Mannerheim and Finnish provincialism

I heard yesterday an interesting talk on Marshall Carl Mannerheim (1867-1951) just a few days before the outbreak of the Winter War exactly 70 years ago on November 30, 1939. The talk centered on different aspects of the Civil War of 1918 and how Mannerheim saw the world.

Those who have studied this man, know that he was not the easiest person to get along with and had a mean temper. If he would wake up today from his eternal sleep, one of the matters that would shock him is our liberal, democratic Nordic welfare society.

Without stealing any of his thunder from those difficult decades when he led Finland, Mannerheim’s thinking would have been totally out of touch with these times.

Despite his strong distaste for dissension and the ideology behind Bolshevism (he was trained as an officer of Czarist Russia and had a soft spot for the Menshevics), his view of the world was more open than many Finns when the country became a republic in 1917. How many Finns had back then a broad international view of the world and were not overtaken by the hysteria of nationalism and petty provincialism?

How did nationalism and that narrow view of the outside world impact Finland during those crucial decades that led to the Winter and Continuation Wars? If mistrust and hatred of Russians was the driving force that unified some Finns back in those difficult times, how did it affect its foreign policy? Can we still see this same suspicion and mistrust today sprinkled in our views of immigrants?

Even though it is questionable that Finland could have done something to prevent the Winter War, there are a lot of question marks concerning the Continuation War. Answering, or pondering these queries seriously, will bring to light many things about ourselves as a a people and hitherto-unknown or hidden aspects of our history.

One of these is the reticent attitudes of Finnish authorities towards foreign investment (Restricting Act of 1939) and draconian laws to discourage foreigners to move to the country.

One of the biggest culprits, I am certain, were a small country’s petty provincialism, fear, and suspicion of the outside world.

Whose fault is high immigrant unemployment in Finland?

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Immigration does and must work for Finland

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.