Finland’s first conflict with non-Russian foreigners as an independent nation?

I once bumped into an interesting letter dated April 9th, 1918 from the British Foreign Office addressed to Rudolf Holsti, a Finn who was somehow connected with the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland. The date of the letter shows that Finland was still absorbed in a bloody civil war (January 27-May 15, 1918) after becoming independent on December 6, 1917.

The letter is revealing and not only shows the tense atmosphere in the country, but could possibly be the first official protest from a foreign government on the ill-treatment of non-Russian foreigners in independent Finland. World War I was still raging.

The letter reads:

Dear Doctor Holsti:-

With reference to our conversation yesterday you asked for particulars of the ill-treatment of certain British and American officers in Finland to which I referred.

As you are probably aware, a Mission consisting of Lieutenant Hitching a British officer and Lieutenant Tholing an American were recently sent to Wasa in order to negotiate a passage through Finland for the Allied Legations from Petrograd, who were detained there. They were accompanied by Lieutenant Granserre, the French Consul at Tornea. On arrival at Sunajoki (sic) they were received by Monsieur Procopi, the Chief of Police, who adopted a very aggressive attitude and demanded Lieutenant Hitching an explanation of his visit to Finland during such a crisis, reminding him that England was at war with Germany who was Finland’s best friend. Various absurd charges of speaking against Finland were made against the members of the Mission, but they were of course entirely without foundation and no attempt was made to substantiate them.

They then proceeded to General Mannerheim’s headquarters, where they were courteously received although they had no success in securing the object of their visit. Upon arrival at Wasa they went to the principal hotel where their appearance in the dining room cause considerable sensation. The people were openly hostile in their attitude and alleged the officers were Russian spies in English uniforms. A Finnish Jäger approached them and requested them to leave the premises, and on their refusal he retired with other officers to consult as to whether Lieutenants Hitching and Tholing should be expelled from the hotel by force. Shortly afterwards a second Jäger officer came up to them and gave them two minutes to leave the room, whereupon they withdrew amid shouts of abuse from the whole company, with the exception of some Swedish journalists who left at the same time and expressed their sympathy.

Lieutenant Hitching also reports that during their brief stay in the room the orchestra were especially requested to play the “Wacht am Rhein“. This was clearly intended as a studied insult to the Allied officers as it had already been played once before.

Perhaps the most serious feature of the incident was that Mr. Sario, the Minister of Foreign Affairs was present the whole time but did nothing whatever to protest and obviously regarded the whole matter as a good joke.

I think you will agree that this affair was an unfortuante one, and indicated a very unfriendly attitude on the part of FInnish authorities and the Finnish army, which renders it very difficult for us to give Finland all the assistance we should desire to give in her present difficulties. You may recollect that we were speaking recently of the possibility of appointing an informal British representative at Wasa, and you considered this a good proposal. I fear that after this incident the position of such a representative would be a quite untenable one, and it will be very difficult for us to proceed further with the idea at present.

Yours sincerely,

E.H. Carr (signed)

PS (handwritten) This incident is inferred to in a long an interesting article in today’s “Tmes.”

Midsummer greetings

Here is wishing all of you a pleasant Juhannus, or summer solstice.

I will be checking the blog over the long weekend.

Enrique

Suspicion of foreigners in Finland is due to history

I am not the first person by far to state that multiculturalism, or living in a society with people from different cultural and ethnic backgrounds, does not pose challenges. The gravity of the challenges, however, depend a lot on the dominant culture. Will we accept to live with difference?

Certainly it would be a gross generalization to state that modern Finnish society lives in a sort of time warp where everything is static culturally; that is, there are no cultural and life-style variations.

If you want to understand the challenges of living in a multicutlural society, we would have to study it through a historical perspective. Finns had struggled hard in the nineteenth and early twentieth century for language and cultural rights.

When Finland gained independence in 1917, it started to forge a stronger and real sense of national identity that was hostile to Russia and to a lesser degree to the Swedes, its two former masters. In the nation-building identity process there has naturally been a strong emphasis on “us” and “them.”

This “us” and “them” took us into odd cultural explanations of our origins. Even in the 1960s some academics thought that the we were not even European but some odd group that migrated from central Russia to this part of the world. The emphasis of these types of affirmations must have been to strengthen our uniqueness in relation to others.

These strong nationalistic views were in our laws as well. Up to 1995, when we became a EU member, foreign investment to Finland was dictated by the Restricting Act of 1939, which effectively kept foreign investors out of key sectors of the economy as well as restricted land ownership.

Tough laws were also in force for immigrants who wanted to move to Finland. The message was clear: foreigners were seen as a threat and not as an opportunity.

Certainly history had a lot to do with the enforcement of these laws.

If our history, reinforced by our education, instills a strong sense of nationalism and a hostile view of countries such as Russia, this must also rub off on other national groups that are dissimilar to us. The whole process is not based on general acceptance but on suspicion.

Therefore, one of the challenges that multiculturalism will bring is doing away with some of our old hangups about people from other countries. Some claim that most Finns do not have no problems with this while others may disagree.

I personally believe that the indifference of Finnish society towards immigrants can be seen in high unemployment figures. Even though there are many explanations for this, it is a valid indicator of the immigrants’ position in our society. Finns prize work as their lives. Employment is a ticket to membership in this society – being unemployed means you are out and marginalized.

When foreign unemployment figures get closer to total unemployment, maybe this will also be a reflection that attitudes are starting to change.

Foreign unemployment compared with total unemployment

Year          Foreign      Total unemployment

1994            53%              17%
1995            49%              15%
1996           48%               15%
1997            44%              13%
1998            39%               11%
1999            37%              10%
2000           31%               10%
2001            31%                9%
2002            28%                9%
2003            28%                9%
2004            27%                8%
2005            28%                8%
2006            24%                8%
2007            21%                7%
2008            21%                6%

Source: Statistics Finland, Ministry of Employment and the Economy

The EU elections, Finland and “immigrants”

I was pretty surprised that a recent Helsingin Sanomat editorial on the EU parliamentary elections, which affirmed at the end that “immigration and the potential problems it brings with it can no longer be suffocated into silence in the political arena.”

One of the problems with such a statement is that it not only obfuscates the real issues while showing some ignorance of the subject by Finland’s leading daily. When the editorial speaks of “immigrants” is it referring to EU immigrants, labor immigrants or refugees?

What kinds of “problems” does the editorial make reference to? Is it high unemployment, discrimaintion or Finland’s wayward immigration policy?

Moreover, I would not consider immigration an issue per say in Finland because there are so few of them to start with. At the end of 2008, they numbered 143,256, which is about 3% of the population.  As we all know, 37% of the immigrants living in Finland are EU nationals.

If there are some issues that “can no longer be suffocated in silence” the editorial should have taken the question even further. If it was addressing  immigrants, where unemployment stood in September at about 17%, it should ask why this country’s immigration policy has failed to integrate a large number of people into the labor market. In 1994, foreign unemployment stood at a lofty 53%!

Jobless figures, which show over 50% unemployment in some national groups, would dwarf high jobless claims of American Indians, one of the most marginalized groups in the United States.

When it comes to addressing a question like immigrants in Finland, one of the matters that politicians cannot do is vacillate opportunistically to check what  voter sentiment is. As members of this society, it is the role of the state and its elected officials to protect and defend the rights of all people living in this country.

For this reason, it is odd that politicians as well as an editorial speaks of immigrants as a group that can be kicked around at will and addressed in general terms. Certainly this is an easy today since there are so few immigrants in Finland. They are still not a visible political force to contend with.

One bright side of the EU parliamentarian elections was that Kai Pönttinen’s plan to bash”welfare immigrant bums” in order to get votes backfired. If he was so worried about “weflare bums,” why didn’t he just state “welfare bums in Finland?”

As the recession deepens so will attitudes towards immigrants and refugees. The temptation to pick and target this group in order to make an editorial sexier or to secure votes will, unfortuantely, grow.

Let’s deal with the “immigration problems” openly without hostility and populism.

Kai Pöntinen uses the immigrant-bashing card to get votes

I was very surprised to see a European Parliament candidate, Kai Pöntinen of the conservative Kokoomus party, placing an ad in the Helsingin Sanomat to “Stop welfare bum immigrants.”

Pöntinen, who could not resist using the immigrant-bashing card to rally voters, is indeed a sad case. One of the questions I would ask him is how many immigrants are  social welfare bums? What is an immigrant and Finnish social-welfare bum?

I am pretty certain I would never get a credible answer from him.

He probably does not even know himself.

Pöntinen makes another incredible statement in his webstie after insulting immigrants in Finland: Is there anything racist about defending the Finnish way of life, culture and religion?

Is it the Finnish way of life, culture and religion? Did Pöntinen mean that it is the Finnish way to insult other groups in an opportunistic fashion in order to get votes?

The stone age versus the industrial age

One matter that has amazed me concerning how some see immigrants as a threat. What makes it even more incredulous is that some of these have been given the opportunity to receive an education, travel, surf the help Internet and watch television and movies from different countries. Even if we own cellphones and have the world at our fingertips, we continue to think and act like provincial people from the Stone Age.

Without showing disrespect to Homo Neanderthalensis, Homo Erectus or other primate ancestors such as Australopithicus Africanus or Robustus, modern man/woman, or Homo Sapiens Sapiens, has succeeded at becoming technologically advanced.

However, if I had to draw a cartoon of the modern human and picture his/her advancement in the field of cultural understanding for other groups, I would draw an Australopithicus Robustus speaking with a cellphone and sitting in front of a laptop.

How could we do away with our prejudices so they do not give us hang ups and narrow our view of life?

Is it education? I doubt it since education is a reflection of our society. In it we learn all that is beautiful and the flaws of  our culture. What about religion? Probably it could but it has not shown very much tolerance in the past for those who are different. What about politics, the family? The former could but it lacks the spiritualism of religion to make its point. The family unit is too small – it too is a reflection of our society.

If you speak to people who come from more than one culture and have had the opportunity to learn to appreciate other cultures, one matter characterizes them pretty well: they are diverse in their thinking and highly adaptive. One of the ills that they will tell you that has surprised them most during their many travels through lands and cultures is suspicion and prejudice.

Another question may pop up: Why do some people, especially those born in underdeveloped failed states, live imprisoned in a country? Don’t people have a right to find a better future elsewhere?

If cultures and the big economic and military powers of the world do not learn to live in a spirit of true global cooperation, maps will continue to be drawn by nations of varying shapes and sizes. Wars and strife will characterize them.

If, however, we learn to, nations will eventually become obsolete. They will be replaced by so-called region states such as the European Union.

I believe that when a country receives a lot of immigration, one of the biggest sources of conflict is when the majority culture does not accept the fact that a new culture is forming since there are other groups taking part in society.

Possibly one of the reasons why some still have such a difficult time accepting cultural diversity and otherness is because what they fear most at the end of the day are themselves.

A few clarifications about multiculturalism in Finland

I think it is important to clarify some things about multicutluralism in Finland. One of these is that we are legally such a society. This is upheld in the Constitution and Non-Discrimination Act, which is also known officially as the Equality Act.

This is what our Constitution says about equality in Section 6:

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. Children shall be treated equally and as individuals and they shall be allowed to influence matters pertaining to themselves to a degree corresponding to their level of development. Equality of the sexes is promoted in societal activity and working life, especially in the determination of pay and the other terms of employment, as provided in more detail by an Act.

If someone believes it’s unbearable to treat immigrants in the same way the majority culture is treated before the law and society, that person should lobby through our democratic institutions for an about-turn in the legislation. If he/she did, and miraculously succeeded, the changes would end up destroying an important part of the values and morals we cherish in our society.

What would be put in its place of Section 6 and the Non-Discrimination Act?

This, I believe, is the question that those who oppose equality for all in society are incapable or would dare to answer publicly. There is, however, a long sad list of countries in the world where they could find examples of where human rights violations are encouraged and where the word democracy can buy you one-way ticket to prison.

Certainly we do not want that to happen in Finland.

Finnish society should resemble a football team

If one wants an example of how people from different backgrounds can benefit from each other, we should look at successful football teams. What are the qualities for a team to function effectively?

1. It has to play as a team.

2. There must be a sense of camaraderie, clear rules and an aim.

3. Each of the players, depending on their function, compliment each other on the field.  

4. Complementing each other means understanding and respecting the weakness and strengths of the different players. When the teammates know this, their strenghts bolster the team’s effectiveness.

5. They all wear the same uniform but come from diverse backgrounds. 

Here is an example of a failed team.

1. It has weak team spirit.

2. While the aim is clear (to win the game), it is done without the help of a few self-proclalimed “stars.” 

3. Weaknesses are ridiculed at the cost of strenghtening the ego of a player(s).

4. They wear the same uniform but are stratified as “good” and “bad” players.

The example is a simple model of a society comprising of people from different backgrounds. 

If society plays like a failed team, it will never be victorious in building a strong team.

Discrimination is alive and kicking in the EU and Finland

A survey by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) does not give a very encouraging report on the experiences of ethnic minority groups concerning discrimination and racist crime.

For a more comprehensive view of the report click here.

In Finland, it revealed that one in three Somali men and women in the Greater Helsinki area stated that they were victims of racially motived crimes during the past 12 months.

Writes Helsingin Sanomat: “When it comes to treatment at a bank or a shop, Finland’s Somalis emerged among the groups most discriminated against. However, compared with other countries’ minorities the Finnish Somalis were more informed of competent authorities who could give them support or advice. Yet some 69% of the interviewed Finnish Somalis said that they did not know of any organization that could offer them support services to victims of discrimination.”

The FRA survey, which is the first of its kind, is long-overdue and welcome.  It is a wake up call for policy makers and for those who think that racism is a minor problem in Finland. It is, I believe, a much bigger problem that some would want to admit.

Why is racism an issue? Because it is a slap in the face to our values and society.

The Finnish dream and society for everyone

If one looks at some of the classics of sociological thought such as the work of the master, Emile Durkheim, defining society is no easy task. On the surface the word is simple and obvious to many, but if we study it closer,  we note that it comprises of values and morals that give our existence as a group meaning.

Durkheim said that the love for one’s society and the ideal it represents is so powerful that one would rather see society disappear as a material entity than give up the ideal it represents.

Those who are suspicious of immigrants are fearful because they incorrectly believe that building a culturally diverse society will undermine that ideal, or spiritual fuel, that gives them a reason for being.

It should be pointed out that no society is perfect, but the biggest danger to our values and morals are if we send a message to immigrants and minorities that they cannot share our way of life, morals and values.

The worst way of accomplishing this noble goal is through suspicion and racism, which are an affront to our way of life. The most effective way, I believe, is that everyone who lives in Finland must be given the opportunity to take part in this society. Is the magic word, the Finnish dream?

Above all, the Finnish dream is a sense of deep belonging, accomplishment, even if some believe it to mean buying a house in the center of town next to a lake. In order to afford that home, you must feel that you are part of this society.

There are a lot of good values that can inspire others to be part of our society. Four of the most important are equality, fairness, opportunity and the acceptance of diversity.

If we want more immigrants to move to Finland, and if we want them to contribute and become members of our society, we must offer them the Finnish dream (equality, fairness, opportunity and acceptance) as a door and life’s goal.

The cost of failure is too high. If we do not offer anything else but suspicion and exclusion because they can never become Finns, we will have already built before they arrive those feared ghettos inhabited failed human beings.