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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.”
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?!
Those who are in university and write essays or are in the writing business know that there is one very big no-no: plagiarism, which means the close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author as one´s own.
Can plagiarism apply to culture; i.e. the incorporation of a culture´s customs and thoughts and representing them as one´s own? This is how cultures work: they constantly incorporate new ideas and customs from other ones without mentioning the source.
Why does cultural plagiarism occur? Probably because cultures want to give the impression to their countrymen and immigrants that their culture is unique. They are obliged to strengthen a myth called national identity.
How many things of our culture have we incorporated from other cultures? I think the answer lies in our physiology: we have some different traits but we can still reproduce and forge a new generation.
Even though culture is not music or artwork with a copyright label, it is misleading and outright wrong to steal a custom from another culture and claim it as your own — are simply avoid the topic altogether.
If we stated sourcing where our different cultural traits came from, would that be the first important step in building a world of greater understanding?
If we knew how closely we are actually linked possibly that would help destroy some of the walls we build thanks to cultural plagiarism.
Dr Veli-Pekka Tynkkynen, a post-doctoral researcher at the University of Helsinki Department of Geography, had the following letter printed in the Opinions column of Finland’s leading national daily newspaper Helsingin Sanomat on Sunday 23 August 2009. The sub-editor chose to print this letter under the heading Finnishness is taboo to the Swedes. The following translation is submitted in good faith.
I used to find love-hate relationships between neighbours funny, but a two-year assignment in Stockholm has raised many quite difficult questions.
The Finnish language and Finnishness as a culture seem to be taboo to Stockholmers. I suspect that this phenomenon is particularly evident in the Stockholm region, as many people of Finnish descent live there.
The roots of the taboo are in the subordinate status of Finland, but also especially in Sweden’s rather efficient integration policy. This policy has been adopted so forcefully, however, that all newcomers to the country are nowadays lumped together in the same invandrare [immigrant] category.
One solid example of the persistence of this old way of thinking was our landlord’s question: “presumably you will be flying the Swedish flag on the flagpole?”, even though it was already clear that we would only spend a few years in Sweden.
Attitudes towards Finnish people came to a head in the 1970s when large numbers of Finnish industrial workers moved to Sweden. The broad caricature nowadays is that Stockholmers treat all Finns as second-class citizens, regardless of profession or education.
While I always got a good reception when I spoke English in shops, speaking Swedish with a Fenno-Swedish accent was mainly greeted with contempt.
In other words, the Finnish language and culture are not tolerated in Sweden. There have been numerous examples of workplaces where the employer has forbidden the speaking of Finnish. The same thing arises, for instance, at tourist attractions: the sign on the emergency exit at the city’s Junibacken children’s museum is in Swedish, English and Russian, but not in Finnish, even though a substantial proportion of visitors come from Finland.
Contempt for the Finnish character strongly pervades the whole of Swedish society. The attitudes of the mainstream population have made people of Finnish descent so ashamed of their roots that they no longer want to learn their native language. I also heard Swedes of Finnish descent come out with openly racist remarks about non-European immigrants, which I think is an indication of the socio-ethnic hierarchy in Swedish society. In other words Sweden’s subjugated Finnish population is perpetuating the cycle of abuse.
The attitude of Finns towards our Estonian cousins shares common features with attitudes towards Finnishness in Sweden: You never come across the Estonian language in Helsinki, even though there are plenty of Estonian tourists and workers in the city.
These attitudes are persistent and will not change overnight, but if they remain taboo, then there is no way for them to change.
The third paragraph from the end of this letter is perhaps the most compelling, as it describes the passive-aggressive mindset that arises in individuals and communities whose cultural identity has been crushed. This goes to the core of the difference between assimilation and integration, as the former requires immigrants to abandon their cultural identity, while the latter requires them to engage with society at large to find ways of expressing that identity in a new context.
One of the starkest descriptions of assimilation has passed into popular culture in the programme of the Borg alien collective as encountered in Star Trek: the Next Generation. The narrative runs as follows:
Resistance is futile. We wish to improve ourselves. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service ours.
Resistance is futile. Your life as it has been is over. From this time forward, you will service us.
(Star Trek: The Next Generation, episode: “The Best of Both Worlds”, 1990)
There is a delightful scene in the feature film Star Trek: First Contact (1996) in which a 21st century character comments that The Borg “sounds Swedish”, but after encountering the collective then decides “definitely not Swedish”. Perhaps Dr Veli-Pekka Tynkkynen has given us cause to consider this question once again.
*Migrant Tales will begin to publish posts by contributors. If you want to submit a contribution for publication, please send your inquiries/article to etessieri@gmail.com.
Before answering the question, let’s take a look at how some scholars define the three important modes in which a minority adapts to a new society. In Finland, there is a lot of confusion about what is meant by integration. When politicians speak of integration of immigrants are they referring to assimilation, which is one-way adaption?
So, in effect, when some accuse me of being disrespectful of Finnish society because I want to debate an issue like immigrants/refugees, they most likely favor the assimilation model. Here is a definition by Tariq Modood:
“This [assimilation] is where the processes affecting the relationship between newly settled groups are seen as one-way, and where the desired outcome for society as a whole is seen as involving least changes in the way of doing things for the majority of the country and its institutional policies.”
The other mode is called integration:
“This is where processes of social interaction are seen as two-way, and where members of the majority community as well as immigrants and ethnic minorities are required to do something; so the latter cannot alone be blamed for failing (or not trying) to integrate.”
And finally multiculturalism:
“…multiculturalism assumes a two-way process of integration but, additionally, it is taken to work differently for different groups.”
Thus multiculturalism takes into account different templates of integration. There is no “fits-all-sizes” approach.
Even though Finland accepts diversity (ethnic, sexual, financial etc), which mode of integration takes place and is encouraged: assimilation, integration or multiculturalism – or none of the above?
Taking into account high unemployment among immigrants and our general ignorance of diversity, is it fair to even speak of integration and multiculturalism in this country?
Posted by Enrique 
Posted by Enrique 
Posted by Enrique 
