioned 43 dead.
In hidden rooms, crumpled maps
on wooden tables showed
pencilled roads towards retaliation.

– Mark

Selling malarkey by the pound in Finland's cultural diversity debate

Posted on by Migrant Tales

I am always amazed by the malarkey and bravado expressed by anti-immigration, populist and nationalist groups when they speak of war, racism and censorship. They speak of these social illnesses as if they had first-hand experience even though they have never seen or been victims of war, racism and state censorship. 

Even so, they have lots of opinions about what war, racism and state censorship are. Sometimes they even surprise us with an occasional solution, albeit impracticable, to the challenges posed by our ever-growing cultural diversity as a society.

Some of these characters make incredible claims like being the oldest people on Earth, like  Methuselah.

Here is an example: “That guy thinks it’s “his” society? Hey Enrique, where were YOUR family when WE fought against Soviet Union? Where were your family when the civil war raged here in spring of 1918 and my great grandfather barely made it alive from the prison camp?”

How old is this person anyway? 120 or older?

My answer to such a preposterous claim is the following: My grandparents fought in all of these wars.

It is clear that those that have never seen war are the first ones to glorify it. Their saber-rattling arguments not only have generous quantities of malarkey in them but are strongly peppered with bravado.

If some of them ever had the misfortune to go to war and were officers, they would be the ones that would lead their troops from behind.

Some of them make the most incredible claims on Migrant Tales as well. One of these is that racism is a minor problem in this country and the fault lies in the immigrant for not adapting. All these people have to do is sit on their behinds and watch how the world adapts to them.

And then we come to their absurd claims and hate speech that they spread wholesale on the net anonymously. Like questionable war heros they claim to be, they are the first ones who would rise and defend our right to free speech.

Hogwash.

I know what state censorship is because I lived under a dictatorship in Argentina during 1976-83. People got killed for what they published never mind what they thought. If they were lucky, they fled the country.

The most important matter I learned as a young journalist a long time ago was that words are weapons. Words can move mountains, even bring down dictatorships.

We are confident on Migrant Tales that our efforts and arguments will expose the ugliness of racism and social exclusion in our society.
We will not sell malarkey by the pound and beat our chests with arrogant bravado like those who have never seen war, racism or state censorship but claim they have!

Finland’s darkest period: 2011-15

Posted on by Migrant Tales

In the future, when Finnish historians of different ethnic backgrounds look at the present parliamentary term 2011-15,  they will most likely conclude that it was the darkest period for Finland and immigrants in the new century.  A prelude to this sombre period were  the municipal election of 2008 and how it reflected a shift in the national mood. 

It would be naive, even an exercise in self-deceit, to claim that the Perussuomalaiset (PS) party isn’t one  obvious culprit. The municipal elections of 2008 and 2003, when PS MP Tony Halme was elected to parliament,  speak volumes about how racism and xenophobia started to lift their heads in this country.

Despite being one of the worst periods in our recent history, where some groups and politicians aim to make racism and xenophobia as normal and acceptable as karjalanpiirakka, it has brought out the best in some of us. For some, like Migrant Tales, it has been a clarion call.

If this period has brought out the best in some of us, it has brought out the worst as well.

Some regretful examples come form of silence and lack of leadership by the Finnish media and some politicians. The success of the PS in the April elections is proof of the inarticulateness, complacency and even the flirting of these two groups with anti-immigration parties and groups.

The PS has provided us with monthly scandals beginning with MP Teuvo Hakkarainen’s first day in parliament to the recent suggestion by councilman Tommi Rautio’s  to give a medal to a cold-blooded killer.

A word of advice to anti-immigration extremists: Everything you write will come under scrutiny by future generations. Those future generations, which will be made up of Finnish researchers from different ethnic backgrounds, will highlight the racism and xenophobia that inflicted part of our society today.

When they give their lectures at our universities on ethnic studies or history, they will show to their students the shameful evidence left in the writings of numerous anti-immigration politicians like PS MP Jussi Halla-aho and his Suomen Sisu crowd, for example.

Time will increase the shamefulness of these racist writings. What is written today by some of these racists will look eerily similar to what some groups wrote about blacks during the U.S. Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s. Recognizing this will be the first important step in liberating our society from the illness that has inflicted it.

Defending religious bigotry – a case study!

Posted on by Mark

This article is the final narrative of an exchange I had recently with a Migrant Tales’ commentator who goes under the handle of Elven the Archer. If you have read his very many comments on the Migrant Tales article “Why are Finland’s politicians still so silent?”, I think you will already be aware of his religious bigotry in regard to Muslims.

What interested me was how to keep track of his many diversions and meanderings in defending himself against the charge of bigotry, even while displaying a horrific lack of respect for the universal human rights of Muslim individuals. It is certainly an interesting case study in the bare-faced denial of bigotry of an obvious Islamaphobe. Here is that narrative as told from my point of view.

It all began when Elven posted this:

The Muslim population multiplied 10 times faster than the rest of society, the research by the Office for National Statistics [UK] done during the period of 2004-2008 reveals.”

In very strong terms, I denounced the use of these statistics in the context of an argument against Muslim immigration to Europe as “utter bigotry”. Elven then claimed (as many other bigots do) that because it was a fact, it could not possibly be bigotry.

What about the national office that produced the study? Are they bigots too in there? And that professor of demographics studies, is he too an utter bigot?

And later, this arrogant little quip:

Show me the error [in the fact] and so stop squirming. It is as simple as that.

Elven then went on to argue that in the context of this thread, the figures were relevant. However, Elven did NOT introduce the figures in a debate on demographics. He introduced the figures in a long post that was making the case for barring Islamic immigrants to Europe on the grounds of their apparent negative characteristics. His words quoted below are sarcastic, as is often his style.

Not even when almost 40 % of the so called modern western muslims in Britain want religious laws. Obviously they are integrating so well and hey, just look at the islamic countries, you can’t find problems at all with islam. They are quite paradises on earth (just a few bad governments here or there, but the values of the people are just about right, right?), no human rights violations, no hatred against sexual minorities, no problems with women being not equal and so forth.

and in the same post:

That is mixing people with very different core values.

And finished it off with a further heavily sarcastic comment:

It doesn’t shape the UK in an unwanted way but instead it just makes the country better, more multiculturalist?

Interestingly, in later posts he tried to defend these statements and subsequent additional negative slurs on Muslims by saying:

I simply presented some statistics about the problems. I didn’t say why was that, why was the higher crime rate. You can take it however you want it. But as long as I don’t make such a claim [Muslims are more criminal] you can’t put words into my mouth.

This is a very weak defence given that the absolute thrust of his argument is that Muslims are just not good enough to live with native Europeans.

So, in trying to show Elven the Archer the error of his bigoted ways, I asked Elven to respond to a hypothetical scenario:

It’s a fact that the German’s murdered 6 million Jews. However, if a German arrived at a job interview and upon sitting down opposite the interviewers was immediately presented with this fact, would you regard it as a kind of bigotry?

Elven squirmed, as he does, and after much procrastination and irrelevant posting, he finally answered:

yes

I continued to elaborate the example by rephrasing this ‘yes’ into a general principle and asked Elven if he also agreed with this:

So, from this it also follows that people can state completely factual things and yet that statement, because of the context, is clearly bigotry?”

After dodging this question THREE times, Elven gave something almost approaching an answer:

Stating a fact about a waaaaaay different context can be some kind of bigotry.

When challenged further about this, he added:

The number of immigrants are not out the context when the context is the immigration.

However, Elven is deflecting attention away from the fact it was not the numbers, but the multiplying numbers of Muslims immigrants specifically that was the salient point of his quote. Together with his earlier stated stance that Muslim immigrants should not be allowed into Europe, he was clearly offering up what he thought were justifications for why Muslims should be refused entry. The true context is therefore not simply a discussion about the number of Muslims in the UK, but the justifications for a policy that would see individual Muslims told they cannot enter Europe because they are Muslim.

Thus far, I had demonstrated that it is clearly POSSIBLE for a factual statement to be used as a weapon of bigotry, even though the CONTENT of that statement was completely factual and itself did not have any racist element. Elven had indeed finally agreed that the example of the German job candidate was bigotry, though he did qualify this agreement somewhat:

Yes, because the person even wasn’t alive when the shit happened.

I interpreted this as trying to blur the logic that describes bigotry. However, in this case, the conditions he calls on are easily falsified. There were Germans from that time who were not responsible for the Holocaust or the Nazis coming to power and it would have been wrong to make them directly responsible. Also, Elven forgets that many Germans fought against the Nazis. With this in mind, it’s clear that one cannot leverage extreme Islam to justify wholesale bigotry.

In Elven’s mind, Muslim’s have equally failed the job interview for the equal right to citizenship in Europe (and Finland) and the reason given is very similar to the person interviewing the German in my example, who simply told a FACT about the Holocaust:

The similarities in the bigotry I think are certainly more than superficial.

Person is German, Holocaust was done by Germans = relevant = excuse for discrimination.

Person is Muslim, horrible things are done by Muslims = relevant = excuse for discrimination.

Returning to Elven’s original comment, it appeared to me that his post implied not just gross religious bigotry, but was also an open call to violate the fundamental human rights of Muslims, i.e. their right to childbirth and their right to freely practice religion. Elven denied this, but the clear intention of presenting his FACT was that Muslims having babies was somehow a threat, and that Muslims practicing their religion was also a threat, and therefore grounds for penalty, that penalty being a ban on Muslim immigrants being allowed to enter Europe. And any penalty imposed arbitrarily on the free exercise of those basic human rights must be considered a violation of those rights.

Considering this point some more, my conclusion is that rather than come out and publicly deny Muslims these freedoms, which would clearly be extremely difficult to defend, he simply advocates NOT allowing them into Europe/Finland, with a collection of negative slurs offered as justification. Problem solved. And no need to suggest that Muslims should not have babies! In collecting his media ‘facts’, he is also well prepared to defend himself against the charge of bigotry on the basis that he is only presenting ‘facts’.

One of the pillars of Elven’s argument has been that Muslims undermine women’s rights (even though these are protected by legislation in the UK and Finland). Of course, like a typical authoritarian young man, he assumes Muslim women cannot fight for their own rights when in Europe. In fact, rather than allowing Muslim women the freedom to come to Europe and have a greater chance of exercising their equal rights, he prefers them to stay in those countries where apparently they have no rights. Elven has a very funny way of trying to promote the rights of women.

Another of Elven’s arguments is that Muslims appear to be more criminal. He denied saying this:

Where did I say that? Nowhere. So you just lied.

However, previously in the thread he had posted this:

“… in France. About 60 to 70 percent of all inmates in the country’s prison system are Muslim, according to Muslim leaders, sociologists and researchers, though Muslims make up only about 12 percent of the country’s population.”

and also this:

“In Britain, 11 percent of prisoners are Muslim in contrast to about 3 percent of all inhabitants, according to the Justice Ministry.

So, draw your own conclusions about what he was actually trying to say about Muslims and crime.

The first thing to be said is that there are various risk factors for crime, and the most documented with evidence is that of poverty. So, if Muslims also happen to be among the poorer members of society (which they are), it would be no surprise that Muslims therefore are overrepresented in crime statistics.

Not only that, but by focusing on their religion, he seems to forget the obvious – crime also breaks the laws of Islam. In other words, blaming the religion seems rather odd when the religion is telling its members very clearly that crime is wrong. Not only that, but breaking the laws of the land in which you live is also forbidden in Islam. Could it be that those committing the crimes are actually not very religious? In which case, blaming the religion for the crime is somewhat disingenuous as well as pointless.

Elven came to this blog, like many others do, as a slogan warrior, but also masquerading as a champion of human rights, and of logic and reason, and yet all the while working incessantly to undermine the human rights of Muslims.

Such bigotry will not go unchallenged on Migrant Tales!

Immigration and integration: What can we honestly expect?

Posted on by Mark

Too many words and not enough understanding. That’s my assessment. And words can surely divide us. “I’m for this and against that…” sprinked with a dash of integration, assimilation, multiculturalism, and discrimination. And where does that leave us? Forget the debate for a moment, where does that leave us as people? Arguing, and ever more bitter it seems. There needs to be more agreement, and less getting bogged down in definitions, hypotheticals, generalizations, and population statistics. Still, that IS the world of politics for you.

One argument that tends to define the debate centres on who should change when it comes to immigrants living a new life in a new country. There are those that say immigrants should become as much like the original inhabitants as possible (assimilation), and those that say they should be allowed to hold onto their own cultural identity (multiculturalism).

An argument put up against multiculturalism is that it leads to segregation, with the historical Chinatowns being augmented by new Pakistantowns, Somalitowns, Afghanistantowns, Romatowns etc. The problem is then perceived to be that the immigrants’ descendents may not even make the effort to learn the national language, which is probably seen as one of the most publicly tangible manifestations of non-integration. Some forget perhaps though that we have lived with this kind of phenomenon for millennia – is it not time that we made ourselves more comfortable with the idea? Also, Chinatowns can be very productive economically.

Multiculturalism openly invites communities to establish their own institutions which reflect their cultural heritage, their faith, and their cultural preferences. In a weakly multicultural society, that might entail multifaith schools, culture-sensitive public institutions, culture-specific civic organizations, and culture-specific political advocacy.

The new communities operate like communities within communities, with civic engagement geared to developing and protecting the specific interests of the minority community. As multiculturalism becomes more established, stronger forms show up in the form of faith-specific schools and new places of worship being built that better reflect the new demographics as individuals practice their freedom of religion.

One known effect of this changing diversity is that people of ALL groups can start to feel ‘lost’. Visible differences can make people feel defensive, more specifically, on the outside of their society. That is an uncomfortable feeling that is seen to drive people more towards the inside. For that reason, it’s unsurprising that studies therefore show that people living in the early stages of diverse communities can withdraw from society in general, including from their own communities.

Nevertheless, this is only part of the picture. A lack of complete trust does not mean that there is no trust, nor does mistrust towards a community mean that there is the same level of mistrust towards known individuals from that community. In fact, this is intuitively observable: one can have a negative view of a group but a positive view of individuals from within that group. Contradiction? That’s human beings for you. For that reason, a community-level analysis (see Robert Putnam) is likely to give an overly pessimistic picture. It really ain’t that black and white, figuritively or literally.

For integration (whichever form, multicultural or assimilation) to be successful it requires that there would be no obstacles to immigrants acquiring an education and occupations, that they are free to live where they want without fear of discrimination, that they are able to speak the language of the natives, and ultimately that they are able to intermarry without fear of excommunication or stigma, from any of the communities affected.

The reality can sometimes be quite far from this, though. Locals who witness this diversification but do not feel part of it can be most affected, as the roots of their own identity disappear in front of their eyes: a particular area may have had a very different recent and ancient history. Nevertheless, the incessant march of history can leave any one of us feeling that we have been left behind, and one should be sensitive to that. But really, there are meaningful opportunities in the ‘new world’, and people should be encouraged to reach out to others who are entering the community, who may also feel disorientated by the whole thing.

Of course, we cannot ignore that there are problems with immigration. Two solutions have been put forward by those somewhat to the right of the Maypole. The first is simply to avoid immigration: Close the doors and baton down the hatches! Some might go so far as to say “let’s make the place as unpleasant as possible and then maybe they will all go home!”

This solution will clearly fail. For a start, it’s giving in to a kind of superstitious fear of that which lurks beyond the horizon. And second, arguing that one is skeptical towards immigration is about as sensible as arguing that one is skeptical towards childbirth. It’s a fundamental feature of human populations that we move and that we intermingle and intermarry. How much that happens has depended on many factors: economic, cultural, geographical. But it happens. Likewise, adopting this ‘bunker approach’ when a community is already diverse and has significant 1st, 2nd, 3rd …. and 20th generation immigrants is rather like closing the barn door after the horse has long bolted. It is a fundamental misperception of the current state of reality. No wonder it leads to so much anger.

The other solution put forward has been assimilation, as already mentioned. Usually it is meant in the strong sense, though I will refer to both a strong and weak form. The thinking goes that immigrants are like visitors, i.e. guests or tourists. They are expected to behave as such and not let the ‘team’ down. Also, when in Rome, do as the Romans do. In the weaker sense, assimilation is expected to bring new aspects to the native culture, and so the final culture will be some kind of amalgamation of the two (e.g. the national food of the UK could easily be said to be a good old curry! ..and notice that ‘good old…’ doesn’t even sound out of place!).

More effects of weak assimilation are that notions of justice, social participation, the role of the family, free speech, etc will become more nuanced and diverse, while public institutions will also have learnt to take account of the greater diversity of the citizens that they serve.

In the strong sense, assimilation means that descendents of immigrants are indistinguishable from the old inhabitants, but this ignores that cultural effects work in many directions. Neither the descendents of the original population or the immigrant population will be exactly the same as their parents, and many of the reasons for this will have absolutely nothing to do with immigration (think Facebook, The Bold and the Beautiful, Ipad etc.).

Following a maturing of the process of assimilation, a new and more diverse identity emerges that is able to bring together the majority of the inhabitants in a strong and shared identity, regardless of their origins. Looking at the UK, which is further down this path that many countries, this is absolutely the case for very many natives, immigrants and descendents of immigrants. It is more obviously the case in the cosmopolitan cities and to a larger extent too in the rural areas close to those cities. In other areas, where contacts have been more sporadic or where immigrants are yet to achieve equality, then the effects of the early stages of ‘diversification’ still hold true, i.e. a degree of mistrust, some withdrawal, and as Putnam would probably predict, higher levels of political engagement (as we see in Finland currently with the rise of PS).

So of all these possible directions for the future, which would be best? Strong assimilation, weak assimilation, weak multiculturalism, segregation? What should be our expectations or even our aims?

The answer in my view is both obvious and yet overlooked. Why do we expect or desire only one kind of outcome?

It seems perfectly reasonable to me that we should expect degrees of all these things, as part of an ongoing processes that individuals react to differently and at different speeds. Not only that, but there really is space in our society for a little of everything!

So what can we expect? We can expect more new immigrants who are likely to set up in the cities and then gradually progress from the cities to the regions, though this is complicated by existing problems of regionalisation, with high rural unemployment, especially among the young, and so a slower process of assimilation would be expected to that found in the cities.

We can expect multicultural threads in our society, where people identify through their faith and their community. In that sense, they are expressing their freedoms and these are not generally speaking incompatible with those of natives. We can expect 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants to identify both with their parents ethnic identity and the national identity, to varying degrees and not necessarily with any great conflict, though sometimes there will be.

We can expect areas of some cities to become segregated areas, simply because this has always happened, and in many ways, it can be one of the charms of city life or larger towns – they allow the world to come to you rather than you having to travel to meet the world. We must avoid ghettos (deprivation) and ensure that segregation doesn’t mean isolation. Chinatowns are really a very good model for how those who choose to retain stronger links with their ethnic culture can engage economically with the surrounding economy.

We can expect to see more diversity in what is seen to constitute justice, what our roles are in society and our relationship to the rest of the world. But this diversity will not be a completely new thing, because the fact is there already exists a vast diversity within cultures, so that diversity between cultures is all too easily overemphasized, sometimes purely on the basis of a different colour of skin. Bear in mind that when put in new words, old ideas may indeed seem very foreign. It is always a good idea to ask whether new customs are related somehow to existing customs.

So in sum, we can expect something of each of the ‘solutions’ put forward in the debate on immigration. Immigrants or their descendents will be steered in different directions: some towards strong assimilation, some towards weak assimilation, some towards multiculturalism, and some towards cultural self-defence, some towards completely new identies that unite around the greater diversity. Those living out this integration are as diverse as those looking for the best method of integration. But a little less ‘this way, folks’ and a recognition that there are several ways ahead that can and will exist together would go a long way to taking some of the heat out of the situation: Unless it was never really about integration in the first place!? That’s a challenge to those that say it’s not about racism….

In that sense, what might appear like a broken society to many of those looking for a single solution is not actually broken. It might be a truism to say that the biggest enemy in all of this is not diversity, but that old enemy of all good civilisations – poverty!

Finally, a note of caution. The history of every single nation on Earth reveals that ‘groups’ have come to blows over what is ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ about how we should organize our society. Politics has the power to truly divide, to literally split our heads open. Finland is no stranger to this kind of conflict. So, when considering how to deal with the extremes within and without our communities, the important thing is to maintain a policy of tolerant engagement with those who seek moderation – i.e. always pull towards the middle and we will all be safer and closer, for sure.

Migrant Tales: "I hope what I write isn't true"

Posted on by Migrant Tales

By Enrique Tessieri

After about five years of existence, 887 blog entries (including this one) and over 20,140 comments, I would like to make a confession: Deep inside I have always hoped that what I write isn’t true. Finland is a noble country and noble countries stay clear of racism and xenophobia, right? 

Still I do not know what is worse: The xenophobia, which has followed Finland like a shadow throughout its history, or the silence and indifference of too many politicians, academics, media and society in general. True, we are becoming familiar with this dark side of ourselves. Banishing our fears and prejudices will take a national effort and generations of hard work.

A fellow student from Kenya at Turku University in 1979 threw a cold bucket of reality on my face. John K. said that he was commonly harassed in public, complete strangers even threw stones at him. When I asked immigration researchers at the time why Finland had such a draconian attitude towards foreigners, his answer shocked me: “It’s to keep the trash out.”

At the time, there lived under 10,000 immigrants in the country.

The PS councilman Tommi Rautio scandal offered us yet another crude wake up. He, like many before him, forced us to see something unpleasant about us: the xenophobia and racism that has lurked out there in our society for a long time. It survives and continues to grows because of our lack of resolve.

How many Rautios are there in Finland? We could safely state that there are still too many.

I started Migrant Tales in 2007 and it didn’t take long for this blog to find its identity and place among a wide international group of bloggers.

Every day I write a blog entry I hope that what I say isn’t true. I tell myself, however, that that hope speaking back to me is nothing is nothing more than our denial.

Why are Finland's politicians still so silent?

Posted on by Migrant Tales

By Enrique Tessieri

Have you heard anything from any government official never mind a politician being outraged by what happened in Oulu after Perussuomalaiset (PS) councilman Tommi Rautio’s  infamous suggestion to decorate a cold-blooded killer? It took thirteen days for Rautio to finally get sacked from the PS. Few appear to be moved by the deaths, at least publicly. 

Taking into account that in a span of about three weeks there were three deaths involving people with immigrant backgrounds, not even Interior Minister Päivi Rässänen offered a word of sympathy for the Somali and immigrant community about the tragedy.

While it is wrong to state that the killings didn’t impact Finns, the media acted rapidly in reporting the event and condemning it on editorials.

The silence of our government and our politicians to such violence offers a good example why racism and prejudice roam freely. Does a Finnish Breivik have to appear and spread terror in our  society before we wake up alas to the threat that racism and xenophobia pose?

Let’s hope not.

Milloin minusta tulee suomalainen?

Posted on by Sasu

Sasu Xinhang Öländer

”Olenko suomalainen?” on niitä kysymyksiä, jotka yhdistävät kaikkia toisen polven maahanmuuttajia. Mutta kaikista kipeimmin se koskettaa värillisiä. Kantasuomalaisten keskuudessa kuuluu välillä lausahdus maassa maan tavalla mutta mitä tämä sanonta oikeasti tarkoittaa.

Abdirahim Husu Hussein sanoi kerran maahanmuuttajien poliittisessa paneelista, että on täysin kyllästynyt tähän sanontaan. Hän asettui sanomaan, että eikö somalit jo eläneet maassa maan tavalla. Tietyssä mielessä Abdirahim asetti kysymyksen. Mikä oikeasti riittää?

Tätä me emme usein kysy. Mutta meidän on silti aloitettava siitä. Jos haluat elää suomessa on sinun sopeuduttava ympäristöön. Kovin pala onkin kielen oppiminen. Suomen kieli on yksi vaikeimmista kielistä. Samalla suomen kielen opetus kouluissa on pirstaleista ja usein ala-arvoista. Vanhemmille maahanmuuttajille kielen oppiminen käyttökelpoiselle tasolle on useimmiten lähes mahdotonta. Lasten kohdalla oppimisen mahdollisuudet ovat useimmiten erittäin hyvä. Tämä johtuu siitä että lapset omaksuvat uusia asioita helpommin ja he useimmiten kasvavat pitkälti kantasuomalaisten keskuudessa. Nyrkki sääntö on, että ensimmäinen sukupolvi harvemmin oppii uuden asuin maan tavoille, mutta toinen polvi oppii.

Sitten tulee kulttuuri kohta. Tässäkin kohdassa ensimmäisellä sukupolvella useimmiten on hankaluuksia myötäillä ympäröivää kulttuuria. Heidän lasten kohdalla tilanne on monimutkaisempi. He oppivat koulun kautta erittäin hyvin mitä on olla Suomalainen ja Eurooppalainen. Ongelmaksi tulee silti, että opetus ei ole monikulttuurista. Suomen koulut valitettavasti ovat pahasti etnosentrisiä. Opetus antaa värillisille lapsille ulkoisuuden tunteen. He eivät kykene löytämään itseänsä koulusta samalla tavalla, kuin valkoiset oppilaat. Tämä voi johtaa kahteen mahdolliseen tilanteeseen.

Ensimmäinen on koulutuksen täydellinen hylkääminen koska kouluilla ei ole mitään tarjottavaa värilliselle lapselle. Tavallaan parempi vaihtoehto on koulutuksen vastaan ottaminen. Tässä vaihtoehdossa on enemmän hyötyä, mutta pahoja sivuoireita. Tärkein oire on omiensa mahdollinen hylkääminen. Tämä johtuu siitä että sinä et enään usko, että veljesi ja siskosi eivät ole enään samalla viivalla. Sinä olet nyt käynyt koulun ja oppinut miten olla suomalainen/Eurooppalainen ja näin ollen olet asteen ylempi. Tämä nähtiin siinä miten Afrikkalaiset ja Aasialaiset jotka ovat käyneet Eurooppalaisen koulutuksen olivat irtaantuneet omien maanmiesten todellisuudesta. Pahin on mahdollisen itseinhon synty. Et usko olevasi yhtä hyvä jollet osoita käytökselläsi, että Eurooppalaisuus ja valkeus on hyvä. On mainittava, että median antamat viestit hyvästä/pahasta ja kauniista/rumasta vahvistaa tätä ajattelu mallia.

Toisaalta Suomalaissuusta opitaan myös ympäristöstä. Ympäristö maahanmuuttajilla on pahasti vaihtelevaa. Osa maahanmuuttajista elävät monikulttuurisesta ympäristössä jossa asuu myös kantasuomalaisia. Ja toisaalta osa elää ympäristössä joka on monikulttuurinen mutta kantasuomalaisia ei näy hirveästi. Sellaisessa ympäristössä on huomattavasti hankalampaa suomalaistua. Voisin sanoa sen olevan lähes mahdotonta. Tässä näkyykin selvästi kantasuomalaisten tekopyhyys. He haluavat maahanmuuttajien suomalaistumista, mutta eivät ole valmiita asumaan heidän kanssa.

Sosiologi Sam Richards totesi, että sehän on ihan hullua olettaa maahanmuuttajien sulautuvan ympäröivään yhteiskuntaan, jos hallitseva ryhmä ei ole valmis asumaan heidän kanssa. Miten sinä voit oppia olemaan suomalainen, jos ympärilläsi on vain ainoastaan maahanmuuttajia. Tämä on maahanmuuttokriitikoiden pahin karikko. Jos Jussi Halla-Aho ei ole valmis asumaan Somalien kanssa, ei hänellä ole mitään moraalista oikeutta sanoa, että heidän pitäisi suomalaistua.

Ne jotka uskovat ”maassa maan tavalla” slouganiin näkevät, että mitään muutosta ei ole tapahtunut. He näkevät kulttuurit staattisina elementteinä, jotka eivät ikinä muutu. On suuri virhe uskoa että kulttuuri olisi staattinen. Kulttuuri on alituisessa muutos tilassa. Sekoittuminen on alituinen ilmiö, jota tapahtuu aina monikulttuurisissa yhteisöissä.

Vaikka suomalaiset eivät siitä ehkä pitäisi niin suomalaisuuteen on liittynyt aina vain uusia elementtejä. 1940-50-luvun sukupolvet eivät nuoruudessa kykenisi ajattelemaan, että he saattaisivat hakea Thaihierontaa, akupunktiota, syödä kebab aterioita, nauttia intialaista tai nepalilaista ruokaa ja tuskinpa he voisivat ajattelevan, että miten monen kirjava Kampin ja Asematunnelin edusta voisi olla. He tutkin kykenisivät uskomaan, että he voisivat aivan itse tehdä kiinalaista ruokaa eksoottisilla aineksilla, jotka sinä voit ostaa Hämeentieltä. Jos haluat nähdä maahanmuuton niin tee panorama asematunnelin historiasta.

Nämä analyyttiset todisteet annettuna on meidän palattava alun kysymykseen, mikä tekee sinusta suomalaisen. Jos suomalaisuus on pelkkää tietoisuutta Suomen historiasta ja kulttuurista niin silloin Abdirahim kommentti on oikeutettu. Maahanmuuttokriitikoiden tarvitsee kävellä vain Suomen kouluihin nähdäkseen sen sukupolven. Sukupolven maahanmuuttajia, jotka ovat omaksuneet Suomen heidän toiseksi identiteetiksi. Mutta he löytävät myös kadotetun sukupolven. He ovat värilliset. Värilliset jotka ovat tehneet kaikkensa, mutta se ei riitä vieläkään. Heille kysymys ”milloin olen suomalainen” vaanii olan takana aina, kun ventovieras kysyy mistä tulet. Aina kun he kohtaavat syrjintää, he muistavat, että vaikka he itse mielessään olisivat suomalaisia niin suurimmalle osalle suomalaisia he ovat yhä maahanmuuttajia ja kuokka vieraita. Heille suomalaisuus muuttuu helposti taakaksi. He joutuvat pohtimaan aina mitä he sanovat, kun kysymys tulee. Mitä kantasuomalaiset haluavat kuulla heiltä ja mitä he uskovat. Samalla he kamppailevat median ja yhteiskunnan heijastamia stereotyyppejä vastaan. Stereotyyppejä jotka ovat negatiivisia ja pahin kaikesta on, että värilliset alkavat uskoa siihen.

Stereotyypit ja Internoidut rasistiset uskomukset tekevät suomalaisuus identiteetistä ongelman. Ensiksi olet epävarma kuka sinä olet ja toiseksi et tiedä mitä uskoa itsestä. Oman arvon tunnistaminen on on ongelmista vaikein. Mistä tiedät kuinka kykenevä olet kun yhteiskunta heijastaa hirveän negatiivisen kuvan sinunlaisista. Yrität olla suomalainen, mutta mikään ei tunnu ikinä riittävän. Kun kuulet Maassa Maan Tavalla on sinun kysyttävä etkö sinä jo elä niin.

Martin Luther King sanoi Where Do We Go From Here Chaos or Community kirjassa, että pahin asia jonka ihminen voi menettää on tietämys omasta arvosta ja omasta kulttuurista. Ei ole olemassa pahinta haavaa kuin sielun haava. Vahvin vastalääke tähän on ylpeys. Ylpeys omaan rotuun, etnisyyteen/kulttuuriin ja uskontoon. Kun sinä olet tietoinen omista juurista ja ylpeä niistä, silloin rasismi ei voi tuhota sinua sisältä päin. Malcolm X, Steven Biko ja Martin Luther King toimikoon profeetoina tällä tiellä.

Finland's PS executive board sacks one member from the party

Posted on by Migrant Tales

By Enrique Tessieri

After the decision by the Perussuomalaiset (PS) executive board on Saturday to sacrifice Tommi Rautio, it is pretty clear that Timo Soini’s party has lowered the bar even lower. It is perfectly fine today to be a PS member as long as you don’t condone violence publicly.

You can, however, be a PS member and belong to a neo-Nazi association and even be fined for hate speech and defaming a religion never mind making the usual populist statements. You can be openly homophobic and spread urban tales about the Romany minority on Facebook and still be a PS member.

The violence and hostility that we commonly see coming from the PS is as sinister as the far-right thread on Facebook that condoned a cold-blooded killing. It is upholding a culture of hatred, mistrust and constant war against immigrants, Finns with international backgrounds, minorities, even women.

Let’s admit it, if Soini and the PS national board think that only one person should be sacked from the party after offering us scandal after scandal splashed on Finnish tabloids every month, it proves what we have been saying on Migrant Tales all along: Cut off racism and far-right nationalism from the PS and the party will deflate into insignificance.

In Magrant Tales’ opinion, Soini is no different from the party’s far-right wing led by PS MP Jussi Halla-aho.

The PS leader knows how to sugar-coat  the same anti-immigrant and anti-immigration message.

There is a very good analysis on Savon Sanomat today (in Finnish) that explains why the PS’ popularity has suffered a significant fall in the polls.

I

Finland's ever-growing cultural diversity is an opportunity to overcome past fears

Posted on by Migrant Tales

By Enrique Tessieri

One of the matters that Finnish academics, politicians, policy makers never mind the general public missed out completely about our ever-growing cultural diversity is that our history and myths are hindering us to see the big picture.  The official and unofficial response to our culturally diverse society appears to be a subtle “no.”

As there are Finns who don’t get it there are others who do. Those that do  build bridges and pathways to our society with mutual acceptance between ourselves and our newest members of our society.

The debate in Finland concerning the big picture about cultural diversity is muddled by our impaired view from inside those trenches that we have dug. Our violent history and the cold war, which kept us geopolitically near-isolated from the rest of the world during 1945-91, are some shovels we have used to dig ourselves in that hole.

We should make an effort to get out of there because the task will take generations.

Debate about our cultural diversity and that big picture of Finnish society in this century should begin first and foremost among ourselves. In that debate, we must make an effort to banish our historical grudges and, most importantly, our fears as a nation of Russia and the outside world.

Any integration program that does not tackle these issue is doomed to failure. Xenophobia and racism will be the most effective weapon of choice used by Finns to keep that “Other” world in its place.

This route is not only a reckless one but very expensive to tax payers. Politicians should be told that integration, inclusion and opportunities will save Finnish tax payers a lot of money as opposed to jumping on the anti-immigration bandwagon and spreading urban tales.

As long as some of us continue to live inside those deep trenches, our society will always be threatened by populists and the far right as we saw in the April election, which reinforced institutional and colorblind racism in Finland.

Matters are in a very critical state at present. So much so in fact, that some Finns don’t even believe that racism and populism aren’t a threat to our society.

Past wars have traumatized our country but isn’t time ripe to attempt to heal those wounds?

Like it or not, our ever-growing culturally diverse society is offering us that opportunity.