Tag: Multiculturalism in Finland

A voice was sounding: This Finland is your Finland

Posted on by Migrant Tales

By Enrique Tessieri

A few weeks before the election in April, I visited a group of second-graders at a local elementary school in eastern Finland. Like many schools in this country, the class was made up of a few kids with African, Middle Eastern and other European backgrounds.

One girl sitting in front of the class surprised me with an emphatic statement:  “I don’t want to be a Finn because I’m Arabic.”

A boy sitting a row from the girl gave a knee-jerk response: “I don’t like where you’re from!”

The argument between the two started to gain momentum until it came to an abrupt end. I told the class that an important lesson could be learned from the incident: The importance of acceptance.

I tried my best to tell the class that some of us are fortunate because we have two home countries. Accepting one does not wear off your feelings for the other.

On that day I noticed something else missing at Finnish elementary schools. There weren’t any songs where everyone, irrespective of their background, could feel included in Finnish society.

I told them about Woody Guthrie’s song, This land is your land.

“This is a nice song we used to sing at my elementary school when I was a kid in the United States,” I said. “Why would a song claim that this is your land and this is my land if everyone knows that Finland is our land?”

I explained to the class that the United States is a country that has a lot of immigrants and people of different ethnic backgrounds. Some of them feel excluded from society. That’s why Guthrie’s song was sung at our school so people from all walks of life could feel at home.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaI5IRuS2aE]

One worrisome questions that the April 17 election has raised is whether Finland will become a more hostile country to visible newcomers, minorities and multicultural Finns?

Apart from greater euroskepticism, one of the most regrettable consequences of the election is growing nationalism, anti-immigration and anti-refugee sentiment in Finland.

While it would be unfair to claim that all Perussuomalaiset are against immigration and accepting our ever-growing cultural diversity as a society, some don’t hesitate to make a case about how “white” Finland is coming under threat. Immigrants and multicultural Finns are not the only ones feeling the adversity but our Swedish-speaking minority as well.

It is surprising, if not shocking, that in 2011 some politicians are making a case for racial “hygiene” in Finland, a concept that was prominent in the Europe of the 1930s and with the rise of fascism. It was the smoking gun that unleashed World War 2.

Those that make such a ludicrous case conveniently forget our history and that over a million Finns emigrated to other lands in the last two centuries. Those that left these shores have prospered as well as mixed with other cultures and people in many forms and ways. Thanks to them Finnish culture is more diverse today.

Talk of tougher immigration laws, fuelling myths and suspicion of immigrants, refugees and minorities rarely affect those that may want to move to Finland. It spills over like poison on the whole community.

I sometimes think about that Arabic girl in the class who was adamant about not wanting to be a Finn. Was it because she felt unwelcome?

No child or person who comes to our country should ever feel unwelcome by our society because it’s not the way we treat our own.

Taking into account the election result, Finland needs today more than ever its version of Guthrie’s famous song.

Two different centuries: A new Finland awakens

Posted on by Migrant Tales

If we look very generally at the previous century, Finns worked hard at building a sense of national unity: surnames were Finnicized and personal histories about our “foreign” background were erased for the common national good.

Our Finnish identity got a further boost in the Winter War (1939-40), when the Soviet Union invaded our country. Through war, unfortunately, we were able to strengthen our identity as a nation.

Our short history as an independent nation and how we forged our national identity still dictates how some of us see the outside world: as a threat or an opportunity?

But we live today in a new century and totally different reality when compared with before. Our world is globalized and Finland needs skilled immigrants to plug the ever-growing labor shortage.

I personally believe that the biggest and most exciting challenges facing Finland today is building a new sense of national identity for this century. That new identity will be vastly different from the previous one because it will be much more inclusive to people who want to form part of this great family we call Finland.

If  in the previous century we were supposed to hide our foreign roots because we wanted to stress our Finnishness, in this century it will not only be acceptable but encouraged to show our diversity.

We are from different backgrounds but we are Finns.

Keskisuomalainen’s incredulous editorial on immigration

Posted on by Migrant Tales

Here is a good example of an editorial (in Finnish) in Jyäskylä-based Keskisuomalainen that shows how little the top editors of a Finnish newspaper understand immigration. If the editorial were written in the Washington Post, Financial Times or El País of Madrid, the editor would probably get the boot from the readers for making negligent statements and for practicing lazy opinionated journalism.

The editorial enlightens us by stating that there are three types of immigration: Finland’s humanitarian role in accepting refugees, labor immigrants and multicultural marriages between immigrants and Finns (they favor this).

Incredulously, the editors say that while a rich country like Finland should offer humanitarian help to people fleeing countries as refugees, the most effective way (now get ready for this!) is to help these people in their home countries! Moreover, the editors claim without showing us any credible studies that cultural differences are so great, that it is good not to bring refugees to the county because it would take two to three generations for them to adapt to our society.

Do the editors know what a refugee is? A refugee cannot live in his home country because there is political strife. They are fleeing their country because it is not safe to live there. And then the icing on the cake: “Laws against accepting refugees in Finland are the strictest (in Europe). That is why we don’t suffer from the problems that multiculturalism has brought to other European countries.”

Who says that immigration hasn’t brought problems like any other social phenomenon? But take a look at all the things it has brought in the way of economic growth, dynamism and innovation. The editors believe that a society made up of different cultures and immigrants is essentially a bad matter. They haven’t even taken the time to study Finnish history to understand that we were, are and will be a multicultural country.

With respect to labor immigrants, the editorial states point black that Finland should not be too enthusiastic about taking this road. It writes: “Highly educated people are certainly welcome to Finland but we should not do this too enthusiastically because it isn’t morally right. Highly educated people who are lured from developing nations impoverish their countries’ opportunities.”

In my opinion, the last affirmation is a diplomatic way of saying that we don’t even want highly educated immigrants to come here.

At the end the editorial it affirms that even if Finland should not take the multicultural road, it does not mean that we should close ourselves from the outside world.

Do you want any further explanations why the debate on immigration in Finland is lopsided and totally off the wal?

EDITORIAL: Finnish immigration debate

Posted on by Migrant Tales

By Enrique Tessieri

Is the present one-sided and passionate debate on immigration in Finland going to turn ugly? Minister for Foreign Affairs Alexander Stubb poured some needed cold water on the debate by stating that it “reeks of racism, nationalism, populism, and xenophobia.”

The wayward and reckless route has even frightened some of its main perpetrators. Probably fearing a backlash to all immigrants, Jussi Halla-aho of the True Finns said that the majority of Finns are not against immigration as a Helsingin Sanomat poll showed. He said that the poll should have asked whether Finns want more refugees from countries such as Somalia and Iraq.

The statement by Halla-aho and the poll by Helsingin Sanomat do not tell us anything new. How many countries can you name where its inhabitants favor more immigration? How many believe their country has too few immigrants?

Opinion polls and attitude studies of immigrants in Finland reflect the same patronizing stances as the one-sided debate on immigration. They explain why our near-non-existent immigration policy has failed and why too many immigrants live marginalized from Finnish society.

Social Democratic Party (SDP) chairman, Jutta Urpilainen, stoked the immigrant-debate fires on Saturday when she blamed the government and immigrants for the problem.

Taking into account the lack of jobs in Finland and high immigrant unemployment, Urpilainen said that the SDP’s new immigration program would not only force people to learn the Finnish or Swedish language, but they would have to get off unemployment as well. She did not elaborate if unemployed immigrants were on the dole because they were taking advantage of the system or that they did not learn Finnish or Swedish because they did not want to.

At the present rate those who don’t want immigrants to come to Finland are sitting pretty. The present one-sided debate is not only forcing immigrants to reconsider their residences in Finland but scaring off potential newcomers.

Why would anyone want to move to such a hostile country where the immigration debate is one-sided and  “reeks of racism, nationalism, populism, and xenophobia?”

What Finland’s immigration policy lacks

Posted on by Migrant Tales

By Enrique Tessieri

If we look at the dismal amount of immigrants and refugees as well as high unemployment one can reach only one conclusion: a policy that has failed miserably. Certainly progress has been made: the number of immigrants has risen albeit slowly to  143,256 today from 12,670 in 1981, while unemployment has come down officially from 53% in 1994 to over 20%.

One of the biggest failures of our immigration policy is that it is really not an immigration policy at all but looks like a poorly assembled hall where newcomers are given a bit of schooling in the Finnish langauge and culture and then required to face the brave new world by getting a job.

The crux of the matter is that we are going to have to do a much better job if we want labor immigrants to fill jobs left by our ever-growing number of pensioners. One of the first steps in this direction is to offer more than a wham-bang-thank-you-mam approach to immigration.

Immigration is a powerful social force that can work to a society’s favor if it is done correctly. The basic starting point for a successful immigration policy is in the hands of the host society. If there is rejection, ignorance, bigotry and lack of opportunities such a policy will fail as it has today.

Another important aspect of a successful immigration policy is that it must have something more than the wham-bang in order to succeed. Those same values that unite Finns and make them proud of their society should rub off on immigrants.

What are these values? They are those in our laws and our compassion and suffering that we faced as a nation. It is in solidarity and opportunity – a real sense of community where we live together for the common good. The pathway to incorporation into Finnish society should be much faster than today.

Even though these types of values may sound as if they were from some imaginary place, it is the only way towards a successful immigration policy and sheds light why our integration policy has failed despite its good intentions. Offering no dreams and hopes to newcomers and marginalizing them is sowing the seeds of pesent and future discord.

What kind of a society are we offering newcomers if we jealously guard our dreams to ourselves?

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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?

Finnish identity in the new century

Posted on by Migrant Tales

Since humankind does not still have one flag to rally all the peoples of the world, until that time I hope that it will be the Finnish flag that will wave over this land.

Ever since Finnish independence in 1917, Finns have been forging a sense of national identity. The same tools we used in the previous century to build our national identity have come into conflict with people who do not fit the Elovena-woman prototype on the box of a popular Finnish porridge brand.

In the process of forging a national identity, we created a narrower view of who was entitled to be called a Finn. The dual-citizenship act of 2003 was one of the most important laws that changed matters and opened up the Finnish-identity playing field. Another important right worth mentioning that came into force in the 1980s, was when women were given the right to pass on Finnish citizenship to their foreign-born children.

In my opinion, a Finn is a person who feels he/she is from this land in his/her diverse way. This may include an endless combination of religions, ethnicities, and cultures. To single out people and exclude them from their identity is one of the worse forms of discrimination. It is the same thing that white Americans did to blacks and other minorities before the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. They were “Americans” but they were first and foremost blacks.

When a Finn states that a member of this society must accept Finnish values and customs in order to be accepted, what is he/she actually saying? The message is clear – we do not accept your diversity.

Due to the hundreds of thousands of Finns that migrated from this country in the past century, and the fact that more people are immigrating to Finland, it is clear that we have forged alongside the “official” view of Finnish identity another unofficial one.

Laws like dual citizenship and the equality act are important watersheds that allow our diverse Finnish identities to flourish and be defended by law in this country. A multiethnical Finland should not be seen as a threat, but as an opportunity for this country.

One matter is for certain. It will be the new bold face of Finland during this century.

The Equality Act and Finnish Independence Day

Posted on by Migrant Tales

What better time than to bring up the Equality Act of 2004 during Finland’s Independence Day. One of the matters that makes me happy about being a member of this society is that after December 6, 1917, Finland did not become an autocratic country that had no respect for human rights. Despite all the challenges this country faced in the previous century, it still had the courage to build a society based on social justice.

One of the most important laws that have been past in recent years in this country is the Equality Act of 2004. You can also get acquainted with the law in other languages such as Swedish, Russian, Spanish and others. In a nutshell, the law states: The Equality Act prohibits discrimination based on age, racial or ethnic origin,citizenship, language, religion or belief, conviction, opinion, state of health, disability, sexual orientation or other personal characteristics (such as financial position, pregnancy, and family situation).

It would be naive to think that one law can correct a social ill such as racism. However, it is a very good and bold first step. It offers hope not only to us, but also to future generations so one day we may build the foundations of a society that is based on good ethnic relations between all groups.

A neat quote by Topelius about who are the Finns

Posted on by Migrant Tales

Zacharias Topelius , a Finnish cultural heavyweight who lived in the 19th century, embraced multiculturalism in the following manner below.

When I read such a quote, I am more convinced that 1939-1995 was an anomaly for this country. Finland was always multicultural — not a “monocultural” nation that fought tooth and nail to exclude people from diverse cultural backgrounds.

“No group can claim to be so pure that not one of their forefathers had foreign blood; nor speak a language that has not shared words from other languages. All nations are builders of the great humankind society, which branches off into many directions.

Ei ole yhtään sukuperältään niin sekoittautumatonta kansaa, ettei sen esi-isissä olisi vierasta verta; eikä kieleltään niin puhdasta kansaa, ettei se olisi sanoja muilta lainannut. Ja kaikki kansakunnat ovat työntekijöitä ihmissuvun suuressa yhteiskunnassa, joka jakautuu moneen haaraan.

Zacharis Topelius: Maamme Kirja (1875)