The racial and cultural “theories” peddled by some members of parties like the True Finns are not only an example of their ignorance of the subject but a rude slap in the face to over a million Finns who live abroad. Many of us are that multicultural “nightmare” that some in this country want to avoid at all costs.
Too often when some Finnish politicians speak out against refugees and immigrants as if we were a plague, that person usually ends up insulting hundreds of thousands that emigrated from this country to other lands.
Finland’s debate on immigration and multiculturalism has deep flaws. For one, it has a lot of racist overtones since some believe that being an immigrant or having a multicultural background is a disadvantage. Finns are “white, Lutheran and represent a monoculture,” they argue.
With so many Finns living abroad in so many countries how can anyone make such a ludicrous claim in a globalized world?
When anti-immigration groups in this country insult refugees as “welfare shoppers” they throw dirt on those refugees and immigrants that left Finland in the past centuries.
Expatriate Finns must take part in the ongoing debate in Finland on immigration and refugees because we are the fruit that has budded in foreign lands thanks to our ancestors’ restless yearning and ambition.
I for one am especially proud of my Finnish and multicultural background.
Migrant Tales publishes on Monday some interesting quotes on the ongoing immigration debate in Finland and elsewhere. If you have some quotes you would like to share with us, please forward them to [email protected]. ET
Immigration policy was criticized last autumn by German Chancellor Angela Merkel. She said that the attempt to build a multicultural society in Germany had failed. The statement is odd since this type of [integration] policy has never been practiced in Germany nor even in many other countries. Pasi Saukkonen, Helsingin Sanomat
Maahanmuuttopolitiikkaa arvioi viime syksynä myös Saksan liittokansleri Angela Merkel. Hän totesi, että yritys rakentaa Saksaan monikulttuurinen yhteiskunta on epäonnistunut. Väite oli outo, sillä tällaista politiikkaa ei ole koskaan harjoitettu Saksassa eikä useimmissa muissakaan maissa.
Gathering from the ongoing debate (on immigration), it seems that immigrants are trying to rush into Finland through doors and windows. In reality we have the seventh lowest number of immigrants in Europe. Iltalehti
Julkisen keskustelun perusteella voisi luulla, että maahanmuuttajia tunkee Suomeen ovista ja ikkunoista. Todellisuudessa täällä on Euroopan seitsemäksi vähiten maahanmuuttajia.
(Thilo) Sarrazin’s* claims (on European racial superiority) do not hold water in today’s globalized world. Everyone can see that they are false. The scary matter is that different arguments on race used by those on the fringes of the immigration critical camp can get support. Responsible politicians and citizens should stay clear from these type of racial theories. Tatu Vanhanen, Iltalehti that quotes him from an article he published in Kanava.
(Thilo) Sarrazinin väitteet eivät menesty nykypäivän globalisoituvassa maailmassa. Jokainen voi itse havainnoida ne vääriksi. Pelättävissä kuitenkin on, että maahanmuuttokriittisen keskustelun marginaaleissa myös erilaiset rotuväittämät voivat saada kannatusta. Vastuullisten poliitikkojen ja kansalaisten on syytä sanoutua irti tällaisista rotuopeista. Tatu Vanhanen, Iltalehti
*Thilo Sarrazin, a former member of the executive board and head of the German Bundesbank’s risk control operations, claimed in a book that Turks, Middle Easterners and Africans had lower IQs than Europeans.
The term integration should mean mutual acceptance, respect and equal opportunities. Enrique Tessieri @MigrantTales
Old quote: To govern is to populate. Juan Bautista Alberdi (1810-84), Argentinean statesman who felt that Argentina would never become a prosperous nation with a population of one million that could easily house 50 million people.
Comment: Here is a column published in the Tampere-based Aaamulehti that attempts to give credibility to Angela Merkel’s, David Cameron’s and Jutta Urpilainen’s statements that conveniently blame immigrants for not integrating. Fine, thank you Merkel, Cameron and Urpilainen. Now tell us what we have to do? Did you have a plan before you pinned the blame on immigrants? Are your statements only a ploy to hide the failures of present and past governments?
Aamulehti has become one of the most reactive dailies in Finland with respect to immigration. I always thought that the structure of a good editorial, and even a column, is the following: statement of problem, background information and solution. We have the first two in the column but there is nothing, absolutely nothing, on how to move forward.
When you read about the anti-immigration rhetoric, keep a close watch for solutions. Why are they missing? Because they have no credible plan to offer.
Suomen sosiaalidemokraattisen puolueen puheenjohtajalla Jutta Urpilaisella, Saksan kristillisdemokraattisella liittokanslerilla Angela Merkelillä ja Britannian konservatiivisella pääministerillä David Cameronilla on ainakin yksi yhteinen piirre.
What does freedom of expression mean? For me it represents a Montesquieuian framework of society where all the parts watch over the other. These checks and balances are crucial to ensure that basic civil liberties enshrined in documents such as the UN Declaration of Human Rights are vigorously defended and encouraged.
Even though the law is pretty clear what ethnic incitement is, it is an important safeguard that won’t allow certain groups to go on a vigilante rampage against certain minorities.
Freedom of speech works in the same way in the United States but with a very big difference. US’ mosaic society, which comprises of many ethnicities, has learned to live in relative peace after the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s.
Europe is still light years away from the United States never mind Canada. All we have to do is open our history books and read about the horrors that took place in the former Yugoslavia, the racism that groups like the Roma suffer, and the Nazi Germany regime that over-dosed on its own madness.
Some Europeans still live so far back in time that they believe that diversity and innovation are threats.
The aforementioned are stark reminders of how Europe is still having a difficult time coexisting with minorities. That is one reason why the rise of far-right groups in Europe are a cause for concern.
Motives are another aspect that puts into question those ultra-right nationalistic groups. Are they really interested in defending everyone’s civil liberties if the first thing they would do if in power would be to put minority rights in cold storage? Can you trust a group that claims to defend civil rights with one hand and bashes certain minorities with another?
Do you set a good example for others to embrace your culture if the first thing that you show them is your loathing?
Any sensible person with a strong sense of justice and equality would not go around insulting and inciting other ethnic groups because they are different.
There are certain practical rules of conduct on how you behave when with members of the same groups or with those belonging to another culture. These rules only require common sense and are there because they facilitate peaceful coexistence.
Rule of thumb number one: Treat others like you would treat people in your own culture.
I personally believe that as our societies become more diverse we will find the right balance between what is appropriate and inappropriate. Such a balance will help us understand what the real meaning of freedom of expression means.
We would be in a lot of trouble if the one-sided immigration debate in Finland was left to a certain group of people. Those that I am referring to call themselves “critical of immigration,” maahanmuuttokriittinen. It is a funny term used to describe groups that are in fact hostile to immigration.
More people in Finland are beginning to understand the difference between racism and sensible debate.
One of these is Center Party Prime Minister Mari Kiviniemi. She recently labeled SDP MP and anti-immigration hardliner Eero Heinäluoma’s statements as “flirting with racism.” Naturally Heinäluoma does not consider his statements racist at all. One of the many incredulous affirmations he has made is that immigrants will fuel racism because they will take jobs away from Finns.
The argument is a bit like the man who raped a woman and then claims that it was the victim’s fault because she was wearing a mini skirt.
There are countless of other examples of anti-immigration groups like the True Finns who claim not to be racist but in truth some are. You can find, unfortunately, these types of people in all of Finland’s political parties.
Since ignorance is not an excuse for breaking the law, it should not be one for insulting other ethnic groups. Even so, some of the views that some Finnish politicians have of immigrants and immigration dates back to the murky 1930s.
Even though not everything that is debated can be slammed as racist, it shows how much in diapers the immigration debate is in Finland. Some do not even know the difference (or pretend not to know) between what is appropriate and racist.
I have said on numerous occasions that you do not need to pass new laws for immigrants in Finland. The only thing we have to do is apply those we have in force today.
A good rule of thumb when speaking of immigrants in Finland is to ask if you would ever make such a statement about your own group or voters. If not, stay clear from them.
One of the pet topics of the far-right in Finland is speaking about social security fraud. The only problem with the debate is that the only culprits are foreigners. Supposedly Finns are honest and therefore do not take advantage of the social security system.
Why aren’t any politicians making a big deal about social security fraud in general, or among Finns in particular? Because it is a hyper-sensitive political issue. They would not touch it with a ten-foot pole especially with elections approaching in April 2011.
Bashing foreigners and over-exaggerating social security fraud among immigrants brings more votes and political mileage.
Finland’s conservative Kokoomus youth leader, Wille Rydman, makes an incredible statement in a letter to the editor to Helsingin Sanomat: The state should not support nor fund multiculturalism because it would hinder the adaption of immigrants into our society.
So, what he is suggesting is that funds from Finland’s well-intentioned but semi-wayward integration program have been earmarked for enhancing multiculturalism in Finland. If Rydman wants to look at Finland’s integration program seriously, he will note that it fails on many fronts, like instilling a sense of dignity in immigrants.
The issue is much simpler: work and acceptance. If you want newcomers to embrace and grow in their new home they will have to be inspired by it. Our society must offer them opportunities and, most importantly, acceptance.
Some Finns like Rydman have a simplistic view of how immigrants should conform and adapt to our society.This is understandable because they have never lived in societies, and if they have have never fully grasped, where immigration is normal and where synergies occur.
One of the most flawed components or Finland’s integration program is that adaption of immigrants is one-way: that is, we will tell you how to adapt to our society and what is important to us. This is Rydman’s simplistic recipe: throw away your culture and learn Finnish as a Finn or Swedish as a Swede and, presto, full integration.
This type of recipe for immigrants is not only a disaster but leads to exclusion. Could he please tell us where this type of integration has occurred successfully?
Another saddening aspect of Rydman’s discourse, who is a member of Finland’s largest political party, is that he thinks that all these civil rights goodies in our constitution and laws, like equality and the right to diversity, do not apply to immigrants.
These types of simplistic solutions to the dynamics of immigration is not only irresponsible but shows how little some politicians understand the issue. Certainly with elections in April 2011 around the corner, politicians such as Rydman are eyeing the elections with opportunistic gleam.
Rydman looks at two extreme examples of immigration policy: France and Sweden. Why didn’t he look at how the “major leagues,” countries like the United States, Canada, Australia or England in the European Union, handle large immigrant populations?
Europe is a sad case lined with too many politicians such as Rydman and an unfortunate list of others who forget our dark and xenophobic past.What happened in the 1930s in Nazi Germany and most recently in the former Yugoslavia should serve as extreme rude wake up calls.
I was very surprised to read that the educational board of Raseborg, a town located in southwest Finland, had retracted apparently grudgingly from a decision to ban Muslims from wearing headscarves at school. The Raseborg school district is the only one in the country that had in force such restrictions.
Here is an update on the matter in Helsingin Sanomat (in Finnish), which shows that the attitude in Finland towards wearing headscarves at educational institutions and at work is quite flexible. Raseborg’s decision to ban headscarves at schools has not been followed anywhere else in the country.
Even though such a ban was done in the name of furthering equality, did it or was it a bad case of ethnocentric policing? If you want to promote equality and our way of life, do you do it by prohibiting certain cultural practices of other groups? By banning headscarves, did Raseborg send a message to the children that they should be ashamed of their culture?
Headscarves, as well as all other religious symbols, were banned from French schools in 2004. Source: France 24
While I am all for equality and the social welfare-state model, there are certain limits to what the state can impose on us. One of the roles of society is to offer opportunities to all of its members, even in the area of cultural diversity. Therefore it is our right to decide which one of these is suitable as long as no laws are breached.
If the educational board of Raseborg is truly interested in advancing the noble cause of social equality as we define it in our culture, its energies would be better spent if it promoted and defended our inalienable right to cultural diversity and to free choice.
Living in a society that abides by the spirit of our constitution and laws means that we also share public spaces with other cultures.
Children who grow up in two cultures have enough adaption challenges they have to deal with. If we are as a society truly interested in their welfare and rights, one of the first matters that our educational system must teach them is that there are many lifestyles in our society.
Modern Finnish racism has two sources: nationalism imbedded deep in our history coupled with low self-esteem. Compared with the 1970s, 1980s or 1990s, matters have got better though there is still a lot of room for improvement.
One of the cornerstones of Finnish nationalism is the myth that we are alone and therefore we must be self-reliant to the extreme. The truth, however, is that we could not have become an independent nation nor have made it through two terrible wars with the former Soviet Union without outside help and support.
Thanks to our resolve in the Winter War (1939-40), the conflict took a critical turn in favor of Finland after England and France were threatening to send troops to fight against the Red Army. If this had happened, it would have changed the course of World War 2.
Despite the hatred that some Finns have of Russians, it was Czar Aleksander II that gave language rights to Finnish-langauge Finns. As a Grand Duchy of Russia, Finland also got its own currency. These rights, which were gained in a single decade, were more than what the Finnish-langauge Finns got when they were under Swedish rule during 1249-1809.
Despite ardent nationalism and diehard suspicion of the Russians, leaders of Finland’s independence intelligently understood that it would be a wise choice to maintain the country officially bilingual. The final adoption of the flag was done in the spirit of the Nordic region as well, even though Akseli Gallen-Kallela proposed one that had a red background and the Finnish lion.
This was the official flag that waved over Finland from January to May 1918. It was designed by Akseli Gallen-Kallela. Source: Wikipedia
While our independence and national unity were based on our hatred of the Russians and to a lesser degree of the Swedes, Finland’s fear of outsiders took a new turn in the 1930s. During the Great Depression, Finland enacted the Restricting Act of 1939 (law 219/1939) that kept foreigners and outside investment to a minimum. Moreover, responsiblity for immigrant affairs during that decade was handed to the secret police, which saw foreigners as a threat to national security.
The interesting question to ask is how come nationalism continues to shape the view that some Finns have of the outside world? Why do politicians still scare Finns and maintain the myth that we will be invaded?
The answer is simple: It is profitable.
It reaps rewards because it offers instant short-term benefits if you want to smother dissent rapidly, encourage self-censorship of the media and public, as well as support public enterprises and institutions at the cost of competition. Worst of all, it creates an antagonistic situation between immigrants and the rest of the population. How can one integrate smoothly in such a hostile atmosphere?
The Finland of the future, which we are building today, will have more freedom of thought, less self-censorship of the media and public, greater competition, acceptance that we are a culturally diverse and start to see the outside world (especially Russia) in a less defensive fashion.
Politicians, institutions like the Finnish Border Guard and other public leaders who continue to inject fear of the outside world, choose to live in the past because it is profitable.
It is high time they modernize their view of the world and embrace the challenges of the new century in a novel way. Why?
Because it is more profitable for Finland in the long-term.
It seems odd that in today’s technologically advanced societies in Europe and elsewhere our views of other groups continue to pose major challenges. If I had to picture the situation in a cartoon, I would draw a picture of one of our first primates,Australopithecus africanus, which existed 2-3 million years before present sitting in front of a computer and speaking to the future with a Skype time machine.
Even though an image of an Australopithecus africanus may shock some of us, we could, if we learned how to communicate with this ancestor, find common opinions on how diversity can jeopardize the social integrity of the group.
Even though the picture suggests that Australopithecus africanus was monogamous, what values would we share in common with this primate ancestor? Source: Mendelianblogs.files.wordpress.com
If there is a new watershed that the Internet and globalization has brought it could be the chance to be more independent from some of the more adverse values (like those that fuel racism and discrimination) of society. Thus we could, so to speak, eat our cultural cake and have it at the same time.
The problem, I believe, is that traditional modern societies and some of its different members, especially the seats of power, are reticent to such change because it would undermine their economic, political and social power. Race or ethnicity is only a pretext to identify and exclude others from society’s pot of gold.
The modern society of the future (unless we end up destroying ourselves) will be built on diversity inside a hybrid cultural existence. We accept this form of society because we profit from it economically, environmentally and socially. If, however, we resist this change in a bellicose fashion, we will continue to be regulated by wars and petty and not-so-petty conflicts.
The new society that sees diversity as normal will be a huge step from classifying our world from the suspicious and hostile “us” and “them.”
Even though the picture suggests that Australopithecus africanus was monogamous, what values would we share in common with this primate ancestor? Source: Mendelianblogs.files.wordpress.com