Obama and McCain tie but I’ll vote for the former

The first debate between Senators John McCain and Barak Obama ended pretty much a draw. There were no knockout punches by either candidate. What probably came out of the debate was their differing positions on US foreign policy.

However, one of the matters that shun through McCain is that he aims to conduct foreign policy basically in the same style as George W. Bush, or worse, with the help of nationalism that feeds itself with simplistic perceptions of the world such as evil and good.

While he spoke out against Guantanamo and torturing detainees, McCain played more on conservative Republicans and was not that appealing to independent, undecided and swing voters. Even though Bush should understand by now that his foreign policy has been ineffective, costly and ruinous, McCain still believes that the US can go around being the world policeman.This may, however, be difficult for the next administration considering how much credibility and economic might the US has squandered under Bush.

One of the big differences between the presidential hopefuls was on the Iraq War. McCain does not seem to understand that it is that war in Iraq that has not only brought world shame to the US, but undermined it by becoming heavily indebted to country’s such as China. About $10 billion is spent every month by the US in Iraq. McCain still believes that the US can win the war, while Obama sees the main focus against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

If there is a criticism to Obama, that would be that he sounded hawkish on issues such as Afghanistan and bombing Taliban bases in Pakistan. True, that Central Asian country may have a growing insurgency, but history has shown that Afghanistan cannot be won militarily. Ask the Russians if you disagree.

In sum, apart from the financial turmoil that either candidate will have to deal with from January, the other huge disaster they will have to grapple with is the US’ standing in the world.

Who has a better chance of addressing such a foreign policy challenge? Obama, in my opinion, is that person. He offers a new hope whereas McCain still believes in the old approach of military might and the convoluted world of Reagan geopolitics, which will only lead us to a new world war.

Kauhajoki, Finland, killer — the darker side of a man

The fatal shooting of 10 classmates by Matti J. Saari, 22, in Kauhajoki in western Finland came as a shock. It was only in November that another young Finnish man went on the rampage in Jokela and killed and injured a number of his classmates.

Certainly a lot of questions clamor for an answer: Why? Where did we go wrong? What does this tell us about Finnish society?

One matter is for certain:  Saari was a pretty sick individual and should not represent any national group except for himself. But let’s say if the shooter would have been a foreigner. What kind of an outcry would it have unleashed?

Kick out the foreigners! Close Finland’s borders! could have been some of the cries. And consider the stigma that national group would have to carry if the murderer were an African or Russian?

However, we should not confuse the facts. The killer was the mind of a deranged person that carried out this  outlandish act — he only represented himself, nobody else.

It is the way we should look at things — the person not the country, stupid!

PS We should watch how we threaten others in this blog. One blogger said he wanted to kill me but would not because he is a law-abiding citizen. The comment was posted on the same day as the Kauhajoki shootings.

Finland’s difficult quest for foreign laborers

In a recent article in the London Financial Times. there is an article about how Finland is aiming to become a magnet for foreign laborers. While this is understandable, taking into account Finland’s aging population and the shortage of workers in some sectors of the economy, the country’s policy makers still have a lot of work to do before the country becomes an attractive magnet.

Facts such as 20% jobless claims by foreigners, high taxation and housing prices, harsh climate, language and, very importantly, the lack of foreign communities and outright opposition to foreigners by some Finns, undermine its attractiveness to outsiders. Laborers would have an easier time in places such as Sweden, Germany and the United Kingdom.

Another thumbs down to Finland’s quest is that it still continues to place hiring restrictions on foreign workers despite being a member of the European Union. If a Finnish company employs a foreigner, it has to prove that a Finnish worker could not do the job.

In my opinion it is a paradox that Finland, which had fought in past decades to assert a sense of strong national identity, is seeing itself a victim of such a rigid stance. It creates a narrow view of the world and scares away people from making Finland their home.

Why would I want to move to a country and bring up my children where they will always be reminded by some that they are foreigners? All you have to do is look at the myriad of comments in this blog to understand that some Finns are not ready to handle more foreigners in this country, especially if they are black.

Finland has a long way to go before it becomes a magnet for foreign laborers. First it will have to convince the labor unions that they should hire foreigners in the face of unemployed Finns. Second, the rigid perceptions of how Finns see outsiders will have to change. Some continue to see foreigners as a threat to the culture.

A complete about-turn will have to take place and this will not happen overnight, but take decades, probably generations to set in. I do not see it any other way, unless you want to maintain the present untenable status quo of keeping 20% of foreigners outside of the economy and their children aloof from Finnish society.

What is scary is that it appears that not even our policy makers seem to know what they are doing and what  bringing more foreigners to the country imply. It looks more like a program left to chance than anything else.

Finnish “culture and personality”

I just looked over an ”adaption guide to Finland” for Russians that move to the Kymenlaakso region in the southeast of the country.

While these types of publications may have good intentions, they tend to generalize complex matters such as Finnish culture and personality. One of the matters that is surprising in the guide is how few – if any – social psychologists, sociologists and anthropologists were used. The guide states that Finland is a “feminist” country, although women still make about 20% less than men.

Under the part that attempts to show some traits on Finnish personality, I chose a few descriptions that caught my eye:

1. Statement: What is essential for the Finns? The most important matter that characterizes him/her is his/her patriotism. The Finns love their country.

(Mikä on olennaista suomalaisessa ihmisessä? Kaikkein olennaisinta on hänessä patriotismi. Suomalainen rakastaa omaa maataan.)

Comment: Is this something unique? Does it suggest that I should fear Finns and take special care not to offend Finland? Does it suggest that Finns may have difficulties accepting others because patriotism, or nationalism, gets in the way? Why is this attribute the most important for the authors?

How I would change the sentence: Finns, like other people in different nations, love their country. So? Are the authors suggesting that people in some countries are not patriotic?

2. Statement: Finnish culture can be described as individualistic.

(Suomalaista kulttuuria voidaan luonnehtia yksilökulttuuriksi.)

Comment: Is this a unique trait in a modern industrialized nation? How do we measure individualism?

3. Statement (this is one of my favorites): The Finns are bashful and quiet. He is not very social if he is around strangers.

(Suomalainen on ujo ja hiljainen. Hän ei ole seurallinen eikä hän ole kovin aloitteellinen juuri koskaan kanssakäymisissään, jos hän on tuntemattomien ihmisten seurassa.)

Comment: How do Finnish men and women meet at bars? How do they make friends?  What study proves that Finns do not take the initiative when they are around strangers? These types of affirmations, which are not true, only help to reinforce stereotypes about Finns. There are quiet, loud and medium-loud Finns. Some will take the initiative while others will shy away from it. It depends on the person. It is ridiculous to claim that it is “Finnish personality.”

4. Statement: Finns are quite stubborn and in that character he/she is incredibly steadfast.

(Suomalainen on harvinaisen itsepäinen ja siinä piirteessä on hän uskomattoman luja.)

Comment: Like with the above-mentioned statement, are there any studies that prove this? What percentage of Finns are stubborn and which are not? I have never seen a study that measures stubbornness. Isn’t pigheadedness a personality trait as opposed to a national trait – if there ever was one.

5. Statement (this is a “gem”): Finns tend to react slowly…

(Suomalainen on hitaanpuoleinen.…)

Comment: This is the stereotype of the stereotypes mentioned by the guide. Again, I ask, what studies do the authors use to back such a statement? What percentage of the Finns are “slow?” What do they mean by “slow” and compared with whom?

CONCLUSION: These types of statements about Finnish culture are not useful because they only confuse perceptions of Finnish culture since they are not based on any empirical study. If anything, they are subjective perceptions that reveal more the stereotypes of the authors — at the best they show how the authors want foreigners to “see” us.

Two-sided dabate on immigration in Finland

One of the interesting matters that has been seen in this blog is that debating an issue such as foreigners living in Finland is a polarized black-and-white debate. The more extreme views on the topic, go as far as to claim that it would bring destruction to Finland and its culture. Those on the other side of the coin claim the contrary: Finnish society is basically racist towards outsiders.

In my opinion, both sides are committing the mistake of oversimplifying matters. Finland will not be destroyed if more foreigners come to live here, and Finnish society is not that intolerant that it could not tolerate foreigners from other countries.

In order to resolve this two-sided debate, we should look for the Finnish way of solving the differences: education. Certainly if foreigners and Finns learned more about each other, matters such as suspicion, stereotypes and discrimination would be undermined.

But let’s define some of the main issues we are debating. Multiculturalism, for one, means a society that is inhabited by a number of cultures and subcultures. It is multicultural, or multinational, because there are people from different cultural and national backgrounds inhabiting the same society.

Multicultural policy, however, first originated from Canada about twenty years ago, where the cultural heritage of different groups are encouraged to maintain their identity in a society where racism is a crime punishable by law. So multiculturalism and multicultural policy are two different yet similar things.

Should Finland adopt the Canadian model or another one? I personally do not mind the Canadian model after having lived in the United States, Argentina, Spain, Italy and Finland. Does anyone have a more effective model other than integration by perkele (100% integration or leave the country)?

Today we live in a globalized world and Finland is a European Union member. Apart from competing for investment, countries are also competing in the labor market to fill vacant jobs. People with skills are like small mobile businesses that offer their services to the highest bidder. That is the way competition works.

Instead of just opposing a policy for the sake of opposition, we should try to look for concrete solutions. How do we integrate outsiders into the Finnish way of life? How do we make Finland more competitive? How can foreigners learn to speak Finnish more rapidly and effectively? These are some of the questions we should be focusing  — not why foreigners are bad for the country.

The culture of fear of outsiders in Finland

Can an open and honest debate on multiculturalism take place in Finland when people feel directly threatened by it? Can we ever aspire as a nation to integrate people into our society when some of us are not even ready to give the time of day to foreigners?

Racism is a serious problem in Finland because people may get death threats if they try to honestly debate the real issues. Some of those who carry out such threats, or those that are the most recalcitrant, believe that matters such as integrating outsiders into a society is easy if one has the right attitude.

Integrating into Finnish society is difficult for many reasons. If one can pass the hurdles of language and grasps the culture well enough, one soon reaches the highest hurdle of them all: fear and history.

In my opinion, Finland’s tumultuous history in the previous century with its eastern neighbor Russia has kept such fears alive to date. Some Finns still fear that their culture is threatened or under attack. That probably explains why our definition of who is a Finn or not is very rigid.

One has only to look at the regional differences in Finland to understand what I am talking about. If some Finns already make a big deal because a person from Savo moved to the Satakunta region, imagine what it is like for a foreigner who was not brought up with the same cultural tools as the Finn from Savo?

Unfortunately, fear continues to reflect our disjointed immigration policy and even how some Finns see  people from diverse cultural backgrounds.

Immigration is not a threat. It becomes, however, disjointed and dysfunctional when the majority culture fears. Normal relations and integration are impossible because they are tainted by the poison of a close relative of fear called suspicion.

There is also reluctance by many Finns and foreigners to take part in a meaningful, rich debate about living as neighbors because that too is being intimidated by fear.

Finland of Mayberry syndrome

Mayberry used to be an imaginary town in North Carolina where the 1960s sitcom called The Andy Griffith Show took place. In this make-believe town and world, life was simple, traditional values were cherished, and people respected and cared for each other.  There were two sitcoms during that decade that portrayed the same world view of small-town America: Petticoat Junction and Green Acres.

Mary Mekko from San Francisco, who has a very interesting name, posted the following comment: When I returned in 2006 for a 2-week visit, I was shocked at the number of foreigners, especially the Somalis, in Helsinki, along the Metro line towards Itä-Keskus.

And here is another one by Tiwaz: Just look at yourself! You are originating from one or multiple multicultural hellholes with excessive social inequality, division of society and various other problems. But still you try to champion the idea of changing Finland into same kind of multicultural hellhole.

I too remember Finland many decades ago as a huge Nordic Mayberry. Life appeared simple and certain values, such as the love and respect for the woods, had real meaning and importance. There was very little crime and the Finns appeared on the surface content with their lives even though suicide rates were one of the highest in the world.

Are some of our views on Finland anchored by images of life in Mayberry that never existed in the first place? One interesting matter about the sitcoms I mentioned is that there is not a single black person, Chinese restaurants, pizzerias, Mexican Americans, gays, feminists, Ku Klux Klan members, bigots living in the towns of Mayberry, Hooterville (Green Acres) or Pixley (Green Acres). They appear like bubbles immune to the ills of urban society.

Possibly living in these “idyllic”  towns — if they existed — would have taught us they they were not as content as they appeared and were nothing more than places where values lived in straitjackets and never changed. Nobody could ever question the system because it was — like Finland? — a so-called perfect society.

Sometimes when I remember what Finland was like many decades ago and read some of the comments in this blog, I jump and exclaim: That’s another one that has been struck by the Mayberry syndrome!

Here is a funny clip from the Mayberry Sheriff’s Office:

Discrimination undermines society’s values

Some of the comments on Muslims in this blog have been outright discriminatory and a cause for concern. They sound like people who have been gripped more by fear than by common sense.

If Finland is not at war with Iraq, what is it that these Finns fear so much?

The Yale social psychologist on the program said that if we fear our interpretation of outsiders becomes rigid.

He sums it up well, when the clerk actor refused to serve a Muslim. He explains why some stood up against the clerk: “They saw an injustice. It is justice that binds us together. It is justice that makes us a society. Any threat to that kind of justice and fairness undermines the entire system.”

There is also another disturbing aspect in the program: 13 stood up for the Muslim woman, 6 sided with the clerk, and 22 said nothing.

What do you think would have been the results if the same program would have been done in Finland?

For those who fear Muslims, I dedicate this video clip.

Being an immigrant in Finland: A letter from Fiona

I do not usually do this. But I thought it was such a candid comment that I had to bring it to all of your attention. It reveals, in my opinion, what some foreigners feel about Finnish society but do not dare to say too loudly in public.

Thank you Fiona, I hope others follow your example. The first important step in taking part in any society is debating openly about the issues that affect our lives. It shows that we are active citizens who care about Finland. It is that first important step in integrating.

I am an immigrant. Sometimes I feel so frustrated in Finland that I just wanted to ‘give it back to the society’. Hence the crime. People like me (hypothetically) acting out of frustration. If the mentality here is that no foreigners are good and only a tiny fraction of people like Juha, the social worker, understands and/or appreciates diversity it doesn’t help much because the general society isn’t open=minded. I would even call racist.

If a person like Juha comes to ask me how do I like it in Finland, I wouldn’t want to hurt his feelings. A guy who works so hard for us. What do you expect me to say? that I am so frustrated that I can leave this second to another place where I feel more comfortable?

I would reverse those numbers. 95% prejudiced and 4% nonchalant, 0.5% don’t care, 0.001% welcoming (and the rest 0.499% lost in statistics).

Good welfare system is like a double-edged sword for immigrants. We are taken care of but we are also blamed for using them. And so you have to be ever-thankful that you are here, Finland. Because you are given shelter and food, now you can take this mental abuse in the form of institutionalized racism.

Any CONSTRUCTIVE comments?

Who is Sarah Palin – what’s going on in the United States?

With only two months left until the November US presidential elections, one wonders what the world will be like after George W. Bush retires back to Crawford, Texas, after plunging his country and the world into an abyss led by colorful-named crusades such as “the war on terror” – an enemy that is everywhere but nowhere. Since we are fighting terrorism, which is a problem, the Bush administration saw it as a carte blanche to go above the law and the constitution.

While I do not think Barack Obama and his running mate Joe Biden will change very much the balance of power in the United States, they do offer a hope after two ruinous Bush administrations . Another big question mark that some have been asking is what will G.O.P. (Grand Old Party = Republican Party) John McCaine and his number 2, Sarah Palin, bring to the White House if elected? Will it be an extension of the Bush administration or something worse?

McCain’s acceptance speech on Thursday at the Republican Convention in St Paul, Minnesota, was filled with so much trite nationalism that it was scary. If only the United States was and could be like he pictured it… But taking into account the challenges of global warming, the loss of the US’ economic might, the military quagmire in Iraq and Afghanistan, all he could do was put the United States on a pedestal and talk about its nobel cause his world order of things.

One of the things that you got to watch out for — especially after the United States elected Bush — is who these candidates really are. What are their real agendas. If enough voters would have had more information about Bush in 2000 when he ran against Al Gore, the world would probably be a different place today.

But we have to thank Bush for one thing: he messed up so badly that it paved the way for a new refreshing era in US politics: We have today a black presidential and woman vice presidential contender for the White House.

There was a really good editorial in the New York Times which, I believe, exposes what is McCaine’s and Palin’s real agenda.

Here is a letter from a person who knows Palin in her home town/village of Wasilla. The letter was a real eye-opener for me.