Tag: Racism

Racism is a silent ogre

Posted on by Migrant Tales

I have been an exchange student living in Finland from Belgium since February. One of the matters that caught my eye in Mikkeli is racism. I have met many immigrants and foreign students who have told me about their experiences. 

Racism isn’t inherited but learned. This means that people can change. In some of us prejudice is such a problem that it bursts out as a destructive force. There are too many sad examples in Mikkeli of how this silent ogre has harassed its victims.

A young man asks a bus to stop but the driver ignores him. A woman who is sitting inside the bus speaks out and the driver responds: “I don’t take black people on my bus.”  

Another incident involves two foreign students who live in an apartment flat. A gang of alleged skinheads attacked their home in March and started knocking at their door at around midnight in a hostile fashion.  Since the two did not open the door, the attackers broke the kitchen window with a wooden club.

The police were called and they are still investigating the matter.

Why does this happen? The answer remains a mystery.

Racist violence takes place in Mikkeli and Finland too often. Society should not even tolerate one such act.

Fortunately, there are strong laws against this type of violence. The Finnish Constitution grants all people the following right: “Everyone is equal before the law. No one shall, without an acceptable reason, be treated differently from other persons on the ground of sex, age, origin, language, religion, conviction, opinion, health, disability or other reason that concerns his or her person.”

There is hope despite these crimes in Mikkeli. People can change and given the right information matters can improve. Meeting people from other cultures could be an important first step in this direction.

Meanwhile, society should not tolerate but  take action and openly condemn this type of violence.

Uschi Neefs

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?”

Immigration debate in Finland and Europe: Turning the lights off

Posted on by Migrant Tales

The eagle never lost so much time, as when he submitted
to learn from the crow.
William Blake (1757-1827)

I remember a long time ago reading an editorial by the Buenos Aires Herald on how the military coup of 1976 was able to shut off lights in Argentina and keep the country in an information blackout. It argued that since outdated infrastructure such as telephones and telecommunications were in a wretched state, it was easy for the junta leaders to literally turn off the lights and spoon feed information to its citizens anyway it wished.

Even though cell phones and IT infrastructure are today the best in the world, some of us in western countries such as Finland continue to live in our self-imposed information bubble about people from other cultures. We hate this group because they do this and we don’t like that group because they have different customs than ours.

What is paradoxical about these “champions of our western way of life” is that they would, if given the opportunity, be the first to impose the very autocratic measures that they claim to be fighting against. They would not waste any time in limiting civil liberties such as religious freedom and even freedom of speech by over-exaggerating and overkilling their cases.

The kind of world they wish to impose on Europe is the one that had caused so much bloodshed in the past century.

Europe, as well as other parts of the world, know first-hand what racial and ethnic strife can bring. Hopefully some understand better in other parts of the world that wise tales about other ethnic groups to suit myopic “racial theories” can only lead to disaster.

Thanks to the Internet and the free flow of information, however, their attempts to shut off the information lights of Europe will be an impossible task.

The role of Finnish language in discrimination

Posted on by Migrant Tales

I was speaking today with a woman from an African country who had been in Finland for five years and had never held a job. She said that she had tried to find work as a cleaner but, surprisingly, she said that she could not because her Finnish wasn’t good enough.

We had a short chat about her studies and the difficulties of finding work in Finland. This took place in Finnish.

In my opinion, her Finnish was good enough to work as a cleaner. Why, then, wasn’t a black woman from Africa employed as a cleaner in eastern Finland?

I am convinced that since language plays a special role in this country historically and culturally (mother tongue is even tabulated in the census), it is used in the same context as skin color in the United States.

This may reflect that some Finns feel less bothered by skin color than by non-native Finnish. But if you have the wrong skin color (not white) and do not speak Finnish as a near-native, then you get hit by a double discrimination whammy in Finland.

Hence, when a Finnish employer says that you do not speak Finnish well enough, he or she may be saying that you are an outsider and we do not employ these kinds of people.

If language plays such an important role in the perception some Finns have of non-native Finns, then it suggests that they will never be accepted as an equal in the Nordic sense by our society.

Addressing the issue of language discrimination in Finland may shed light on a totally hitherto-unknown culprit.

Banishing the racial myths of Finland

Posted on by Migrant Tales

One of the matters that cultural diversity will bring to Finland is challenge the very myths and views of itself especially on the ethnic front.

Even though Finns have created a well-functioning society founded on social justice, these values have basically applied to Finns. Apart from its geographic remoteness form the rest of Europe, some Finns have emphasized in the previous century their cultural and linguistic uniqueness through the hush-hush acknowledgement of  “racial hygiene.”

A good example of this is the professor of social policy Heikki Waris, who wrote in the 1950s: “When conditions in Finland are compared with those elsewhere, for instance in central and southern European countries with their many kinds of racial mixes and all the associated unmanageable social problems, the racial unity of our nation must be seen as a great source of strength.”

Contrary to other parts of the world, “race and language” were the driving forces of our independence as well. This fear, and in many cases hatred, of the Russians even unified the Whites and Reds from the Winter War (1939-40). In the post-war period, it gained further strength through Finland’s geopolitical isolation until its full political and economic integration with Western Europe came in 1995 through EU membership.

If one wants an explanation for the deep-rooted prejudice and racism that is still alive and kicking among some Finns, one does not have to go far to find the reasons behind this societal malice. Our history and near-consensus interpretation of it reveals why.

Matters on the so-called multicultural debate in Finland are still in such a diaper stage that even our political leadership takes special care not to step on the foot of those that make racism respectable instead of defending those that are the victims of their attacks.

The highly one-sided debate in Finland on immigrants is seen as a threat by some Finns because new members of our society bring different points of views. As Finland becomes more multicultural demographically, some of our future historians, sociologists, writers, poets, politicians and others will challenge the very myths that were created in the previous century.

Our new identity and the history we write of ourselves as a nation in this century (new myths?) will be based on totally new points of departure. I for one believe it will be a very rich and inspiring debate that will strengthen our country. Given enough time, it will challenge more forcefully than ever those myths that keep the ogre of racism alive in our society.

It will be the awakening of a new Finland that will fit its needs as a nation in the new century.

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.

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?!

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.

Is Finland prepared for multiculturalism?

Posted on by Migrant Tales

In an interesting article published by Siirtolaisuus – Migration issue 2/1996, social psychologist Professor J. W. Berry asks what factors have to be in place to establish reasonable harmonious relationships between diverse groups. Ethnocentrism is a theory devised by Sumner in 1906 and means when “one’s group is the center of everything, and all others are scaled and rated with reference to it.”

In the article, he asks: “What conditions need to be met, in order to manage successfully a multicultural society?”

(1) In our view there needs to be general support for cultural diversity as a valuable resource for a society; (2) there should be overall low levels of prejudice in the population; (3) there should be generally positive mutual attitudes among the various ethnocultural groups that constitute the society; (4) there needs to be a degree of attachment to the larger national society.

You are free to disagree with me, but I feel that Finland fails on all four counts. With respect to the first point, too few still have a clue in this country what cultural diversity means. The ones that are steadfastly against the claim that diversity destroys or is a threat to Finnish culture and, therefore, one would have to be “mad” to support the existence of a pluralistic society.

If we look at recent polls on how some Finns perceive foreigners, it becomes clear that there aren’t low levels of prejudice in Finland. Racism is still too common, and even encouraged, among some groups as something “manly” and “patriotic.”

Taking into account some of the comments one hears from foreigners, it becomes clear that they too have misconceptions about Finnish society that have caused misunderstandings and resentment. Too few bridges of cultural understanding exist today between the Finns and foreigners. This is fed by outright rejection by Finns of such outgroups. High unemployment among foreigners is not only structural, it is an example of mistrust as well. It is a vicious circle: Finns would prefer not to hire foreigners and, foreigners, don’t even try because they believe finding a permanent job is futile.

Point four is related to three.

In my opinion, the multiculturalist argument is a simple one: If we have people from diverse cultures living in our country, we should make an effort to accept and respect them as members of our society. Apart from being a sensible proposal, it is more effective economically and socially than rejecting and denigrating them. Finland only benefits from a situation where people from diverse cultures can contribute positively to our society. It will not happen through integration by perkele or by placing unattainable cultural benchmarks.

If Berry’s model of multiculturalism is used, it paints a pretty bleak picture for Finland. Or does it?

Does Finland and Europe need a civil rights movement?

Posted on by Migrant Tales

One of the things that has surprised me about this blog are the overtly racist comments. These types of opinions resemble how some whites saw blacks in the United States before the civil rights movement. I do not think it has anything to do with expressing one’s opinions freely nor that some Finns and Europeans are too blunt or sincere.

Even when we deal with people from our same national group, we do not go around insulting them because we know that it is counterproductive and only creates conflict. Would you want to integrate and embrace the values of a society if it is openly hostile to you?

If we want good relations, we have to know how to moderate our thoughts and take the other person into consideration. It is that easy, folks. It does not need political correctness or any magic tricks — only consideration for others.

Some people in Finland and Europe think that it is still “politically correct” to openly insult other national groups with their racist opinions. Here is an example of a comment I picked up recently from another blog:

Certainly there is discrimination in Finland, hatred for the Russians, chauvinism as well as other things – but what of it? Couldn’t we point out that these things are part of Finnish culture? Since they are a part of our official culture, we could make a point that they have to be protected from immigrants. It could certainly work that way – or maybe not?

Taking into account the racial cleansing we saw in the former Yugoslavia and horrors like the Holocaust, Europe can learn a lot from the United States and Canada about how to resolve long blistering race issues. Possibly a civil rights movement in Europe would help wipe out much of the overt racism that exists mostly unscathed.

The day will come when a blacks, Muslims, people from all religions, dark and white people from any nation will be able to walk the streets of Finland and Europe as equals. Certainly the most important step in this direction is accepting and respecting each others diversity.