Finland’s New Identity in the New Century

Posted on by Migrant Tales

Here is the Finnish-language version of the article below that appeared in the 4/2009 isuue of Monitori-lehti.

What will our new identity be like in the present century as our society becomes more ethnically and culturally diverse? Will immigrants be clumped into one group and called New Finns, or will they prefer a hyphenated identity such as Iraqi-Finn?

A middle-school geography book published in 1941 claims that the Finns comprised of two main racial groups: Nordic and East Baltic. The characteristics of the former group was, ”tall, thin, blue-eyed, fair-haired and have red cheeks,” while the latter one was ”stockier, blonde-haired and have no redness on the cheeks.”

Even though there is no scientific basis for such classifications and they appear odd from our information-age perspective, some history books continued to classify Finns in such a manner up the 1970s. One of the matters that these type of racial classifications did was keep the definition of the Finn on very narrow terms.

In my opinion, our identity as Finns took a radical break from the past with the passage of the new Constitution (1999), Naturalisation (2003) and Non-Discrimination Act (2004). Even though there is no mention of the term multicultural society in these laws, they do show great sensibility to minorities and acceptance of cultural diversity.

Everyone knows that laws cannot change attitudes in an instant. They can, however, be important watersheds of our values and aspirations as a society.

Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen has called immigrants uusia suomalaisia, or New Finns. In principle there is nothing wrong with this classification since it implies permanency as well as a readiness by society to accept newcomers. Others such as maahanmuuttaja, immigrant, have been met with mixed feelings since it implies non-permanency.

Even though these identity labels are imposed by the outside, it is important to keep in mind that what different groups call themselves depends on them. For some minorities this may be more important than for others.

Whatever identity a group prefers to use – New Finn, Finn, hyphenated, hybrid or none – isn’t the underlying case. The key factor is that we are capable as a society of drawing strength from our diversity, and that Finland can become a new home for those who may choose to live with us.

How do some Finns discriminate?

Posted on by Migrant Tales

In countries such as the United States and Brazil the term “race” is used to find out the ethnic diversity of their societies. While it is unclear why Brazil classifies in its census people from different ethnicities, in the United States it is done when drawing up electoral districts.

In order to find out more information on the implementation of the Employment Equity Act, Statistics Canada places minorities into “visible” and “invisible” groups. A visible minority is a “person, other than Aboriginal persons, who are non-Caucasian in race or non-white in color.”

Finland does not use ethnicity nor race to classify different groups but mother tongue.  If we look at the history of this country from the nineteenth century, the role of language has played, and continues to play, in identifying Finns.

Since there were few “visible” immigrants in the nineteenth century in this country, language must have played an important role in helping to figure out from which group the person was.

This brings forth an interesting question: Do some Finns generally discriminate due to mother tongue or skin color – or is it a double whammy? When some employers claim that immigrants “cannot speak Finnish well enough,” are they using language  in the same was as color or ethnicity would be used in the United States to discriminate?

Or is language used to discriminate against “invisible”  and language+ethnicity for “visible” immigrants?

Mannerheim and Finnish provincialism

Posted on by Migrant Tales

I heard yesterday an interesting talk on Marshall Carl Mannerheim (1867-1951) just a few days before the outbreak of the Winter War exactly 70 years ago on November 30, 1939. The talk centered on different aspects of the Civil War of 1918 and how Mannerheim saw the world.

Those who have studied this man, know that he was not the easiest person to get along with and had a mean temper. If he would wake up today from his eternal sleep, one of the matters that would shock him is our liberal, democratic Nordic welfare society.

Without stealing any of his thunder from those difficult decades when he led Finland, Mannerheim’s thinking would have been totally out of touch with these times.

Despite his strong distaste for dissension and the ideology behind Bolshevism (he was trained as an officer of Czarist Russia and had a soft spot for the Menshevics), his view of the world was more open than many Finns when the country became a republic in 1917. How many Finns had back then a broad international view of the world and were not overtaken by the hysteria of nationalism and petty provincialism?

How did nationalism and that narrow view of the outside world impact Finland during those crucial decades that led to the Winter and Continuation Wars? If mistrust and hatred of Russians was the driving force that unified some Finns back in those difficult times, how did it affect its foreign policy? Can we still see this same suspicion and mistrust today sprinkled in our views of immigrants?

Even though it is questionable that Finland could have done something to prevent the Winter War, there are a lot of question marks concerning the Continuation War. Answering, or pondering these queries seriously, will bring to light many things about ourselves as a a people and hitherto-unknown or hidden aspects of our history.

One of these is the reticent attitudes of Finnish authorities towards foreign investment (Restricting Act of 1939) and draconian laws to discourage foreigners to move to the country.

One of the biggest culprits, I am certain, were a small country’s petty provincialism, fear, and suspicion of the outside world.

Whose fault is high immigrant unemployment in Finland?

Posted on by Migrant Tales

 

Even though Finland has been generous about investing on language- and culture-training course for immigrants, one should rightfully ask if the money is being spent effectively. Why is there still high unemployment among immigrants in Finland if we are spending hefty sums of tax-payers money on these types of courses?

While high unemployment (well over 20%) among the immigrant community in Finland is due on a myriad of factors, would the money be better spent if the government launched a campaign to lower those walls of suspicion that exist between the Finns and immigrants?

Shouldn’t the government be investing its precious time and money on how to make Finland a truly equal opportunity country that views immigrants and diversity as a positive matter?

In my opinion, the problem of high immigrant unemployment is attributable to the chicken-and-egg syndrome. On the one hand you are required to learn sufficient language and culture skills that will never be obtained in a classroom environment. The only way to learn such skills is through employment.

Even though Finnish legislation offers protection and encourages cultural diversity, we are in danger of falling into the trap of status-quo inactivity. The issue and the social problems that arise from high unemployment will not be solved by sweeping them under the rug with the help of  social welfare programs.

Moreover, too many in Finland, I fear, would not care less. They argue that since unemployment is about 7% nationally, immigrants should passively accept double-digit jobless rates.

High immigrant unemployment is not the failure of any particular group but falls on our society as a whole. We will continue to fail dismally in the task of integrating newcomers as long as we do not find ways to bring immigrant unemployment near national levels.

This, I believe, is where the government’s money and time should be invested.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Immigration does and must work for Finland

Posted on by Migrant Tales

Some of the bloggers who visit this site believe that multiculturalism in a demographic sense is a failed project. Just because immigration has been a part of humanity since the dawn of time, some insist that a country with lots of immigrants become  failed states. As examples they use countries such as the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda and others to drive home their argument.

It would be important to point out that while the former Yugoslavia ended up in ethnic civil war, the outlandish conflict was not brought on by immigrants that moved their. The civil war was created by the inhabitants of that country.

Moreover, if one wants to look at how people can be taught to function successfully  in a new society, one has only to look at North and South America, Even though everyone knows about countries such as Canada and the United States, we hear very little about nations such as Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay.

Even though Argentina has had a violent history, the immigrants that moved there in the early twentieth century comprised as much as 49.4% of the population of Buenos Aires. In Uruguay, there were also high number of immigrants in relation to the total population. Brazil also promoted European immigration to help “whiten” the population from the high amount of blacks.

Even though Uruguay had a high number of immigrants, which totalled about 30% of the population by 1900, the country became one of the first welfare states in the world in the 1910s. It even adopted a secular constitution in 1919.

How is it possible that a country like Uruguay with such a high amount of immigrants could have built one of the most successful societies in the world in the beginning of the last century?

Immigration was also a driving force in Argentina that transformed the country. However, the failure of the country to become a successful nation in the same league as Canada and Australia is not due to immigration but the political and economic system.

And then there is Brazil, the giant of Latin America. Brazil also attracted large flows of immigrants in the end of the nineteenth and early twentieth century. If one looks at the country, it is a mosaic of people from different ethnic and cultural background. Even so, Brazil never suffered civil wars nor ruinous political infighting that characterized many newly independent Spanish-American countries.

Yes, there are many examples of countries that have succeeded in turning immigration into a force of progress.

Those countries that do not understand the strengths and richness of diversity will be doomed to geriatric wards and economic hardships too painful to describe in words.

US Louisiana justice of the peace refuses to wed white woman with a black man

Posted on by Migrant Tales

The refusal of a Louisiana justice of the peace to marry a white woman and a black man has caused dismay and calls by government as well as civil rights groups for the removal from office of the public official, Keith Bardwell.

The United States overturned in 1967 a law which prohibited in a number of states such as California marriages between black and white people.

In an article in the Louisina-based Hammondstar.com, Bardwell defended his decision. “I don’t do interracial marriages because I don’t want to put children in a situation they didn’t bring on themselves,” he said. “In my heart, I feel the children will later suffer.”

The odd reasoning by the Louisiana justice of the peace clearly shows that racism in the United States is alive and kicking. Even though there are no such laws in the European Union that forbid multicultural marriages, there are some stark reminders of it in our recent history in Europe.

Immigrants in Finland must have a voice

Posted on by Migrant Tales

One may ask why unemployment among foreigners was three-fold higher than the national average of 7.6% in the month of August. Certainly those that take a stricter view on the role of immigrants in Finland may claim that it is due to lack of language and job skills.

While this may be partially true,  it is only a partial answer to the serious problem.

In my opinion, the reason for the present situation is because immigrants do not have a representative voice in Finnish society. Why would politicians care less about representing this group if they account for a small percentage, or fraction of a percentage, of their votes?

Another factor why immigrants do not have a voice in Finland is because there are still too few qualified teachers, social workers, civil service employees, policy makers with immigrant backgrounds representing and looking out for their interests.

Even though the government and laws of Finland may have the best of intentions, they are only that: good intentions with a sour aftertaste of patronizing.

High unemployment is, in my opinion, a clear way to measure how well immigrants are doing in Finland. At present over 20% jobless rates, or even over 50% for some national groups, many immigrant groups are doing very poorly in this country.

If immigrants want to have a greater say in their new home, they must rise to the challenge.

The present path of accepting high unemployment as if it were normal because those with foreign backgrounds lack sufficient skills will no do as an excuse.

The only way when things will start to change for immigrants  in Finland is when they start to have a voice in this society.

Is multiculturalism good for Finland?

Posted on by Migrant Tales

One of the surprising matters about the debate on multiculturalism is how little we understand the basic terms. Take for instance the term multicultural. Does it only mean a society comprised physically of many (multi) cultures, or is it  a policy that facilitates the participation of immigrants and  ethnic minorities in a society?

Finland is not officially a multicultural society like Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom, but our laws shows multicultural sensibility (Constitution, Citizenship and Non-Discrimination Act) towards minorities.

What do people mean in Finland when we speak of “multicultural society?” Are we referring to a society comprised physically of many cultures and/or official policy through laws such as the Non-Discrimination Act?

I suspect that it is a bit of the both.

If  we are still pretty much in the dark about what multiculturalism is and implies for Finland, how can we debate the issue effectively?

One of the reasons why some believe that multiculturalism is good for Finland is because there are so few immigrants in this country. It is a bit like being in favor of peace. Everyone will agree that peace is important but when the chips are down and war breaks out, some of us turn into Rambos.

Since multiculturalism (as a policy) has become a hypersensitive political issue during these difficult economic times, I believe that this moment is a better time than ever to discuss inequalities in our society: discrimination, exclusion and unemployment.

The recession in Finland has most likely hardened attitudes against the small immigrant community.

Is multiculturalism as a policy good for Finland?

Answering the question requires us to understand four phases:  immigrants, recognition, acceptance and incorporation into society. We are probably entering the second phase (recognition) in Finland.

Even though integration in global markets is vital to Finland’s survival and success as a country, over 20% immigrant unemployment nationally reveals a lot about the role of these people in this country. How can society benefit from newcomers  if exceptionally high unemployment continues to be an issue?  How are our “multicultural sensible” policies promoting greater incorporation of some minorities in society?

Is multiculturalism good for Finland?

Probably the question should be turned around: Is Finland ready for multiculturalism?

Jimmy Carter said Republican congressman’s outburst was based “on racism”

Posted on by Migrant Tales

Here is an interesting case: The biggest military and economic power in the world, the United States, continues to be hounded by one of its dubious legacies – racism. On the other side of the Atlantic, we too have a long way to go before we wipe the scourge of racism from our continent.

It is a positive matter, however, that in Finland the debate on racism and equality for all of its inhabitants has been taken up by parties on the traditional left and right of the political spectrum. Racism has no place in our society since it undermines our Western democratic values.

Former President Jimmy Carter, a civil and human rights champion, said this week that US Representative Joe Wilson’s outburst to President Barack Obama’s speech to Congress was based on racism.

“I think it’s based on racism,” Carter said in a story by AP at a town hall meeting held at his presidential center in Atlanta. “There is an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president.”

Wilson shouted from the aisles “you lie!” during Obama’s speech.  He later apologized for the outbreak.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxUCYRrfnHw]

Carter, who is also a member of the Democratic Party, added: “Those kinds of things are not just casual outcomes of a sincere debate on whether we should have a national program on health care. It’s deeper than that.”

Joutsen puolue in Finland – old suspicions die hard

Posted on by Migrant Tales

It is always a healthy matter when new parties emerge and take part in the debate on immigrants in Finland. One of these is the so-called Joutsen puolue (Swan Party) being spearheaded by Jussi Halla-aho, who is presently standing trial for incitement of hatred against an ethnic group and defamation of a religion.

In order to find out what a party really thinks, try to see what they deny. This becomes clear in a post by Juha Mäki-Ketelä, who is spearheading the creation of the new party. Mäki-Ketelä was also recently on a television program with lawyer Hussein Muhammed.

Below are two comments by Mäki-Ketelä in Vihreä Lanka that caught my eye about the new party: (1) ..[it is] direct democracy and not a criticism of immigration (…se on nimenomaa suora demokratia eikä maahanmuuton kritiikki); (2) We do not oppose all immigration. We are only opposed to immigration that is harmful to Finland and Finns…(Emme vastusta kaikkea maahanmuuttoa. Vastustamme ainoastaan Suomelle ja suomalaisille haitallista maahanmuuttoa…).

Before commenting on the above, the formation of the Joutsen puoluen party exposes, in my opinion, the rifts in the populist right. We have the Perussuomalaiset, who are a bit shy officially about their views on immigration because they don’t want to see themselves as a “far-right party,” while the new party in formation claims the same thing but will be more “critical” about the issue.

I am a bit offended by the first affirmation. Mäki-Ketelä suggests that most Finns are so stupid that they do not even know that they are being taken for a ride by the big established parties. Freedom of speech, in their opinion, means a one-way street to insult and bash other religions and cultures wholesale in the name of “liberty.” Like a frenzied lynch mob, they will decide what is good for us.

The second phrase is a gem: “We are only opposed to immigration that is harmful to Finland and Finns.” What does that mean? Does he mean refugees or immigrants? What is “harmful.” Why doesn’t he specify? If they are not against immigration, why do they bring this issue over and over again?

The irony, however, of all this is that the Joutsen puolue will do their best to give you a totally different image of itself by mixing double-talk into their politics.

Even though every group has valid arguments in the debate on immigrants and refugees in Finland, we have to go a bit further and ask how do their actions undermine our sense of society and exclude others?

If we look at parties in the far right in Europe and new ones being created in Finland, it is clear that their aim is to fuel a narrow-minded agenda flavored with messianic overtones which could be pictured in the following manner: A man holding a knife at a person’s throat and asking him why he hasn’t learned enough Finnish?!