Who is Finland’s Uncle Tom?

by , under Enrique

What are Uncle Toms called in Finland? @HelsinkiObs helped me out with this question: “It’s Setä Tuomo (older style) or Tuomo-setä if you mean this context.” 

A New York Times opinion-piece gives the meaning of Uncle Tom: “Today, of course, the book has a decidedly different reputation, thanks to the popular image of its titular character, Uncle Tom — whose name has become a byword for a spineless sellout, a black man who betrays his race.”

In Finland the definition would, in my opinion, be a bit different. A Tuomo-setä could be any immigrant who betrays other people like him by becoming and adopting the same values that fuel racism.

The Finnish Uncle Tom is a pretty opportunistic person. He or she believes that the only way to escape discrimination is by accepting those values that promote social exclusion of other groups like immigrants.

There are a lot of Tuomo-setäs out there who are more racist than some Finns.

What do you think would be a good name for an Uncle Tom that lives in Finland?

Mamu-setä, maybe?

  1. Laputis

    -“The Finnish Uncle Tom is a pretty opportunistic person. He or she believes that the only way to escape discrimination is by becoming the culprit.
    There are a lot of Tuomo-setäs out there who are more racist than some Finns.”

    Well, I believe one of such “Uncle Tom´s” is supposed to be me, who is “more racist” than many Finns.

    Let me explain something. I am “racist” (I am putting this word in “” signs, because I am not racist) not because I want to escape discrimination, that would be just ridiculous. I just want to see Finland as Finnish land, where largest minorities would be those of Swedes, Saami, Estonians and Russians.

    There is a certain reason, why I came to Finland – because it is different from other lands. Because I can find here unique charasteristics, that I can´t find nowhere else. I like Finnish mentality, for example, people here are so calm, introverted etc. I am happy that I can travel to a land, which is different from mine. But what you want, Enrique, is to destroy those differences. To destroy things, that are unique to Finland. Bring things and people (immigrants) that are unneccessary and even dangerous.

    Also, I have a special interest about preservation of Finnish language, and Finnish ethnic group. Because Finnish language is so archaic, so well preserved (it´s really one of most archaic languages in Uralic language tree), and because Finnish ethnic group is so interesting, which had preserved so many interesting, unique things until not so long time ago (and genetically, they are quite unique among Europeans even now). And I want to see Finnish people doing well in future. Why to destroy this ethnic group?

    Finns are indigenous people in Finland. I know that you, Enrique, hate word “indigenous”, and, according to you, every people on earth are “immigrants”. Excuses, excuses…
    Finns are indigenous people in Finland, whether you like it, or not. And, besides that, Finnish language is related to languages spoken by people, who are officially considered as “indigenous” – Saami, Nenets, Nganasans etc. They all are more or less threatened by extinction. Finnish language is related also to some other (“non-indigenous”) languages, which also are threatened by extinction anyway. I would say, that from 20 or 25 Uralic languages only two, Finnish and Hungarian, and not threatened in foreseeable future…Estonian language is not really threatened as well, but it´s not in very safe or stable position either (due intensive emigration of Estonians out of Estonia, due demographic sutuation, due political situation etc.).
    Uralic language tree is not doing well, and people, speaking in Uralic languages, are not doing very well also. Most of them must fight for survival. And then, when at least some ethnic group has gained status of non-threatening, like Finns, then they also start to fall under threatening! Because somebody got an idea that Finns must become a minority in their own land (flooded in by the immigrants), like it happened to lands of most Uralic speaking people. Where is justice, where is fairness, can you tell me, please? I can see, that you are not aware about these issues, and never have been.

    I have heard theory, that France and UK have received so many immigrants because they once owned colonies overseas. But what about Finland, did it own any colony overseas? If not, then why Finland is treated now in same way as France or UK, what Finland would have been done for it “deserving” being flooded by immigrants?

    You might say to me that immigrant population is not big in Finland, and that it is not “flooded”. But look at the statistics, they clearly show, that amount of immigrants grow every year! After like ten years amount of immigrants in Finland can be easily doubled, if trend will continue in this way. This mass immigration must be stopped, it is otherwise almost suicide for Finnish society then!

    People, who promote mass immigration, like you do, play with words like “racism”, “intolerance” etc., and refuse to look at the real picture. You just want any excuse for immigration to Finland not stop. And call everybody who is not in favor of immigration as “racist”. This is just ridiculous!

    I am not racist, I hate racism, and I hope that Finnish society wouldn´t be racist. But I am not falling in such extremes like, every Finn must marry outside their race to prove that they are “not racist” or something like that.
    Racism simply means that you don´t tolerate some people because of their skin color or eye shape. And being not racist means that you are OK with people, who have different skin color or eye shape. There is not much needed to be not racist, actually. You don´t have to be exaggerated “anti-racist”, just don´t be racist, that´s all. But what you, Enrique, want, is exaggerated “anti-racism”. Like, accepting everybody, simply everybody into your homeland, your ethnicity etc. This is not “anti-racism” anymore, this is some really exaggerated “wannabe” thing.

  2. eyeopener

    @Laputis. YOU ARE AN IMMIGRANT telling Finland should stay Finnish. Who the heck are you to say that!! You are a part of your so-called “flooding”. Are you somebody special to say all these things. You are a racist no doubt about that. Your reasoning is racist as is your argumentation. Don’t write a lot of “crap” just to try to make yourself plausible. You don’t……

  3. justicedemon

    Laputis is advising us that a quite extraordinary miracle has occurred. At the most generous, Finno-Ugrian people have never amounted to more than one per cent of the population of Eurasia, but they have somehow managed to coin – or at least co-invent – nearly all of the concepts that have come into common usage over the last 1500 years. Even much larger language communities have not achieved this amazing feat.

    Laputis invites you to look around your home and environment, identify ordinary objects like houses, cars, books, toothbrushes, Alvar Aalto vases, Largactil … and marvel at how the Finnish words for these items derive from expressions that were originally used in a Finno-Ugrian language 2,000 years ago. Not synthetic neologisms like puhelin created by our kielitoimisto in response to words that were already common currency in Finland (telefon), but genuine proto-Finnic expressions like Itämeri (which obviously originally meant the Pacific Ocean, as viewed from the Ural mountains) and sisäjärvi (which was clearly a highly intelligent way to describe the Caspian Sea, and not a dopey translation loan of insjö as is often claimed).

    This is not to say that there are no borrowed concepts or loan words in modern Finnish, but the average article in Helsingin Sanomat remains wholly intelligible, even after erasing the minute percentage of words that are not of Finno-Ugric origin (e.g. breikkitanssi).

    Laputis will shortly be taking up his new appointment as professor of comparative linguistics at Hölmölän Yliopisto and we look forward to reading his publications.

  4. Laputis

    Eyeopener:

    -“@Laputis. YOU ARE AN IMMIGRANT telling Finland should stay Finnish. Who the heck are you to say that!! You are a part of your so-called “flooding”. Are you somebody special to say all these things. You are a racist no doubt about that. Your reasoning is racist as is your argumentation. Don’t write a lot of “crap” just to try to make yourself plausible. You don’t……”

    I am not telling Finland anything. I am just immigrant who is supporting Finns, who want Finland staying Finnish. Because I understand them. Because I think they are right. And I want to help them.

    And, I am against the MASS IMMIGRATION, I am not against the normal kind of immigration due marriage, business contacts etc. I think that some “fresh blood” always is necessary. But what is happening in Finland is just too much, it´s already immigration in exaggerated scale.

    And you don´t know what racism means. I can tell you, that I am not European, I don´t look like European. And I have received racism towards myself in my life. So stop teaching what is racist and what is not. My argumentation ARE NOT racist! Please, give me a break…

  5. Seppo

    JD is right, languages more often adopt new terminology from other languages than invent their own words (I’m talking about the time before kielitoimistos and language planning). A great majority of Finnish words are originally non-Uralic, mostly Indo-European. Finnish still has not lost its uniqueness which I think all those learning Finnish as a foreign language have realized.

    Languages changing and languages disappearing are two different things. First is normal, latter is a catastrophe. Languages disappear when their speakers start speaking another language. This is a serious threat for most languages in the world, and on a long perspective, also for Finnish.

  6. Laputis

    @justicedemon:

    I contacted professional Finnish linguist, he said, that words of Finno-Ugric and Uralic origins in Finnish language make at least 30% of Finnish vocabulary…It somehow doesn´t support your idea about that “90% of Finnish vocabulary are Indo-European loanwords”. You have brought shame upon yourself.

  7. BlandaUpp

    In the period that I’ve been reading this blog, I’ve come across quite a few “Uncle Tom” immigrants like Laputis.

    They are so traumatized by racism directed at them to the point where they start agreeing with their oppressors and see themselves as part of the problem and believe that by acting like the oppressor, they would be part of the solution. It’s a very sad kind of Stockholm(Helsinki) Syndrome.

  8. Laputis

    -“In the period that I’ve been reading this blog, I’ve come across quite a few “Uncle Tom” immigrants like Laputis.
    They are so traumatized by racism directed at them to the point where they start agreeing with their oppressors and see themselves as part of the problem and believe that by acting like the oppressor, they would be part of the solution. It’s a very sad kind of Stockholm(Helsinki) Syndrome.”

    So you mean, that I defend racism? I don´t defend racism, I am against that! And I don´t support right-wing extremists, skinheads or neo-Nazis. I do support “Perussuomalaiset” though, but it is because most (at least in official space)of PS members are not far-right extremists. And I don´t see restriction of immigration politics as racism. You and Enrique-like people have funny ideas about racism. Because you yourselves most likely haven´t experienced what racism means on your skin. You have blurred idea about racism IMHO.
    And I support and understand Finnish nationalist ideas not because I was oppressed by Finns and I acquired Stockholm Syndrome, but because I am not an immigrant from USA or Canada, or other “western” country with colonialist history. I have grown up in “Old world´s” ethnic group ,and I have acquired already since my childhood different nationalistic ideas and ideals. My ethnic group doesn´t have it´s own country, it lives in Russia. But we hope to get our own country sometime. And live alone without anybody else there….That´s the ideal. Of course, the real life is different thing…But I can relate to Finnish nationalist feelings.

    • Enrique

      Lapitus, how would you classify PS MPs like Jussi Halla-aho, James Hirvisaari, Juho Eerola and Olli Immonen? Do you consider their opinions on immigration balanced?

  9. Eduardo

    Justicedemon is not an expert on Finnish lexicography, but rather a demagogue who uses invented figures and faulty reasoning to attack concepts he perceives to be dangerous to his religion of Tolerancism-Diversityism-Globalism. The idea that Finland or any European groups might have authentic indigenous ethnic, cultural, national or linguistic identities that are worth preserving is anathema to justicedemon, enrique and their ilk. The only groups that interest them are the dark-skinned, who must be relentlessly promoted and supported until we can achieve the multiculturalist utopias envisioned by the sacred texts of Diversityism, such as Malmö-Rosengård or Oslo-Bjerke. Ideally, within the next two or three generations, we can eradicate all evil thoughts and the evil white people who think them and advance even further – on par with that of Lagos, Nairobi, N’Djamena, or Detroit. Of course, this is already guaranteed based on current political and demographic realities alone, but blogs like this have an important role in enforcing official doctrine, quashing dissent, and celebrating the coming rapture of the complete demographic replacement and disappearance of Europeans. Keep up the good work – it’s very important to intimidate the heathen locals until they have been reduced in number to such an extent they present no threat to the new African and Arab inhabitants of Europe.

    You could, perhaps, learn from the inimitable rhetoric of 1920s and 1930s Bolshevism, in which counterrevolutionaries, spies and other assorted bourgeois scum were unmaksed by the valiant forces of the NKVD and exposed to the world as the the vile wreckers they were – their inability to acknowledge the objective laws of history, as manifested in the doctrines of dialectical materialism, seems to bear much resemblence to the present day, in that we also have to deal constantly with hateful scum who deny Diversityism. They must be smashed! Maintain vigilance, comrade. Chariman Halonen and DIVERSINTERN-chief Lloyd Blankfein from Goldman Sachs will be calling soon to award you a “Hero of Diversityism” medal.

    Oh btw, no reputable (i.e. university tenured or published in peer-reviewed journals) linguist has ever claimed that 90% of Finnish vocabulary is of IE origin. That is simply a lie. Justicedemon will fail to come up with a citation, because the claim is ridiculous.

    • Enrique

      Eduardo, you have to be kidding. A religion called “Tolerancism-Diversityism-Globalism.” How about switching the terms and instead of calling it a “religion” why not refer to common decency called “acceptance, cultural diversity, and internationalization?”

      Your views of evolution how primates evolved is a bit off course. You probably know that we all came from Africa and spread to different parts of the world.

      Can you handle that, Eduardo? Or do you want to play with foolish race theories about how “indigenous” we are and how our genes guide our behavior? I don’t know. What you write is a bit worrying.

  10. eyeopener

    @Allan. Your reading skills aren’t on the right level, I am afraid. To help you out: I favour multiculturalism. Isn’t that OK??

  11. eyeopener

    @Laputis. You really make me laugh!! You want to help Finns?? Why is that?? Don’t you think they aren’t capable?? Are you acquiring experience how ” to create a uni-race” state somewhere, sometime….. in EurAsia?? Quite weird I must say in an interconnected world. You should read Aldous Huxley’s Island. Comes close to building your own concentration-camp with barbed wire, electricity ……. to keep the population in??

    You don’t like MASS IMMIGRATION!! Can you define that please?? Although some of you guys have qualified me as “genius” I fail to understand your concept!!

    Oh ja….. some fresh blood. What is the use of SOME fresh blood? To prevent degeneration?? It’s already there!

    • Enrique

      Hi eyeopener, we should put up a list of some of the favorite adjectives used by anti-immigration groups. The ones you mention like “mass” immigration is a favorite like “uncontrolled” immigration. You make a very good question: what does mass immigration mean? We know that it means letting in too many Muslims and Africans to Europe and Finland.

      What about this affirmation: “There was no racism in our town until the immigrants moved here.”

      The list of urban myths is equally long. How many of these people actually believe their racism? I guess, unfortunately, many do. Their worst nightmare is to wake up and find out that all they knew was based on myths and racism. Pretty sad.

  12. Laputis

    Enrique:

    -“Lapitus, how would you classify PS MPs like Jussi Halla-aho, James Hirvisaari, Juho Eerola and Olli Immonen? Do you consider their opinions on immigration balanced?”

    I would classsify them as realists. And their opinions on immigration are balanced.

  13. Laputis

    Justicedemon:

    -“Does he have a name?”

    Yes, he have a name, but for obvious reasons I will not reveal his name here (because I have contacts with him). If you suspect, that I am hiding anything etc., go on, and contact yourself any professional Finnish linguist. And ask question, whether it´s true that in Finnish language 90% of vocabulary are Indo-European loanwords. Go on and ask!!! It´s very simple, just send e-mail to any professional Finnish linguist.

  14. Laputis

    Eyeopener:

    -“@Laputis. You really make me laugh!! You want to help Finns?? Why is that?? Don’t you think they aren’t capable??”

    Oh common, you know that any Finn can be called as “racist” or “Nazi” if he or she expresses anti-multiculturalism or anti-mass-immigration opinions. They are targets for misunderstanding. However, such people like me, who are both immigrant and non-European, can express same opinions, and it´s not possible then to call me “racist” or “Nazi”. I just can help making understanding, that anti-multiculturalism or anti-mass-immigration are not same as racism, and that nationalism is not Nazism. Who else can better express all of that than me, who is not Finnish, who is immigrant, and who is non-European? I can help people to understand nationalistic Finnish opinions better.

    -“Are you acquiring experience how ” to create a uni-race” state somewhere, sometime….. in EurAsia??”

    Yes, I see that you all the time see everywhere nazi ideologies, as you express in this sentence.
    Nationalism is not same as nazism, nationalism doesn´t require “pure-bloodeness” etc. “Uni-race” ideology is alien ideology to me. I am from Asia, and there are such regions as Central Asia, such as Kazakhstan, where the main population Kazakhs are essentially mixed (they all are Eurasian mixes, they are something like 50% Caucasian and 50% Mongoloid genetically ). Kazakhs have mixed race ancestry, but it doesn´t stop them being nationalistic. Many Kazakhs would wish, that Kazakhstan belonged only to Kazakhs. Kazakhs can be nationalistic, but not racist. It would be just ridiculous for them to want uni-race country – they themselves are not uni-race people. A textbook example where you can see that nationalism is not nazism.

    -“Quite weird I must say in an interconnected world.”

    Interconnected world is not same as free movement of people around.

    -“Comes close to building your own concentration-camp with barbed wire, electricity ……. to keep the population in??”

    Again your willingness to see nazism. You are just ridiculous with your nazi-obsession. Concentration-camp, barbed wire, electricity…All of that exists in your imagination only.

    -“You don’t like MASS IMMIGRATION!! Can you define that please??”

    It´s so strange that you don´t understand what mass immigration means. How obvious things can be even asked?
    Mass immigration is immigration what exceeds the amount of natural immigration (due intermarriages, highly qualified work immigration etc.). We talk about mass immigration only when immigrants stay for life in Finland (so many Estonians can be counted off from numbers of mass immigrants).
    If in country all the time is kept low number of immigrants (which exists anyway, because of phenomenon called “natural immigration”), the amount of immigrants rarely exceed few % of population, and immigrants usually integrate or even assimilate into main population. When mass immigration starts, the amount of immigrants start to exceed the few %, and many immigrants start to fail to assimilate or integrate into main society.
    The natural immigration has always existed, except maybe in Nazi Germany or Northern Korea. Many people make marriages with people from other countries, and bring spouses to their home countries. There is nothing wrong about this sort of immigration (unless marriages are fake, when f.e. somebody wants to get residence permit in EU). IMO the spouses have to be warmly welcomed to host country, whatever their skin color is, or whatever their ancestry is. If they are good people and came with good intentions, they are absolutely welcome. And children of mixed marriages especially have to be integrated into society. This is all where racism really should be eradicated.
    Also, people with professional background, who have came to do good job in Finland, are absolutely welcome too. Again, doesn´t matter what race those people are, the most importantly, is that they came with good intentions.
    Well, I would say, that any kind of racism has to be eradicated.

    I was writing about the immigrants, who can be perfectly part of “natural immigration”. They rarely do any threat to the society, because such immigrants often integrate well. The othe kind of immigration is more part of mass immigration. F.e. immigration of low-skilled people. Or immigration of refugees from other continents with remarkably different cultures. They are more likely to refuse to integrate, thus creating social, political or economical threat and tensions to local society. I don´t support such kind of immigration, because it can bring danger to the local society, and tension. And the immigrants themselves end up being sufferers too. Why on earth would be the mass immigration promoted? IMHO Finland should stop giving shelter for refugees, there are already dozens of other more immigration-oriented countries, who can do this sheltering job. And Finland should stop giving social support for low-skilled immigrants, plus stop giving social support also to local Finns, who spend their days in lazyness. Finns should start doing the “dirty” jobs (like cleaning etc.) themselves, there is, after all, nothing bad or shameful about doing those jobs, because they are honest, decent jobs anyway. But now the situation looks like as if Finns want to be “white lords” who are served by “black slaves”. IDIOTISM!

  15. justicedemon

    Laputis

    What is the value of an anonymous academic reference?

    As your professional Finnish linguist is too shy to show his face, you will just have to explain the parameters of the only 70 per cent assessment here. Take a word like farkut, for example. How would your anonymous linguist classify such a term? How does your anonymous linguist classify the contrived expressions created by our kielitoimisto to replace loan expressions that were already current in Finnish, or to denote concepts that were already well established in other languages? What is the status of agglutinated expressions that combine various roots (e.g. sähköhammasharja)?

    Please make your answer as long as possible.

    I note that you have already conceded the main point that most of the modern Finnish lexicon is of foreign origin. Now you are trying to quibble about how far this process has advanced, although the direction of progress has been clear for over a century and the rate is accelerating.

  16. Laputis

    Enrique:

    -“Hi eyeopener, we should put up a list of some of the favorite adjectives used by anti-immigration groups. The ones you mention like “mass” immigration is a favorite like “uncontrolled” immigration. You make a very good question: what does mass immigration mean? We know that it means letting in too many Muslims and Africans to Europe and Finland.”

    No, you are totally wrong. Mass immigration or uncontrolled means immigration of people in large amount in areas, which are inhabited by native people. “Mass immigration” as term includes not only Muslims and Africans to Europe, but also Russians to Baltic countries, white European to Amerindian lands etc. “Mass immigration” has no skin color or religious affinity. You are all the time wrong in thinking that “mass immigration” is something exclusively connected with Africans or Muslims – no, it is not so.
    Visit Baltic countries for a change, where you will not see a single “Black” or “Asian” person like for ages in most places. And where you will not see a single Muslim mosque. And ask native Estonians or Latvians, whether mass immigration has took place in their countries. They will answer “yes, mass immigration took place here, here are lots of Russian-speaking people!” But Russian-speaking people are white, European and Christian…You see, “mass immigration” can be perfectly attributed to the people of related origins, same skin color and nearly same religion! A textbook example, where you see that “mass immigration” has nothing to do with racism at all.

    -“What about this affirmation: “There was no racism in our town until the immigrants moved here.””

    What about this – I had neutral view on Gypsies until they stole musical instruments from my brother? I had no “racism” against Gypsies, now I have some (although I still believe that some Gypsy individuals might be not that “Gypsy”)

    Sometimes it is better to look at some further cultures from distance, there is some truth to it.

    -“The list of urban myths is equally long. How many of these people actually believe their racism? I guess, unfortunately, many do. Their worst nightmare is to wake up and find out that all they knew was based on myths and racism. Pretty sad.”

    Yes, say that to Estonians, who hold “racism” against Russians. Say them, that everything what they hold was urban myths and racism. They will most likely laugh at you.

    • Enrique

      –No, you are totally wrong. Mass immigration or uncontrolled means immigration of people in large amount in areas, which are inhabited by native people. “Mass immigration” as term includes not only Muslims and Africans to Europe, but also Russians to Baltic countries, white European to Amerindian lands etc. “Mass immigration” has no skin color or religious affinity.

      So you are reinforcing what I say. “mass immigration” means bringing people whom you don’t like and who are in some cases visible, ethnically. The bottom line is that you consider such people a threat to some imagined cultural homogeneity.

      Another flaw in your views of culture is that you are generalizing about them. People have free will, personalities and are not guided like robots by culture. Moreover, humans can adapt.

      Where does this lead your views? I think it points to racism and prejudice. You don’t like certain groups because of what you perceive them to be.

  17. Laputis

    Justicedemon:

    -“What is the value of an anonymous academic reference?”

    And what about your reference, where did you take it from? And is it hard for you to contact any professional linguist? Or are you scared, that you will find out, that you were wrong?

    And it´s funny how you name increase of loanwords in Finnish language as “progress”. What is so “progressive” there? I thought that it is just something neutral?

  18. eyeopener

    @Laputis.

    Yes I am very much aware of my misunderstanding of “mass-immigration”. But when I understand yours I faile to follow your reasoning. The part of migration that is not visible (skin, race indicators as fysiognomy, clothing etc.) is not your problem, is it? Not too much not too many?? Is there a ratio for that??

    When migration is visible what would you suggest?? A numerus clause!! How many people are allowed in according to you?? What are the criteria you want to use??

    Mass immigration or uncontrolled means immigration of people in large amount in areas, which are inhabited by native people (your quote!!) Take an example. Iceland 300.000 inhabitants. 3/4 of the country not inhabitated. Immigration 50.00 (identifable different). Mass immigration according to you, am I right?? You are indeed from another planet!!

    I just can help making understanding, that anti-multiculturalism or anti-mass-immigration are not same as racism, and that nationalism is not Nazism.

    Let’s try this: nationalism is the thinking process that “own people” (i.e passport as an indication of belonging or else) is the engine of the leading culture and way of doing in an international agreed area called country. Acceptable??

    Racism is treating non-nationals (not have the passport as a indication of belonging) negatively different that the originals in na international agreed area called country. Right??

    Can I than conclude that nationalism is a pre-stage of Nazisme?? Who decides on the demarcation-line? You??

    Again your willingness to see nazism. You are just ridiculous with your nazi-obsession. Concentration-camp, barbed wire, electricity…All of that exists in your imagination only (your quotation). Did you follow the Balkan War of the last decenia?? My obsession is people like you. Excussing themselves for Scebrenica massacres as a necessity for purification of the “race”. Are you that ignorant?? Yes you are but keep up developing your poison. You will be a happy person.

    F.e. immigration of low-skilled people ( your quote). You have a problem with that, don’t you?? What’s your level?? Professor!!

    although I still believe that some Gypsy individuals might be not that “Gypsy” (your quote). Haha. I like you BELIEVE!!. Nevertheless I believe that you are the mosr dishonest person that I have discussed with.

    Let’s continue!!

  19. Laputis

    Enrique:

    -“So you are reinforcing what I say. “mass immigration” means bringing people whom you don’t like and who are in some cases visible, ethnically. The bottom line is that you consider such people a threat to some imagined cultural homogeneity. ”

    No, you miss the main point. The main gap between various ethnic groups often is DIFFERENCES IN IDEOLOGIES. One expression of ideologies are religious beliefs. Other expression is moral, behaviour, dressing etc. code (allowing or forbidding wearing short skirts for women etc.) . And another expression can be different political ideologies. The difference in ideologies is the one, that usually makes different ethnic groups not to love each other.

    The brightest example IMO are ideological differences between Russians and Latvians in Latvia. They are in overall quite similar people, both Christians, both belong to same race with same skin color, both speak quite closely related languages, both have similar moral, behaviour and dressing code etc. But there is one ideological thing, that makes too huge gap between them – understanding about history, politics and identity. Russians are mainly leftists and Latvians are rightists. Russian identity has been based on imperialism, Latvian – on European ethnic centrism. Russians often have very different opinion on same historical things than Latvians (f.e. Russians claim that Latvia wasn´t occupied in 1940 by USSR, that Latvia into USSR incorporated by it´s own free will, but Latvians claim that Latvia was occupied by USSR in 1940 against it´s will etc.) There are simply so many ideological clashes between Latvians and Russians, that they are unlikely to settle down any time soon. And it makes integration of Russians into Latvian society unlikely. In the result you get country Latvia, which is inhabited by two non-integrated societies – Latvians and Russians.
    And pretty much same picture is in Estonia, which is inhabited by non-integrable societies Estonians and Russians. Only the difference between Estonians and Russians is even bigger (Estonians speak unrelated language to Russian etc.)

    Imagine, if the difference of ideologies between similar and related people such as Latvians and Russians make societies to clash, then what happens, if the clash happens among people, who differ also by race or moral, behaviour code etc.?

  20. eyeopener

    @Laputis.

    My dear opponent. What the heck is your problem?? You seem to digust Russia. Right?? What brings you to “teach” other worlds to follow their own paths?? We are not sitting and waiting for your poison!!

  21. Laputis

    Enrique:

    -“Another flaw in your views of culture is that you are generalizing about them. People have free will, personalities and are not guided like robots by culture. Moreover, humans can adapt. ”

    Again you are mistaken. The cultures can be pretty much generalised. And people (i.e. the masses) can be guided like robots, believe or not! Let´s say, how Hitler would have raised to power, if people would have had totally free will, would they even allow the Hitler to come to power etc.? You miss one understanding about human societies – they all are hierarchical. All people are subjects to hierarchy. The hierarchy is the one, what leads culture, politics, ideologies etc. Yes, some people always will be against the hirearchy, against the mainstream etc. but they have to find the correct keys to influence the society. And not everybody are capable of that.
    I am just trying to be realist. Of course, I could have same communist-like ideals like you have, but we all know where communism has went…In other words, your ideas and ideals are utopic, just like communist ideas were utopic.

    But I am talking on generalised level.
    On personal level, of course, I can take every human individual according to their character traits etc. I can always “make discount”. F.e. if some of my children would want to marry a Gypsy (though I don´t like Gypises in general), but this Gypsy individual has appeared as a good person to me, I would not make any restrictions to the child to marry him or her.

    -“Where does this lead your views? I think it points to racism and prejudice. You don’t like certain groups because of what you perceive them to be.”

    I don´t like certain groups becaue I have different ideology than them, because their views can clash with mine, because their views can disturb me personally, because I don´t feel comfortable with them, because they don´t respect me, because they hurt me etc. There can be many reasons, why I don´t like certain groups, but there always ARE REASONS. If those reasons of dislike are reversed, then I can start to like the certain groups. Those are things with reversable attitude. Racism, on other hand, is not reversable attitude. If you dislike somebody of race, well, you will never change your view, because nobody can really change their race. And that´s why I think my views have nothing in common with racism.

    • Enrique

      –Again you are mistaken. The cultures can be pretty much generalised. And people (i.e. the masses) can be guided like robots,

      Then, Laputis, you have it made. Now you can generalize, know how whole nations think… What power you have in your hands. Maybe you can rule the world now because you know how whole groups work.

      We are social animals with free will.

    • Enrique

      –I don´t like certain groups becaue I have different ideology than them, because their views can clash with mine, because their views can disturb me personally, because I don´t feel comfortable with them, because they don´t respect me, because they hurt me etc.

      This what you mention destroys everything, even peace. If you live in a society that is diverse you cannot go around imposing what you think is acceptable only to you. It’s a sort of give and take, where all groups take each other needs into account.

      Take it to a family level: Think what kind of a relationship you will build with your children if you are constantly imposing your views on them? Where do you think that will lead? Nothing good I would imagine.

      Mutual acceptance is a very important and power word.

      If I look at countries like Estonia and Latvia, where they have a large Russian minority, what is the end game there? To starve the Russians culturally? Latvians are doing basically the same things to Russians today that they did to them during the Soviet Union. Believe me, it’s not going to have a good ending.

  22. Laputis

    Eyeopener:

    -“When migration is visible what would you suggest?? A numerus clause!! How many people are allowed in according to you?? What are the criteria you want to use?? ”

    This criteria must be shown by demographists, cultural anthropologists and other specialists. IMO the closer is the culture and ideological system of immigrants to Finns, the bigger numbers of them can be allowed to immigrate into Finland. But the borderline should be calculated by specialists.

    -“Mass immigration or uncontrolled means immigration of people in large amount in areas, which are inhabited by native people (your quote!!) Take an example. Iceland 300.000 inhabitants. 3/4 of the country not inhabitated. Immigration 50.00 (identifable different). Mass immigration according to you, am I right?? You are indeed from another planet!!”

    And who ever said that in Iceland is mass immigration? You have missed the shot.

    -“Let’s try this: nationalism is the thinking process that “own people” (i.e passport as an indication of belonging or else) is the engine of the leading culture and way of doing in an international agreed area called country. Acceptable??

    Racism is treating non-nationals (not have the passport as a indication of belonging) negatively different that the originals in na international agreed area called country. Right??”

    Yet again you missed the shot. Racism has nothing to do with a piece of paper called “passport”. You are giving so much credit to passport, that it becomes just funny. Passport is just a piece of paper that I can flush down in the toilet in case of collapse of country etc. I can change my citizenship, I can renew it (if collapsed country comes back) etc. Passport and citizenship are things, that can be renewable, changeable etc. Racism, on other hand, is something entirely different. Racism is aimed at people of different race, different ancestry – the things, that are not changeable. Racism is so bad because it is aimed at things, what people can´t change (even if they wished), what people can´t choose, because it is so unfair. Stop mixing term “racism” with other terms, please.

    -“Can I than conclude that nationalism is a pre-stage of Nazisme?? ”

    No, you understand everything wrongly.

    -“Did you follow the Balkan War of the last decenia?? My obsession is people like you. Excussing themselves for Scebrenica massacres as a necessity for purification of the “race”. Are you that ignorant?? Yes you are but keep up developing your poison. You will be a happy person.”

    Nationalism can be different. Some of nationalisms are nazi-like, some other are imperialist-like, some other are preservation-like etc. You are mixing all of them together. Nationalism isn´t necessary same as lack of respect towards “other” people. Nationalism can be tolerant. This is that kind of nationalism, that I am expressing. From my kind of nationalism until nazi-like or Balkan-like nationalism is looooong path to go.
    I have noticed, that many Finns have same understanding of nationalism as I have.
    I think that many people choose peace, not war. Why would they want intolerant kind of nationalism, that can bring suffering and trauma? Have you ever thought that nationalistically inclined people also want peace and harmony?
    I am not poisonous person, although I might sound like an asshole here. I wish to all people good luck, health and life. I want the world to prosper. Unfortuntely, there is too much mistakes made already, which will have costs…
    From my point of view, you are exaggerating things, and you are understanding them in a way, as you want.

  23. Laputis

    Eyeopener:

    -“F.e. immigration of low-skilled people ( your quote). You have a problem with that, don’t you?? What’s your level?? Professor!!”

    You are sooo shortisighted person…Let´s say, Finns go to good, high-skill jobs, or do nothing. But immigrants do all the “dirty” work. It reminds me American south, where white lords were served by black slaves. Is this system fair to you? To me definately not. The immigrants in Finland will be, and are already, abused in the way, that they take worst jobs possible. Why on earth is happening this, why the Finns themselves couldn´t do the “dirty” jobs? Certainly they could do, but people like you, who defend immigration of low-skilled people, contribute into development of unfair society.

  24. Laputis

    Eyeopener:

    -“although I still believe that some Gypsy individuals might be not that “Gypsy” (your quote). Haha. I like you BELIEVE!!. Nevertheless I believe that you are the mosr dishonest person that I have discussed with. ”

    I am not dishonest, but you are extremist.

    -“My dear opponent. What the heck is your problem?? You seem to digust Russia. Right??”

    Here you finally are right. Well, maybe not exactly “disgust” (it´s too strong word), it´s more like “dislike” Russia. Yet another thing, what I share with many Finnish nationalists – they dislike Russia.

    -“What brings you to “teach” other worlds to follow their own paths??”

    Hmm, actually Finland was once part of Russia. So is Finland really “other world”? My ethnic group could learn so many things from Finns

  25. justicedemon

    Laputis

    You really are such a textbook example of a racist that I begin to suspect you are simply trolling. If not, then I would recommend that you seek an interview with professor Karmela Liebkind at the University of Helsinki, as you would make an excellent research subject for one of her introductory courses on the social psychology of prejudice.

    There are Finns of all colours and cultural backgrounds, including Finnish Roma, whom you have declared undesirable before even meeting one. You argue that your dislike of the Roma has a factual basis in experience (an experience which you chose to interpret in racist terms, btw), but you have not met every Roma, and so your dislike has simply become a racist generalisation (that supercilious remark about not restricting your child’s choice of spouse being the supreme example of this, insofar as you would deign to admit of an exception to your racist views when sufficiently pressured to do so). Moreover, it is no accident that you have made that generalisation, as this particular form of racism was the basis for the Porajmos, and it remains endemic in Russia and Eastern Europe. You remain entirely unaware of the perceptual bias that endemic racism fosters in individuals (which makes you an ideal research subject for Karmela). For example, why is is that you don’t know any Roma lawyers, doctors, authors or academics?

    The vacillation between your assertions that others “do not know the meaning of racism” and your invitations to others to “call you a racist if they wish” are also part of textbook passive-aggressive racism.

  26. eyeopener

    @Laputis.

    You must be a poor poor person!!. So much of hatred that critical thinking can’t reach your mind. Wonder if you are capable of loving a human being.

    I will stop this conversation. Not because I have no arguments. But out of compassion with you as a person. Hopefully, one day you will find your peace somewhere.

    But……..I will be watching you!!

  27. eyeopener

    @JD.

    that supercilious remark about not restricting your child’s choice of spouse being the supreme example of this, insofar as you would deign to admit of an exception to your racist views when sufficiently pressured to do so.

    Excellent remark!!

    But that does not guarantee Laputis to really accept the reality. His quote tells me his “arm-length”: “but this Gypsy individual HAS APPEARED (my change) as a GOOD (my change) person to ME (my change)”. Criteria for “APPEARED as a GOOD??” ME means “I hold all the cards”. I feel sorry and sad for the poor child (boy or girl) to be put in this world by this guy.

    I do not expect Laputis to answer this remarks. He is a cheat in answer the questions posed to him.

    That’s why I stopped my conversation.

  28. eyeopener

    @Enrique

    How right you are. L. rejects the SU, but prefers the same mentality. How ignorant people can be. Whiter shade of grey, I guess!!

  29. eyeopener

    @Enrique.

    Human existence is regulated by law. In the Western world we have accepted the rule of law as the key characteristic of our existence. Any newcomer from whatever background have to learn to live by these rules. I myself come fromanother EU country finding myself in a different world. Assimilation would mean to cut out my past, my growing up, my identity. That’s not possible although people who do not have to do that think it’s normal. Playing a home-game make you a big boy!! Integration is possible within specific limits. Language is one, but other ones?? Abiding the law?? Changing the clothes I wear or should not wear?? Simple questions for someone who doesnot think about the consequences.

    Human existence is regulated by your connnections. I have a lot of friends in Finland coming from many different cultures. We are not the same and we don’t want to be. We DO understand each other though. We respect each other BECAUSE of our differences.

    Laputis is not on this level. He see only one way. His way!! I hope he will be happy one day somewhere………

    • Enrique

      Hans, here is the bottom line: assimilation is synonymous with throwing the cultural towel and walking to the corner of exclusion. For those who can, however, “erase” and/or “bury” their identity in favor of the majority, they will do better. Possibly a few generations later one of their grandchildren will wake up and ask who he or she was and why that person’s past was erased. Waking up to such a question will release a lot of energy and possibly spark the formation of a social movement.

  30. Laputis

    Eyeopener:

    -“You must be a poor poor person!!. So much of hatred that critical thinking can’t reach your mind. Wonder if you are capable of loving a human being.

    I will stop this conversation. Not because I have no arguments. But out of compassion with you as a person. Hopefully, one day you will find your peace somewhere.

    But……..I will be watching you!!”

    Poor Eyeopener, with so many phantasies. Can I laugh about your writing? I don´t have much hatred, I am not hater-type of person. I am perfectly capable of loving. I see that you don´t understand a heck of meaning “nationalistic”. To you nationalistic people are blood-thirsty people, who don´t respect other people, who don´t have compassion? Phantasies, phantasies!

    I also should stop arguing with you, because you imagine my writings in your, err, special way.

  31. Laputis

    Justicedemon:

    -“You really are such a textbook example of a racist that I begin to suspect you are simply trolling.”

    Now I understand why many nationalists complain, that they are being misunderstood and that they are called as “racists” if they are not…You are the prime example, who is misunderstanding the nationalists, and call them as “racists”, if they are not racists. That´s the problem with you – you are not capable to distinguish nationalism from nazim or racism. You have never really studied what “nationalism” can really mean. To you “nationalism” is only nazism or racism. Oh poor person…You will never reach the souls of many European and Asian people…

    -“There are Finns of all colours and cultural backgrounds, including Finnish Roma, whom you have declared undesirable before even meeting one.”

    Hmm, I have told nothing about Finnish Roma, I didn´t declare about them anything. I was writing about Russian Gypsies, and they are bit something else. But in a way maybe you are right, the Gypsies everywhere are Gypsies with certain things, that unite them. Although I wouldn´t attribute to Finnish Gypsies all the same things as to Russian Gypsies (and vice versa).

    I disagree with your understanding of word “Finnish”, because to me it is ethnic term, so it can´t be including people of all colors and cultural backgrounds, but it doesn´t make me racist or nazist. It makes me only nationalist.

    -“You argue that your dislike of the Roma has a factual basis in experience (an experience which you chose to interpret in racist terms, btw), but you have not met every Roma, and so your dislike has simply become a racist generalisation (that supercilious remark about not restricting your child’s choice of spouse being the supreme example of this, insofar as you would deign to admit of an exception to your racist views when sufficiently pressured to do so). ”

    Can I use word “Gypsy” instead of “Roma”? I dislike word “Roma”, because it reminds all the time Russian male name.
    Justicedemon, the Gypsies (at least Russian Gypsies) are people, who generalise like crazy. They are the master generalisators, believe me! They divide strictly society into “ours” and “their”. Their behaviour towards “ours” is different from behaviour towards “their”. The Russian Gypsies have very strong family and ethnic ties. And they will look at you first, and foremost, judging by you ancestry, whether you are Gypsy or not! Everything else is secondary! They are “racists” and “nazi” (according to your understanding). You don´t know a heck about Gypsies (Russian Gypsies) it seems!!! You attack me about that I am doing generalisations, but I am not THAT generalising as those people do! I don´t know so much about “western” Gypsies, including Finnish Gypsies, though.
    Why do you attack me all the time, why don´t you attack Russian Gypsies, if they are even crazier in their nationalistic opinions and generalisations than I am? Oh, they are poor people, they don´t deserve any attack??? What about me or my ethnic group, we aren´t exactly the masters or rich people as well! We have never opressed or done anything bad to Gypsies. We have tried to co-exist peacifully with them, and we have managed!
    You defend Gypsies, but attack me. Damned double standarts you hold!

    And you seem to hold some mistaken belief that I hate Gypsies. No, I don’t hate them, not at all. I am more like feeling sorry for them.

    -“Moreover, it is no accident that you have made that generalisation, as this particular form of racism was the basis for the Porajmos, and it remains endemic in Russia and Eastern Europe.”

    Generalisation is same as racism? Give me a break! We make generalisations about f.e. neighbour ethnic groups, and they are not necessarily negative generalisations. And if the neighbour ethnic group usually have same skin color and facial features as we have, where is racism, excuse me? Even Finns make generalisations about Swedes, is it form of racism? LOL
    And even generalisations about the Gypsies are not always negative. We have some generalisations about them, f.e. that Gypsy women can be very beautiful. And that Gypsy music is very moving, energetic. Those generalisations are racist to you?

    -“You remain entirely unaware of the perceptual bias that endemic racism fosters in individuals (which makes you an ideal research subject for Karmela). For example, why is is that you don’t know any Roma lawyers, doctors, authors or academics?”

    Yes, I don´t know Gypsy lawyers, doctors, authors or academics. I don´t remember any of them. Why? Because I haven´t met any of them. Why? Maybe because it is something rare? At least in Russia?
    I have heard about one very famous Gypsy fortune teller though, he predicted future very precisely. I have heard also about Gypsy musicians. And about Gypsy circus artists.

  32. Mark

    Gosh, what a lot of love in the room 🙂

    Laputis

    – “it´s really one of most archaic languages in Uralic language tree.”

    Yes, but it has still be subject to significant changes over time based on proximity to Swedish and Russian. You know, English has 30% ‘French’ words. Based on that percentage, English should rightly be called French. My point is, it is what it is. Language is as ever a tool and language change or change of languages reflects some tools being more useful than others – notwithstanding the meddling of policians in culture (please take note, PS) and emperialistic expansion, with the latter rather less in vogue.

    – “Russians often have very different opinion on same historical things than Latvians.’

    Well, this might be true, but why would it be a reason to ‘move’ to different geographical areas where everyone can be homogenous? If you haven’t yet noticed, humans have a great propensity to argue about just about everything – but at the end of the day, we mostly agree that it’s okay to be different to each other. It is important to have some kind of common, shared values, and I think you’ll find that behind all that history, which most modern people find just a little boring and academic thank God, people just want to get on, work for a reasonable wage, have their families, play on their consoles, walk in the forests and maybe get pissed from time to time. However, there are some people, who for reasons of difficult attachment in childhood, become obsessed with the issue of identity to the point where it’s important to stick everyone into a box with their appropriate labels on. Sounds like a ‘collector’, doesnt’ it, all this obsessive labelling and relabelling, and order and nothing getting ‘muddy’. An obsession with total clarity in regard to cultural ideas is almost always a neurosis, in my view.

    You are right that right-wingers are not the monsters that some people fall into the trap of describing them as. They are quite ordinary – and because of that, they are able to make extraordinary ideas seem ordinary too. That’s part of the problem today, that right wing views are becoming more and more ordinary and therefore, rather more acceptable. And that is a shame. With strong national identities, we are oh so much more vulnerable to interethnic conflict, inter-national conflict and all the misery that has come with it down the ages.

    Don’t you think that ‘modern’ times brings an opportunity to put all that historical shit to bed? Isn’t it easier and more realistic to identify with other people as human beings, as members of a the same species, and as sharing rather similar psychology and sociology, differing only in degrees, and subject always, I hope, to an element of choice and freedom. Politicians have no business meddling in issues of cultural identity, other than to protect the rights of minorities (or in some rare cases majorities, where the minority are in rule).

    What do you make of John Lennon, Laputis?

    – Imagine there’s no countries. It isn’t hard to do. Nothing to kill or die for. And no religion too. Imagine all the people living life in peace.

    Funny how this comes up again and again as the No.1 song of all time. I think that accurately reflects what ordinary people think about this country stuff, over and above the silly arguments about which nation is the best or the most introvert, or extrovert etc.

  33. Laputis

    Eyeopener:

    -“that supercilious remark about not restricting your child’s choice of spouse being the supreme example of this, insofar as you would deign to admit of an exception to your racist views when sufficiently pressured to do so.

    Excellent remark!!

    But that does not guarantee Laputis to really accept the reality. His quote tells me his “arm-length”: “but this Gypsy individual HAS APPEARED (my change) as a GOOD (my change) person to ME (my change)”. Criteria for “APPEARED as a GOOD??” ME means “I hold all the cards”. I feel sorry and sad for the poor child (boy or girl) to be put in this world by this guy.

    I do not expect Laputis to answer this remarks. He is a cheat in answer the questions posed to him.

    That’s why I stopped my conversation.”

    Phantasies, and again phantasies. You live so much in your dream world, really. You say that I would seek any excuses for my child to not marry a Gypsy, if this person appears good to me? What makes you to think that I would seek such excuses? I am not extremist, and I told already, that intermarriages are welcome (after all, I am married to a person outside my ethnicity and my race). You perceive me VERY WRONGLY.

  34. Laputis

    Enrique:

    -“Then, Laputis, you have it made. Now you can generalize, know how whole nations think… What power you have in your hands. Maybe you can rule the world now because you know how whole groups work.”

    You will be surprised, but yes, majority of people think in same way. And there exist differences along ethnic and national lines. I can compare Russian mainstream way of thinking with Finnish mainstream way of thinking. They often are like day and night, believe me! Just an example. I have been reading in some Russian resources, and hearing from some Russian people, that Finland wants to occupy Carelia, conquer Russian North at least until Ural mountains. I have been telling this to my Finnish friends, and they were laughing! Because those conquerings is not what Finland would want. Returning Carelia, maybe yes, but conquering Russian north until Urals? There is one old Finnish song with such words, it was most likely supposed as a joke. But seemingly some Russian person heard this song, translated it to Russian language, and thus in Russia started the legends about that Finland wants to conquer Russian North until Ural mountains. And this legend gained such popularity thanks to Russian “imperialistic” mentality. Russia has been conquering lands for centuries. And, hearing that somebody else would want to conquer, it is perceived by Russians not as joke, but as mere seriousness.
    I was talking to some Russians about that Finland is not intending to conquer Russian North. They initially didn´t believe me. “How so? Why Finland wouldn´t want? In Russian North and Urals are lots of resources”. etc. Then I was explaining them the Finnish opinion about the conquerings – they have huge costs, keeping infrastructure in huge territory such as Russian North already is impossible task for small country like Finland etc. And also exploiting of resources need huge investments, which Finland simply doesn´t have. In overall, Finland would simply collapse economically, if it tried to conquer and exploit the Russian North, so Finns are not interested into such advendture. Well, I think that Russians barely believed me even about these words, but they seemed to be more convinced that Finland really doesn´t have the task to conquer Russian North.

    You see, mainstream opinions do exist, and they can differ along the ethnic and national borders!!!

  35. Mark

    Laputis

    I have some sympathy for you, because you are clearly not an extremist. But I think that for some readers of this blog, your views ‘on paper’ are more extreme than your actual attitudes in general. You take a stance that opposes ‘mass immigration’ and provide arguments based on the preservation of national identities, while giving your support to PS, This seems to contradict your status as an immigrant, hence you being a good example of what ‘might appear to be’ an Uncle Tom. People don’t understand how someone who is themselves an immigrant cannot be more sympathetic to the treatment of immigrants.

    Eyeopener was correctly pointing out the implicit power relations you were setting up between yourself and the ‘good’ Gypsy, that it is YOU who has the power of arbitration over who is a good gypsy and who is not. I know you won’t like the analogy, but it’s like the guard that stands at the gates of the concentration camps and gets to decide who’s going to get in and who isn’t. Now we all dislike some people, and we might even dislike people of particular nationalities, though those are almost always prejudices, but that doesn’t mean that we make this a basis for political activism. These are the excesses of human beings, who can be utterly petty and small minded when assessing the ‘cultural value’ of people, ideas etc. We are prone to being impulsive, simplifying other people, simplifying identity, and generally filtering our understanding of people so that they nealty fall into the boxes we like to use to ‘order’ our world. But, it’s important in politics to be above these rather petty limitations. That’s the problem with populism, it takes these petty attitudes and makes them respectable, rather than admitting they are the product of flawed thinking, over simplificaiton, and generally the rather petty competitiveness and arrogance of human beings.

    On the central question, I think that if an immigrant in their home country has had right wing views that include an ‘anti-immigration’ stance, then it is too big a shift to suddenly admit that was all wrong because they are now the immigrant in the new country, and therefore violating all their previously held views on cultural and ethnic homogeneity. So, they will simply align themselves with the nationalists in the adopted country, and tell the tales of how ‘immigrants’ have also spoilt their own country. As most nationalists are not against immigration per se, then the immigrant has some leeway to find acceptance – and in fact, most nationalists are SO happy to find another nationalist that ‘understands’, that the small matter of contradictions is left aside. In fact, our jolly foreigner with his fascist views is probably seen as the right sort of immigrant anyway! 🙂

    What this illustrates very well is that people feel kinship mostly with people of similar views, rather than similar nationality. In fact, there are so many differing political views in Finland that it’s impossible to imagine that the national identity could be constructed around a consensus of ‘hating foreigners’. (I’m being facetious, Laputis, by the way). At least, i hope not and I really do doubt it. Many of the PS supporters were not that bothered about immigration, after all, according to poll reports. Maybe the 6% is the threshold. Let’s see, once the economic issues have died down and people have seen that PS are much like any other party of politicians what their level of support will be then.

  36. Laputis

    Eyeopener:

    -“How right you are. L. rejects the SU, but prefers the same mentality. How ignorant people can be. Whiter shade of grey, I guess!!”

    What mentality? Imperialistic mentality? SU was based on imperialistic mentality. My mentality is opposite to imperialistic mentality, to me “small is good”. Eyeopener, your nickname is very misleading.

  37. Laputis

    Enrique:

    -“This what you mention destroys everything, even peace. If you live in a society that is diverse you cannot go around imposing what you think is acceptable only to you. It’s a sort of give and take, where all groups take each other needs into account. ”

    You take this out of context. Imagine society, which is homogenous. People are used to certain rules, rythm of life etc. Then into territory of this society are poured foreign people with their own rules, rythm of life etc. Who are the ones, that have to accept, not impose rules etc.? Remember, people have territorial affinities. And native people have especially strong territorial affinities. If native people have achieved own country, then they expect, that foreign people, who entered the territory, will adopt to the rules of native people. Do you think that native people are wrong?

    -“Take it to a family level: Think what kind of a relationship you will build with your children if you are constantly imposing your views on them? Where do you think that will lead? Nothing good I would imagine.”

    I wouldn´t compare multicultural society to family. I would rather compare it to communal apartment. Do you know what communal appartment is? It was very popular kind of apartment in Soviet Union, and is still existing in Russia and other ex-Soviet countries. Basically, you share same apartment with other people. Each family lives in their own room. Toilet and kitchen are shared. I have lived in such kind apartment for some time, so I know from my experience what it is. The same rules were usually imposed on all people there, otherwise, how could they co-exist each with other? The rules were – not too much noise, always clean kitchen after yourself etc. I would never want to live in communal apartment again. Multicultural life reminds me communal apartment. Brrr…

    Nope, I prefer relatively homogenous countries. It´s like detached houses with extended families. Much, much better idea.

    -“Mutual acceptance is a very important and power word. ”

    Of course it´s important. But you know, strangers in communal apartemnt can be annoying and irritating. And you have to accept them, of course. Well, of course, how otherwise you could even live? But is it life, that is enjoyable???

    -“If I look at countries like Estonia and Latvia, where they have a large Russian minority, what is the end game there? To starve the Russians culturally? Latvians are doing basically the same things to Russians today that they did to them during the Soviet Union. Believe me, it’s not going to have a good ending.”

    You really don´t know and understand nothing. There is one HUGE country where is already secured Russian language, culture etc., and it is Russia. Oh, there is actually two more countries with Russian language as (second) official language – Belorussia and Kazakhstan. How many more countries must have Russian language as official language, which is already is in so safe position, as no other language around it? Besides that, in Latvia are many schools, and few university-level schools with teaching in Russian language. There are lots of TV channels available in Russian language, books, magazines…And now, let´s compare with what is going on with my ethnic group in Russia. We don´t have university-level schools with teaching in our language. We don´t have even primary schools. Everywhere our language is taught almost as “foreign” one (few times per week). Our writing system is Cyrillic one, although Cyrilic system is really bad for depicting sounds of our language! Our language is largely dissapeared from large cities. We have only few books in our language going out every year (due underfunding, lack of finances), we have only few magazines, mostly going out like once or twice per month…We don´t have own TV channel. Compare – in Latvia Russians are not forced to write with Latin letters. Russian language is usually heard exactly in large cities, Russian language is taught as primary language in schools etc.
    Gosh, Russians are in so privileged position in Latvia and in Estonia. And lots of Russians also have so very “ubermensch” mentality, they are not willing to learn any native language, on which lands they live! Many Russians don´t speak any Latvian or Estonian, even if they live there like for decades! The Estonians and Latvians try to force the Russians to learn native languages (and rightly so!), but Russians feel so “insulted” about it, that they will do everything to oppose it, seek any reasons to call Estonian or Latvians as “opressors”. I am really angry at the Baltic Russians, they are soooo shameless! They are complaining to president of Russia about their “opression”, in same time when Russia itself is opressing it´s ethnic minorities!!! Of course, the Russians, who live in area of my ethnicity, are not learning our language AT ALL, we don´t have own country, unlike Estonians or Latvians…The Russian government has made our language AS OUTCAST in our own land!!! Our language is taught almost as foreign language in our schools!!!

  38. Mark

    Laputis

    – “will adopt the rules of native people”

    And what are the rules in Finland that all foreigners should follow? And if all foreigners should follow them, does that mean that all Finns should follow them too?

    – “The rules were – not too much noise, always clean kitchen after yourself etc. I would never want to live in communal apartment again. Multicultural life reminds me communal apartment.”

    So you don’t like communal apartments because you had to respect neighbours by not being noisy and had to be hygenic? And this is why you don’t like multiculturalism? I’m confused. You didn’t like these rules in Russian communal apartments, but they are okay in Finnish ordinary apartments?

    – “We have only few books in our language going out every year (due underfunding, lack of finances), we have only few magazines, mostly going out like once or twice per month…”

    Yes, but this isn’t a failure of politics, is it? It’s a question of demand and supply here. If there was demand, then operations to produce these things in your native language would be profitable. If there is little demand, then it’s unlikely to be profitable. Of course, you could turn the preservation of the language into a ‘social good’, and support it that way, but even if you print the books, people will not necessarily read them, as the demand will likely remain low, or at least a niche market. Sad, I know, but you cannot entirely blame politicians for that situation.

    – “Gosh, Russians are in so privileged position in Latvia and in Estonia.”

    You see, it’s this kind of oversimplification that is always getting you into trouble Laputis, and which generally reveals you have developed your opinions on the back of rash impulses and probably negative emotions, rather than rational consideration and an attempt to obtain a fuller perspective on life.

    For example, many Russians in Latvia (estimates from 16% to some 40%) still have ‘alien status’ because they did not meet the rules on citizenship that did not grant automatic citizenship to those arriving in Latvia after 1940. Alien status means they have no voting rights and several other basic rights are denied. If a stateless Russian-origin immigrant decides to return to Russia, which I’m assuming you would encourage, they have often been derided as ‘Latvians’ by local Russians. But on paper, you would be happy, while in reality, misery continues. You see, that’s the problem with nationalities – they make the in-crowd feel good, while being decidedly hostile towards the out-crowd. Is this to best we can do in terms of ethic relations? Well, many people have decided that we can do decidedly more, through simply practicing tolerance on cultural issues and respecting the rights of ‘all inhabitants’. Not much, is it, but it makes a big difference to the quality of life and quality of relations.

    While we are on the subject, what do you think about immigration within a country?, From the country to the city for example, meaning that resources in the rural areas become starved, penalising those that wish to remain there? Likewise, urban living in Finland was considered rather bland, just the kind of ‘loss of natural diversity’ you oppose, I assume. Do you think all these ‘immigrant’ families should be repatriated back to the countryside?

  39. Laputis

    @Mark

    I have been already writing somewhere, why I don´t find “borderless, open world without countries” attractive. Because borders are also borders to diseases, criminals and other negative things! Plus, it´s easier to governate on local level, than on global or huge scale. Plus, regionality is more self-sustaining and fits to long-term development than globalisation. Regionality is more environment-friendly, it fits more to thinking about future generations etc. Countries ARE necessary thing. And borders too.

    There is saying that “middle path” is “golden path”, and I stick to it. The best solution IMO is found somewhere between “absolute isolation of country” and “absolute bordrless world”. Somewhere between “pure-blooded ethnic group” and “very mixed multicultural society with lack of stable identity”.
    In my opinion, some of people in this blog are extremists. Because they express extreme opinions. They are a mirror picture of right-wing extremists. I am not extremist, I am more like a centrist. I try to find a “golden middle” path. I favor nationalism, but not extreme kind. I am trying to be realist, and think, how things could work in real life. I am not living in utopias, like few other people here do. Their ideas earlier or later will crash, I am sure about it. Because they simply don´t work, because they are artificial ideas to so many people.

  40. Laputis

    Mark:

    -“And what are the rules in Finland that all foreigners should follow? And if all foreigners should follow them, does that mean that all Finns should follow them too?”

    In Finland both foreigners and Finns should follow Finnish rules.

    -“So you don’t like communal apartments because you had to respect neighbours by not being noisy and had to be hygenic? And this is why you don’t like multiculturalism? I’m confused. You didn’t like these rules in Russian communal apartments, but they are okay in Finnish ordinary apartments?”

    Co-existing with strangers is something entirely different than co-existing with your family members. I can tell you that from my experience. Psychologically it is all very different. Co-existing with strangers can really limit you, you have to be careful all the time that you somehow don´t annoy somebody etc. Family members are much more “forgiving”, they tend to look more “through flowers” to what you are doing. It´s so much more relaxed atmosphere with family members! You don´t have to follow the rules in your family house as in communal apartment. And in family house is easier to do things that you really desire or make you to feel in freedom – listen music, spend all day in kitchen (nobody is complaining that you have occupied the kitchen), go semi-naked to toilet room etc.
    I think you can draw parralels with multicultural and monocultural societies. in Multicultural societies you have to be all the time careful with what you are saying, how you act, all the time give space to “strangers”, all the time following limiting rules etc., in monocultural societies is more laid-back and relaxing atmosphere. I would still prefere monocultural society! Living with “your-kind” of people is psychologically simpler, and easier!

    -“Yes, but this isn’t a failure of politics, is it? It’s a question of demand and supply here. If there was demand, then operations to produce these things in your native language would be profitable. If there is little demand, then it’s unlikely to be profitable. Of course, you could turn the preservation of the language into a ‘social good’, and support it that way, but even if you print the books, people will not necessarily read them, as the demand will likely remain low, or at least a niche market. Sad, I know, but you cannot entirely blame politicians for that situation.”

    Yes, it is failure of politics. A pure example of political failure. The little amount of printed books in my native language is not economic question, but purely political one, which is made to look like “economical” failure. The support of our culture and language is limited simply because Russian government has withdrawn any kind of possible economic support. We have some very treasuable natural resources in our lands, by the way. But they belong not to us, but to Russian mafia (which is called as “corporations” etc.)! The money of exploited natural resources goes not to us, but to those mafia contors. And finally, to Moscow. And try to complain, you will be killed, very simple and pure. Also, our “self-govermented” area is governed by people personally chosen by president and his closest people…We, simple citizens, have no saying in politics. Zero saying. And all the voting is artificial. All money from our “self-govermented” area goes to Moscow. All of it! And then Moscow subsidizes back our area…We live in this creepy system. And try to find any money for supporting our language and culture, when our opressors don´t want it…

    -“For example, many Russians in Latvia (estimates from 16% to some 40%) still have ‘alien status’ because they did not meet the rules on citizenship that did not grant automatic citizenship to those arriving in Latvia after 1940. Alien status means they have no voting rights and several other basic rights are denied.”

    And you really wonder about it??? If those Russians were given votes, they would vote for Latvia returning back to Russia! They would vote for essentially “anti-Latvian” and “pro-Russian” parties. Those Russians are threat to ideology of native people, which want own country. No wonder the natives didn´t want to give voting voices to them! And IMHO they did it correctly.
    Anyway, the Russians in Latvia have more opportunities to vote than in Russia. In Russia all of voting is restricted, artificial and fake…What´s the difference then, whether you vote or not??? In the end “90% of votes go for party United Russia”. In the end, “everybody want and like Vladimir Putin”. Bullocks!!!!

    -“If a stateless Russian-origin immigrant decides to return to Russia, which I’m assuming you would encourage, they have often been derided as ‘Latvians’ by local Russians. But on paper, you would be happy, while in reality, misery continues.”

    Described as Latvians? Where did you take it from? Russians are Russians from wherever they come from. Besides that, Russian identity is mainly inclusive, not exclusive.

    -“While we are on the subject, what do you think about immigration within a country?, From the country to the city for example, meaning that resources in the rural areas become starved, penalising those that wish to remain there? Likewise, urban living in Finland was considered rather bland, just the kind of ‘loss of natural diversity’ you oppose, I assume. Do you think all these ‘immigrant’ families should be repatriated back to the countryside?”

    Cities to me is something like continuation of countryside. They are both interconnected things. The immigrants from countryside to cities thus are not same as international, multicultural immigrants.
    If the relationship between cities and ountryside is cut, it is not good then. That´s why IMO the best scenario is when inhabitants of cities have some connections with countryside. Let´s say, they have grandparents living in countryside. Or city inhabitants go for vacation to countryside (to cottages etc.). It´s important to keep close ties to nature. But mass immigration of foreigners very often means cutting cities off the countryside, because 80-90% of immigrants go to cities…And they have no connections to countryside. And thus, they loose contacts with nature. It´s a worrying picture for me. When humanity will cut it´s sense of connection to nature, it will fail…

  41. Mark

    Laputis

    – “I have been already writing somewhere, why I don´t find “borderless, open world without countries” attractive. ”

    Yep, I’m not advocating a world without countries. What I was illustrating through Lennon’s lyrics and popularity is that there is a very strong popular sentiment to avoid conflicts and wars that arise almost solely from militant nationalist tendencies, and that this sentiment is more important to ordinary people than making their life an obsessive study of the history of their own people. Do you get my point now?

    “very mixed multicultural society with lack of stable identity”.

    But identity is an individual thing, first and foremost. Collective identities tend to be subservient to individual identity, and it’s important to note that however homogenous the sense of Finnishness is, there is no single living entity that is Finland – there is only ever a collection of individuals who appear to share a similar identity. When you start to dissect that identity, you start to find rather large differences, unless you want to build an ‘identity’ around notions of ‘liking sausage, sauna and silence’, in which case, we become rather cardboard cutouts of people.

    While a mixed multicultural society may lack a ‘stable identity’, I’m inclined to think that all societies lack a ‘single’ stable identity, and that a section of people within a society are at any one time trying to subvert that identity. Second, if we were to say rather that a mixed multicultural society was to have several stable identities (i.e. plural), then we might be closer to the truth.

    Fact of the matter is, that national identities are simply gradations in the map of ‘collective’ identities,which stretch from local township/city regions with their various historical stereotypes. These identities are in turn secondary to individual identities, for the simple reason that people on the whole are not carrying out significant decision-making in regard to these collective identities, unless they work in politics and have to represent the interests of a particular area.

  42. Eduardo

    Mark suggests that “conflicts and wars… arise almost solely from militant nationalist tendencies”. This is an interesting proposition – it implies that in the absence of nations or national identities, there would be no wars, no violence, and no conflicts in human societies.

    This interpretation is obviously false, as we know of many examples of violent conflicts in human history in the absence of coherent state or national structures. Conflict is a fundamental aspect of the human condition, and will never disappear, even if all nations, all “racists”, and all Europeans are eliminated.

    The purpose of this blog is to cultivate a sense of guilt and responsibility by Finns, Europeans and white people for all conflicts that involve Europeans and non-Europeans. This serves to demoralize Europeans, deny their identity, and undermine any claims to legitimacy that their historically evolved societies might otherwise have. This is a necessary condition for the demographic replacement of Europeans with non-Europeans, which is the ultimate goal of “diversity” and related ideologies.

    • Enrique

      –This interpretation is obviously false, as we know of many examples of violent conflicts in human history in the absence of coherent state or national structures.

      In a war there is always “us” and “them.” If it isn’t a state it is a tribe, I am certain. Paul Kennedy, a Yale University historian, shows how nations in Europe developed since the 1500 thanks to war. To engage in long-term wars you needed to recruit soldiers, feed them, and most importantly finance them. As the bellicose actions of nations became more developed (banking stronger institutions etc) they were able to wage war against their enemies more effectively.

      Check out Kennedy’s book, “The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers (1987),” where he argues that economic strength and military power have been highly correlated in the rise and fall of major nations since 1500. He shows that expanding strategic commitments lead to increases in military expenditures that eventually overburden a country’s economic base, and cause its long-term decline.

      Now the question, Eduardo. What excuses must we give to the people to take part in such an outlandish thing as war? We do it with lies, nationalism, myths and even racism, the “us” against “them.” How do you think Nazi Germany was able to wage war against the world? Look at eugenics, racism and the urban tales that the Nazis created to strengthen their power and give them their reason to wage war as well as murder millions of others as part of their racial policies.

  43. Laputis

    Mark, thank you for your response. Sorry that I attacked you previously (in few places). Well, of course, it´s understandable, why people would want “borderless world”. And why would they want also f.e. “absolute equality”. Well, the thing is, that both of them are utopias. If you try to implement utopias in life, you will go to crash earlier or later.
    I am for nationalistic countries. I am for that groups of societies would get own lands, and there live as they want. That they would feel there LIKE HOME. Do you remember parralels to communal or family apartments…? I guess that many Finns nowdays are frustrated about newcommers mainly because they take away that homely feeling.
    Anyway, it´s weird how some people in this blog perceive me as some kind racist or nazist. I must say that nazism is very special kind of nationalism. It is, first and foremost, evolving from imperialistic-kind of nationalism (i.e. you want to conquer other lands and oppress people there, and you claim that your own ethnic group is the best). The imperialistic nationalisms have been the ones, which caused the biggest troubles, and wars. I see that people when talking about “nationalism causes wars” they don´t think and see, that it is mostly connected to imperialistic nationalisms. Nazism was rooted in imperialistic nationalism. Soviet Union borrowed a lot from imperialistic nationalism too (“Russians bring light to everyone etc.”). Japanese nationalism too was imperialistic nationalism. In Balkans too, was nationalistic imperialism presented (Serbs being the brightest example). The imperialistic nationalisms are essentially different from ethno-centric nationalisms, which are presented in Finland, Baltic countries, Scandinavian countries, in many small Eastern European countries, Central Asia etc. The ethno-centric nationalism doesn´t intend to conquer other lands, other people etc. This kind of nationalism is aimed at preservation and development of certain ethnic group, peaceful co-existence with neighbours, it usually doesn´t proclaim a certain ethnic group as “the best one”. The most usual troubles caused by this type of nationalism have been civil wars and uprisings.
    The imperialistic nationalism and ethnic-centered nationalism are clashing each with other. People who hold imperialistic nationalist opinions are often regarded as opponents or even enemies by people, who hold ethnic-centered opinions. For example, Russians typically hold imperialistic nationalist opinions, and I, being an ethnic-centered nationalist, regard them as my opponents. Those Russians want my ethnic land to belong to Russia, but I have opposite opinions. So you see, we clash each with other. In case of war, we would be mortal enemies.
    But people in this blog for some reason mistake ethnic-centered nationalism with imperialistic nationalism. They don´t see that there is a huge difference between them. That two kinds of those nationalisms just don´t tolerate each other. They absolutely have no clue, and I guess that it´s fault in education.

  44. Prometo

    classic uncle tom is

    Arman Alizad

    he tries to be more finnish then finns and despises (ridicules) foreign cultures like a racist finn would

    • Enrique

      Prometo, I think it is pretty clear that in Finland an Uncle Tom is someone who is either as racist or more racist than a white Finn.

  45. Mark

    Eduardo

    – “This is an interesting proposition – it implies that in the absence of nations or national identities, there would be no wars, no violence, and no conflicts in human societies.”

    Well, we are not in that position and never have been, so it is a rather stupid implication to make, but a convenient straw man for you to argue against. FACT of the matter is that millions upon millions have died in modern times as a result of militant nationalism. If you wish to argue that point, I’d say you are not someone worth having an argument with.

    I also notice that you chose to completely ignore the qualifier ‘almost’ in front of solely due to nationalist militant tendencies. I guess if you had taken that at face value, you wouldn’t have been able to make your stupid point anyway.

    – “The purpose of this blog is to cultivate a sense of guilt and responsibility by Finns, Europeans and white people for all conflicts that involve Europeans and non-Europeans.”

    Is that so? What are you smoking, Eduardo? First, the purpose of this blog, correct me if I’m wrong Enrique, is to highlight issues affecting immigrants in Finland, an important one among them being discrimination, intolerance and racism. Now maybe you think these things are so unimportant that it hardly justifies a blog, in which case, state your opinion honestly and go read somewhere else. But don’t try to represent it as something completely different to what it quite clearly is. Otherwise, you are just insulting the intelligence of others reading this blog.

    Secondly, if as you state, you refer to responsibility for ‘all the conflicts that involve Europeans and Non-Europeans’, then I would hope that Europeans do take responsibility. On the whole, i don’t think that really was the issue under discussion. But it has been stated before on this blog that the point of asylum among civilised nations was to extend the notion of human rights as being unversal, meaning that they apply to people regardless of their citizenship, a very noble and civilising principle. You may not like it, but it’s a huge advance on trying to conquer the world with notions of the supremacy of the Aryan race, which is about as much as the Far Right has ever given Europe in the last century, that and millions upon millions of deaths. But I’m sure you probably see those are irrelevant to the discussion fo Far Right politics. I mean, what do they have in common?

  46. Mark

    Laputis

    – “Well, of course, it´s understandable, why people would want “borderless world”. And why would they want also f.e. “absolute equality”.

    But again, my good friend, you are taking things a little too literally. I don’t know anyone that wants ‘absolute equality’ or a ‘borderless world’, for the same reasons you give, that they recognise it’s a utopia, but also out of realism, that we are so far from that, that even calling for it seems ridiculous. So people don’t campaign for change on a platform of ‘absolute equality’, but rather, just plain old simple ‘equality’. As it is, equality is not a ‘given’, it doesn’t appear on the back of a cereal packet, we have to figure out what that means, and it is extremely difficult in some cases. However, equality as a goal has been very fruitful for society, even if you were cynical about it (which I’m not, but many in PS are), it has freed up women to enter the workforce and therefore increased productivity and innovation.

    I think it’s a wonderful feeling, ‘being home’. I don’t feel at home in Finland, but my life is here and kids are here, and they are Finnish. I have many good Finnish friends. But the main issue is not ‘identity’, but rather language. Those Finns I know who speak English, I appreciate them as people, and those people I have conversations with in Finnish, even those I value, because something is exchanged, we can smile about things, communicate. But I just know that for them and for me, there is an awkwardness in the situation that stops the wonderful free flow of language and ideas that takes place when you speak in your native language.

    While I agree that an element of ‘imperialism’ mixed with nationalism has been an ingredient of wars in the last couple of centuries, I disagree that ‘ethno-centric nationalism’ is not without its problems and in fact, the same kinds of attitudes that ultimately did lead to mass genocide are implicit in much of modern nationalism too. The words change, the groups change (Muslims for Jews), but the narrative is extremely similar – “They take our jobs, they challenge our cultural heritage, they want to take over our country”. Of course it’s nonsense. It’s just people, moving around the world, taking a little of their home culture with them. They are not out to get anybody or attack anybody. They are people. All this talk of nationalities really does cover up the most simple fact.

    And even if they are different, what on earth is the problem with that? Are we so immature, or so insecure in our own identities that we cannot even tolerate the sight of them? Ridiculous. Especially as there are huge differences within cultures, let alone between cultures. The whole idea that we, as people, have a problem with other people just because they are in some ways different! Not only that, but the childishness with which Islam gets painted by some on the Far Right is laughable were it not for the fact that these people are actually politicians. We can dig many stupid things up from the Bible (women are required to sacrifice two pigeons every time they have a period – Leviticus).and say that Christians are complete nutters. But, hey, it’s all free speech, But that said, it doesn’t make it smart.

  47. Laputis

    Mark:

    -“And even if they are different, what on earth is the problem with that? Are we so immature, or so insecure in our own identities that we cannot even tolerate the sight of them? Ridiculous. Especially as there are huge differences within cultures, let alone between cultures. The whole idea that we, as people, have a problem with other people just because they are in some ways different!”

    I wish to use your words into other context a bit. Your words, such as “accepting other”, “tolerance” etc. have been used as excuses for mass immigration. Those words would have been otherwise OK, but they are abused into some political game.
    I honestly don’t understand – why Finland would need all that mass immigration? Finns can be accepting other and tolerant without all the massive flock of immigrants.
    Some people argue that mass immigration doesn´t exist. Well, I can as well claim, that birds don´t arrive in massive flocks in springtime (after all there are birds, who stay during winter time) etc. It´s just ridiculous how people can even doubt the obvious things.

  48. Mark

    Laputis

    – “I wish to use your words into other context a bit. Your words, such as “accepting other”, “tolerance” etc. have been used as excuses for mass immigration.”

    No, not really. Immigration has increased partly through Finnish programmes to repatriate people of Finnish descent from parts of Russia and also because of policies of family reunification for a portion of Somalis, Afghans and Iraqis that came to Finland during the troubles in those areas. That immigration reflects Finland’s commitment to recognising universal human rights and for providing practical assistance to countries bordering conflict zones that typically become overwhelmed by people fleeing conflict and persecution. It’s a noble goal, though I know it doesn’t have unanimous support among the public.

    So, it’s not really about tolerance and acceptance as being the reason for immigration, but rather just a prerequisite for Finland to maintain some social harmony between the native residents and the new residents.

    As for ‘mass’ immigration, it’s hard to agree with that. First, the Somalis, Iraqis and Afghans that live in Finland number about 15,000, which is some 0.3% of the total population. There are more foreigners in Finland, but they are Russians, Estonians and Europeans, who generally blend in in such a way as to be largely unnoticed in many cases. Is that ‘mass immigration’? Ughhh, nope! Sorry, not by any kind of stretch!

    Now compare this to the 450,000 1st and 2nd generation Sweden Finns who recently emmigrated from Finland to Sweden. As Sweden’s population is a little 10 million, twice that of Finland, Finns constitute 3.5% of the Swedish population. You can clearly see that immigration from Finland of Finns is or has been on a far bigger scale than Muslims moving to Finland, for instance. Many Swedes might think that Finnish culture is different to Swedish culture and there have been tensions, so we cannot assume that Finns were all ‘welcomed’ by the native population, even while politicians decided that ‘we’re all Scandanavians together’. 🙂

    So, less than half a percent! You’d have to say that is not anything like ‘mass immigration’.

  49. Laputis

    Mark:

    “While I agree that an element of ‘imperialism’ mixed with nationalism has been an ingredient of wars in the last couple of centuries, I disagree that ‘ethno-centric nationalism’ is not without its problems and in fact, the same kinds of attitudes that ultimately did lead to mass genocide are implicit in much of modern nationalism too. The words change, the groups change (Muslims for Jews), but the narrative is extremely similar – “They take our jobs, they challenge our cultural heritage, they want to take over our country”. Of course it’s nonsense. It’s just people, moving around the world, taking a little of their home culture with them. They are not out to get anybody or attack anybody. They are people. All this talk of nationalities really does cover up the most simple fact.”

    Yep, and you, and other nationalists usually skip over one very basic thing. This thing is about heritage. One thing about heritage is that you have descended from your ancestors, that you have received something (material stuff etc.) from your ancestors. And that you pass them further down the generations, improve them. To me is very familiar idea, what I have learned from my ethnic group, is that people work not only to themselves, but also to future generations. That you, your ancestors basically build a “better life” to children and grandchildren. You hope that your grandchildren will have better life than you had. And you express respect and thanks to your ancestors to what they have done to make you live better.
    You do work for your descendands. You clear the forest, improve it´s soil, so that your children could put wheet or oats there etc. But then, imagine, foreigners come, and take things, where they didn´t put any hard work on, which they essentially, from native point of view, don´t deserve! Those foreigners then claim that the wheet and oats can belong also to them, although their ancestors did nothing to start up this agriculture.
    These foreigners are regarded as “easy luck” seekers, it´s something along the line of thieves.
    And now let´s put this to case of Finland. Native can complain against those foreigners (immigrants), but foreigners insist on “acceptance” and “tolerance”. But they, from native point of view, live off the land, which was made not by them, where life level was achieved not by them! The immigrants are regarded as “easy luck” seekers, which have parasitic attitude. No wonder, that many natives lack the respect towards them. And you ask for “acceptance” and “tolerance”…
    I think that Finnish culture includes some understanding about respect towards ancestors. Finnish people attend graveyards every year. I think many Finns hold in high regard their ancestors, they can be thankful to them, what they did to built this country, make life better to them and their descendants. And Finns, I believe, often don´t feel ready to give off things, that were achieved in hard work by their ancestors, and which they want to pass down the generations.

    One thing, I would comment about such ideology, is that it includes long-term thinking. It includes long-term sustainability. If all people had such ideology, the environment wouldn´t experience such crisis as it do right now. If environment crashes, the whole humankind will dissapear…Nobody, absolutely nobody can survive without support of nature.

    I am sometimes thinking, that it is better to have some wars, caused by nationalism, than dissapearance of whole humankind, caused by free globalised movement of people around the globe, where people have forgotten to think about their descendants, where people don´t know, where ancestor graveyards are, where people have short-term thinking and they think that nature is limitless…No, I prefere nationalism. With nationalism (especially ethnic-centric nationalism), humankind can survive for sure. With globalised free movement of populations, I am not so sure…

  50. Laputis

    Sorry, I should fix one mistake. Instead of “Yep, and you, and other nationalists usually skip over one very basic thing” should be “Yep, and you, and other anti-nationalists usually skip over one very basic thing.

  51. Laputis

    Mark:

    -“As for ‘mass’ immigration, it’s hard to agree with that. First, the Somalis, Iraqis and Afghans that live in Finland number about 15,000, which is some 0.3% of the total population. There are more foreigners in Finland, but they are Russians, Estonians and Europeans, who generally blend in in such a way as to be largely unnoticed in many cases. Is that ‘mass immigration’? Ughhh, nope! Sorry, not by any kind of stretch!”

    Yes, I awaited that you will show current figures. But dear Mark, look better at number of immigrants according to each year, you will see, that numbers constantly INCREASE. I wonder what will be percentage after like 10 years…

    • Enrique

      Laputis, I recall mentioning in a thread that “mass” immigration used by anti-immigration groups means bringing in people who they perceive as a threat to their imagined homogeneity. It can mean visible or invisible (Russians) immigrants. As you know, there is no such thing as a “pure” culture especially in an ever- globalized and international world. As you know, we all evolved from Africa and then migrated to different parts of the world.

  52. Mark

    Well, I guess you’ll just have to get breeding, then Laputis, so that the overall percentage of foreigners remains stable.

    Number have increased largely due to family reunification, but there is a natural limit to that, and certainly, only about half of cases seem to succeed.

    In many ways, having a slightly larger community benefits Finland, because it means that many of the resources needed to improve intergration can be developed within the community itself, putting less strain on Finnish services and also improving prospects for immigrants. A healthy community is the key to integration, and fragmentation, oppression and under-resourcing are absolutely the ingredients for failure. So, I suggest you put your weight and intellect (you obviously have a passion for learning) behind the project, start looking for practical solutions and stop moaning about immigration, because that horse has already bolted my friend. Welcome to the 21st Century!

  53. Mark

    Laputis

    – “You do work for your descendands. You clear the forest, improve it´s soil, so that your children could put wheet or oats there etc. But then, imagine, foreigners come, and take things, where they didn´t put any hard work on, which they essentially, from native point of view, don´t deserve! Those foreigners then claim that the wheet and oats can belong also to them, although their ancestors did nothing to start up this agriculture.
    These foreigners are regarded as “easy luck” seekers, it´s something along the line of thieves.”

    So, the foreigners are nicking our oats and wheat now. What century was it, again? Thieves you say! Well, maybe you folks have been living a little too long on the wheats and oats and you should get some protein in your diet, because there is an utter feebleness in this argument.

    First, how do foreigners come and ‘take’ the soil? From what I understand, most of the foreigners are living in flats in Helsinki, Vantaa and Espoo! They’re not interested in your soil

    Second, the wheat and oats come from Prisma and Citymarket, and to get it, you just have to hand over about €5. Welcome to Finland! And welcome to 2011! 🙂

  54. Mark

    Laputis

    – “I am sometimes thinking, that it is better to have some wars, caused by nationalism, than dissapearance of whole humankind, caused by free globalised movement of people around the globe, where people have forgotten to think about their descendants, where people don´t know, where ancestor graveyards are, where people have short-term thinking and they think that nature is limitless…”

    And where the ‘Haves’ will keep what they have and the Have Nots can go fuck ’emselves? 😀

    You know, you strike me as extremely naive, Lap, my friend, though I sense something good in you too. What makes you think that people who travel half way across the planet are leaving their ancestral home willingly? Do you really think that it is in the nature of human beings to up sticks, travel to the opposite side of the Equator to a country where people speak in what seem like clicks and rhymes, give up all sense of home and belonging, just to grab a bit of your soil? Oh dear, Lap. Oh dear! What are we going to do with you? 🙂

  55. Laputis

    Mark:

    -“First, how do foreigners come and ‘take’ the soil? From what I understand, most of the foreigners are living in flats in Helsinki, Vantaa and Espoo! They’re not interested in your soil

    Second, the wheat and oats come from Prisma and Citymarket, and to get it, you just have to hand over about €5. Welcome to Finland! And welcome to 2011!”

    And what will happen in 2111? What wil happen to the world after 100 years, have you been thinking? “Welcome to 2011”, baby, but you think only about the present day. You don´t think about the future, you don´t ask whether the mass immigration with immigrants living in apartments in Espoo is sustainable in long term. What will happen when humankind will run out the oil, and no replacement with same effectiveness will come? And his time is close, something within closest 100-200 years!
    We all are dependant on sun energy. Our ancestors could live off the sun energy, locked in plants, animals etc. This sun energy was enough for not more than 1 billion people to sustain in the world. The oil is ancient enclosure of sun energy, which gives additional resources for humans, so now human population exceeds 7 millions. But what will happen, if oil will run out…? OK, we still can use wind energy, water energy, and energy from instensively farmed plants, recycling and few other energy resources. But I doubt it will be capable to sustain civilization with such population numbers as it is now. When oil will end, the crisis of humankind will start.
    And I see what can happen to immigrants and their descendants f.e. in Finland…

    Why on earth people are so shortsighted?

  56. Laputis

    Mark:

    -“Well, I guess you’ll just have to get breeding, then Laputis, so that the overall percentage of foreigners remains stable. ”

    I am myself a foreigner.

    -“In many ways, having a slightly larger community benefits Finland, because it means that many of the resources needed to improve intergration can be developed within the community itself, putting less strain on Finnish services and also improving prospects for immigrants.”

    1) You can achieve less strain on services also in other ways, not only importing immigrants.
    2) So for improving immigrant prospects you need to import more immigrants? I.e. “having a slighty larger community”? So we all the time have to import immigrants, so that we would improve immigrant prospects. Geesh…

    -“A healthy community is the key to integration, and fragmentation, oppression and under-resourcing are absolutely the ingredients for failure.”

    The key word is – avoid exaggerations. We don´t need racist and intolerant society, but we also don´t need society, which accepts and opens arms to absolutely everything and everybody etc. Some critical attitude and doubts also are welcome. The middle path is golden path IMO.

  57. Laputis

    Enrique:

    -“Laputis, I recall mentioning in a thread that “mass” immigration used by anti-immigration groups means bringing in people who they perceive as a threat to their imagined homogeneity. It can mean visible or invisible (Russians) immigrants. As you know, there is no such thing as a “pure” culture especially in an ever- globalized and international world. As you know, we all evolved from Africa and then migrated to different parts of the world.”

    You know, there still exist such thing as different languages. And there exist such thing as different mentalities and ideologies.
    I know you are emphasising how similar we humans are, that we are same species etc. But what about why we don´t understand each other´s languages, if we are so “same”? Well, the thing is that we are similar, but not same, Enrique. We have evolved from Africa, but most of people don´t live in Africa anymore. Why is it hard for you to accept that there are also differences between humans, that there have happened changes to people? Why am I, being person of other race than European, able to admit all of that? Oh by the way, there doesn´t exist “human race”, there exits only “human species” (Homo Sapiens). Races are Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid, Australoid etc. And they do exist, the genetics have proved that. I have seen charts of genetic distances. You will perhaps call scientific findings as “racist”, if I will go into details.

    Oh by the way, I have studied “hard sciences” in university. I don´t have “humanitarian” kind of education. I can talk about things from scientific (mathematical, biological etc.) point of view.

  58. Laputis

    Enrique:

    -“You know, you strike me as extremely naive, Lap, my friend, though I sense something good in you too. What makes you think that people who travel half way across the planet are leaving their ancestral home willingly? Do you really think that it is in the nature of human beings to up sticks, travel to the opposite side of the Equator to a country where people speak in what seem like clicks and rhymes, give up all sense of home and belonging, just to grab a bit of your soil? Oh dear, Lap. Oh dear! What are we going to do with you? :)”

    You forgot that I am immigrant myself. Although I came through intermarriage. But you came due your Finnish ancestry.

    You still don´t understand, don´t you? I talk about mass immigration, not about immigration in moderate levels. Yes, I am aware of forces driven behind the mass immigrations, such as economic, demographic and environmental reasons (also wars). And you know what, those reasons often could have been prevented by populations themselves. For example, demographical reasons. If people breed like rabbits and have lower mortality rate than birth rate, their population size increases, doubles, triples, and then people run out of resources. And many are forced to leave their lands. Then they go to France, UK, Finland…Well, this could have been prevented, isn´t it so? Why Finland would have any responsibility about actions (i.e. doubling or tripling the population) of those people? What Finland has anything to do with irresponsibility and short-sightedness of those people?
    Economical reasons, wars…How often Finland is responsible about the economics or wars in some other continent? I would understand if Finland would take some responsiblity about populations from nearer areas (like Europe or Russia), but other parts of world??? Give me a break. I don´t see any reasons, why Finland would have to accept refugees, economical immigrants from other parts of world etc.
    Sorry for me sounding rude, but it is reality.

    • Enrique

      –What makes you think that people who travel half way across the planet are leaving their ancestral home willingly?

      I didn’t say that they are. Some do, some don’t. But can you blame a person for leaving a failed country where he has little opportunity to seek a new better life elsewhere. That takes guts and ambition. I like those type of people.

      Humankind has always built roads because it never believed in isolation.

      Lapitus, everytime I see or hear the adjectives “uncontrolled” or “mass” immigration I see far-right anti-immigration parties and politicians. You haven’t explained to us what these mean. The real meaning of these terms imply any foreign group that is perceived as a threat to society by anti-immigration parties.

      Do humans breed like rabbits or as humans?

      In Latin America I have met many of these types of families with +8 families. Even in Finland we had such families. My grandfather grew up with seven brothers and sisters. Did my great grandparents breed like rabbits?

      I wonder what they’d say if I told them that they bred like rabbits? They would get pretty offended. But thanks to higher birth rates we see lots of young people in such countries as opposed to ours, where pensioners are a large demographic group. Thanks to large families Finland’s population grew from about 3.5 million in the 1920s to just over 5 million today.

      As the late Albert Camus would state even about the PS these days, when he gave the green light to the execution of some Vichy collaborators despite his opposition to capital punishment, he said it was because “they lacked imagination;” i.e. they lacked empathy.

      If a country is developed, has a functioning democracy, we are an example to more-oppressed nations. We are part of the world and are responsible directly or indirectly for what happens in distant places. Lack of empathy is a threat to our society. There is very little empathy when oppressors oppress and when wars are waged.

  59. Laputis

    Enrique, “breeding like rabbits” is just saying, whether insulting or not. And, you have to look at context, I meant such “breeding like rabbits” or increase of population, when people run out resources, not when increase of population is welcome and even needed. Compare increase of population in some starving African country and increase of population in Russia – in one case it is bad thing, in another case welcome thing. Strangley that you didn´t understand that I talked within contexts.
    About the pensioners as large demographic group – it can stabilise after about generation or so. And pension system can be paid not only from tax-payer money, but also from other resources.

    -“Lapitus, everytime I see or hear the adjectives “uncontrolled” or “mass” immigration I see far-right anti-immigration parties and politicians.”

    Yes, you see what you want to see and believe. Why not have a step aside from your prejudices?

    -“You haven’t explained to us what these mean.”

    Yes, I have explained. Maybe you didn´t read. Or you were not willing to accept my explanations.

    -“The real meaning of these terms imply any foreign group that is perceived as a threat to society by anti-immigration parties.”

    Those are your prejudices.

    • Enrique

      A disturbing video clip about a white British woman with a child who loses it and starts spewing racist rant. Would some anti-immigration extremists claim that this person is exercising her free speech. Would PS MP James Hirvisaari, for example, blame Britain’s immigration policy for the woman’s rant?

      “Part II”

  60. Laputis

    Enrique, Enrique, Enrique…

    “Uncontrolled” and “mass” immigrations are terms used also by my ethnic group. We hardly have any political representatives, we don’t have any political parties, let alone right-wing extremist ones. We talked about “mass” immigrations already in Soviet times, when in the country was only one political party – Communist party, and all information in media was cenzed. The Communist party never talked about immigrations, emigrations, let alone “mass” ones. The “mass immigration” however was in mouths of my relatives, friends etc.

    Enrique, you are full of prejudices, and one of your prejudices is that term “mass immigration” is invented by right-wing extremist parties. Your lack of knowledge makes you to claim so.

    I will watch the videos later.

    • Enrique

      –Enrique, America, Canada and Argentina are essentialy immigrant countries. Finland is essentially native country. Why are you so stubborn to not admit that?

      So?

  61. eyeopener

    @ Laputis

    You really can make a horse laugh!!

    Finna are the indigenous people of the country Finland. You probably asked the Saami what they think about your supported claim!!

    What and who of your “white-european” group (-s) have pursued occupation and still do you certainly will support that (those) action (-s).

    And you yourself are not a proclaimed “white-group” member.

    You are familiar with psychology I guess. True?? Then you also know that those who want to belong to a specific group want to demonstrate that they are “the boys”. They are the worst.

    I assume you have read: “Emperor of lies”. An extreme example of you personality. If you haven’t read this book I advice you to read to get a better notion of your own “being in this world”. Probably you will not read it or use it as an example of “bad boys”

    Well……..

  62. Laputis

    Eyeopener:

    -“Finna are the indigenous people of the country Finland. You probably asked the Saami what they think about your supported claim!!”

    Haha, as if you asked them! Saami will say, that big part of Finland IS homeland to Finns, and they are indigenous people there. Finns are not indigenous in Lapland, Kajaani and few other northern regions. Plus in some Swedish-speaking regions. But they are are indigenous in many other parts – Carelia, Häme, Varsinais-Suomi etc. Actually, biggest part of Finns live in southern and central regions of Finland, not in Lapland. If part of Carelia were not taken away by Russia, some big part of Finnish population nowdays would live also in Carelia. Finns are majority population in Finland. And what else is homeland to Finns if not Finland?

    I have never understood why Saami don´t want independence. They say, that there is no economical reason behind it, that independent Saami country can´t sustain itself. Majority of Saami live in Norway, rich wealthy country, where Saami get considerable support. Well, I can understand the desire of people swim in money, but I still don´t understand…IMO independence is more important than monetary support and other material goods. This is where you should attack Saami, not Finns. It´s Saami, who have lost their spirit and will. They live splitted between four countries, does it do any good to them? Well, majority, of course live in wealthiest countries like Norway and Sweden, and only few thousands in Finland and in Russia. Saami have gathered to where wealth is. And don´t want independence. How people can be so short-sighted, ehh. I wish Saami got their own independent country!

  63. Laputis

    Eyeopener:

    -“What and who of your “white-european” group (-s) have pursued occupation and still do you certainly will support that (those) action (-s).”

    I support? Give me a break. Look at what I have written about Saami, I definately wish them own independence.

    -“You are familiar with psychology I guess. True?? Then you also know that those who want to belong to a specific group want to demonstrate that they are “the boys”. They are the worst.”

    So you mean, I am “Finnish-wannabe”? You are amazing with your prejudices. I am not going to be “Finnish”, because I am not Finnish, and I am OK with that! I am supporting Finnish nationalists not because I want to be one of them, but because I have sympathies towards Finnish nation. Because I want that Finnish language is spoken after like 1000 years. And that Finnish ethnicity exists still after 1000 years. People like you or Enrique want to destroy all of that.
    And by the way, I have sympathies towards Saami people as well. I wish them to exist after 1000 years, and Saami language spoken after 1000 years. I wish I could move to the Lapland and support Saami nationalists.
    I have sympaties towards both – Finns and Saami. They both, by the way, are related people with related languages.

  64. Laputis

    Eyeopener:

    -“I assume you have read: “Emperor of lies”. An extreme example of you personality. If you haven’t read this book I advice you to read to get a better notion of your own “being in this world”. Probably you will not read it or use it as an example of “bad boys””

    What do you know about my personality. You misunderstand my posts anyway. I am saying to you “oranges”, and you hear “apples”.
    No, I haven´t read “Emperor of lies”. But I looked reviews in google now. The book is about Jews in holocaust, and one Jewish Mordechai, who is doing lies. You assume I am this Mordechai? What makes you to think so? You think that I am immigrant, who supports anti-immigration policy? This is where you see parralels? You are, of course, exaggerating. I am not totally and absolutely against immigration, how many times do I have to repeat this. I am against MASS immigration, which now takes place in Finland. I am saying “oranges” and you hear “apples” indeed.

  65. Mark

    Laputis

    “And what will happen in 2111? What wil happen to the world after 100 years, have you been thinking?”

    I see, so when I pull you up about being completely out of date in talking about immigrants taking your soil and wheat and oats, you suddenly switch to talking about 100 years to the future! I guess there is some kind of sense in there somewhere.

    “You don´t ask whether the mass immigration with immigrants living in apartments in Espoo is sustainable in long term. What will happen when humankind will run out the oil, and no replacement with same effectiveness will come?”

    This is not a problem relevant to immigration in Finland today. If you want to go banging a drum about sustainable energy into the future, go ahead, but please, try to stay on topic.

    “When oil will end, the crisis of humankind will start. And I see what can happen to immigrants and their descendants f.e. in Finland…”

    That may very well be true, a crisis, but that is a crisis affecting all the world’s population, not just immigrants in Finland, so I really fail to see the relevance here.

    “Why on earth people are so shortsighted?”

    Because you keep changing the subject? 🙂 Actually, hundreds of thousands of people the world over are working on developing sustainable energy, with the cost of solar power expected to reach parity with fossil fuel power generation by 2020, that’s 8 years away. Not only that, but other sources of energy production are being heavily researched, such as thorium reactors and fusion reactors, both with the radioactivity problems of fission reactors, though the expense means they really will be a longer term solution.

  66. Mark

    Laputis

    “So we all the time have to import immigrants, so that we would improve immigrant prospects.”

    Why do you work so hard to miss the point? If you put even half the effort into acknowledging the points of other people, we might approach something like a sensible conversation.

    The point was in response to your own point that more immigrants means more of a drain on services, and my point was that that is not necessarily true because a larger community also means that there are more resources within the community to draw on. It’s an important point, so don’t distort it. Geeesh!

    “The key word is – avoid exaggerations. We don´t need racist and intolerant society, but we also don´t need society, which accepts and opens arms to absolutely everything and everybody etc.”

    Well, you should be happy with Finnish immigration policy then, because it does not accept with open arms everybody who tries to come here. Of the 5212 applications for asylum in 2010, 3428 were refused. And you are saying we should avoid exaggerations? Fucking hopeless, you are!

  67. Laputis

    @ Enrique:

    Pretending to what you are not is not same as “acceptance into society”. I talk about those ideas of your´s that everybody living in Finland must be called as “Finns”. To you it is “acceptance into society”, to me it is “pretending to what many people are not”.

    I watched now the videos you posted here. I listened Brittish woman´s rants. Unfortunately I didn´t understand even 70% of what she said, neither what other people said, and I even re-watched the videos twice (this happens when ears are not trained for English language), so my opinions about dialogues might be wrong. But I´ll try to say my opinions. From one side, I understand her objections about immigrants and them pretending being “English” (what many of them essentially just aren´t). From other side, she is going into extremes (demanding everyone to speak English, even if the talk is between the immigrants themselves etc.). In overall, I found her disturbing. Ranting like that and saying stupid things doesn´t make things any better.
    But it doesn´t mean that I don´t understand some of her objections. She is right regarding being “English”. I agree with note that recent immigrants aren´t “English”. Well, I see that it can anger many people, who want to pretend to be “English” in order “to be accepted into society”. It kinda reminds me skin bleaching cremes and straightening hair balsams I find in “oriental” shops in Helsinki. Perhaps many immigrants bleach their skin and straighten their hair in order to “be accepted into society”. How sad this all looks in reality. People are pretending to be “white” to be accepted. And people are pretending to be “English” (aka “Finnish”) to be accepted.
    The sad thing about this all is that people don´t want to accept themselves, be proud of their ancestry, skin color, hair shape or whatever. And they try to pretend what they are not. The pretending, on other hand, angers many real whites, English or Finnish people. Pretending is something fake, unnatural.
    World is going really stupid IMO.

  68. Mark

    Laputis

    You have very little understanding of asylum or immigration rules in Finland.

    – “Why Finland would have any responsibility about actions (i.e. doubling or tripling the population) of those people? What Finland has anything to do with irresponsibility and short-sightedness of those people?”

    Finland does not receive economic migrants from outside the EU. To receive asylum, there must be grounds, meaning that there is evidence of persecution in the AS’s home country.

    And it has been said before, the reason that Finland does not throw up its hands in disgust and say that why they hell should they receive asylum seekers is because Finland has signed treaties that uphold universal human rights. You might not like it, but this was a decision taken by Finns, that reflects the majority attitude in Finland that human rights are important.

    Another point, fixing problems in those countries starts with developing economic activity, and one source of economic activity comes from the commercial endeavors of emigrants away from those countries. Second, a large obstacle to developing these countries post-conflict is land mines, which I notice that PS opposed Finland ratifying a treaty that bans land mines, in spite of the majority of Finnish aid going to countries that have had very significant problems with them (i.e. the Balkans and Africa).

  69. Laputis

    Mark:

    -“I see, so when I pull you up about being completely out of date in talking about immigrants taking your soil and wheat and oats, you suddenly switch to talking about 100 years to the future! I guess there is some kind of sense in there somewhere.”

    So you don´t see connection between soil, wheat oats and 100 years future? You are missing gigantic point then.

    -“This is not a problem relevant to immigration in Finland today. If you want to go banging a drum about sustainable energy into the future, go ahead, but please, try to stay on topic.”

    Population, environment and sutainability are strongly connected things. Geesh, you are blind to some things. Very blind…

    “Well, you should be happy with Finnish immigration policy then, because it does not accept with open arms everybody who tries to come here. Of the 5212 applications for asylum in 2010, 3428 were refused. And you are saying we should avoid exaggerations? Fucking hopeless, you are!”

    Applications from asylum seekers should be denied in 90% cases. Finland doesn´t have any responsibility for those asylum seekers, nor Finland is immigration country. Finland should accept Northern European or Russian asylum seekers only in case of war in Northern Europe or Russia, and even then in limited amounts. I sound rude and asshole here, I know.
    I believe that Finland has got something else to do than to worry about asylum seekers from other continents, who are accepted in other countries anyway. I don´t see Finland worrying about matters what really should worry it, instead, Finland worries about things that it shouldn´t worry so much about (it wouldn´t affect Finland anyway). In fact, Finland takes care more of people from other continents than from neighbour countries. In fact, in Helsinki there are many Nepalese, Chinese and Thai restaurants, but only few (if any) Russian or Estonian restaurants. If I want to eat Russian pelmens or panckakes, I have almost nowhere to go…The “multiculturalism” in Finland is one-sided, it doesn´t include neighbour ethnic groups. The “multiculturalism” in Finland is taken out of context. And thing about asylum seekers also in taken out of context. Finland is showing “good will” in accepting many of those asylum seekers, in the same time Finland doesn´t provide help to some other groups of people, which, in fact, are closer to Finland…I see a lot of double-standarts here.

  70. Laputis

    Mark:

    -“Finland does not receive economic migrants from outside the EU. To receive asylum, there must be grounds, meaning that there is evidence of persecution in the AS’s home country.

    And it has been said before, the reason that Finland does not throw up its hands in disgust and say that why they hell should they receive asylum seekers is because Finland has signed treaties that uphold universal human rights. You might not like it, but this was a decision taken by Finns, that reflects the majority attitude in Finland that human rights are important.

    Another point, fixing problems in those countries starts with developing economic activity, and one source of economic activity comes from the commercial endeavors of emigrants away from those countries. Second, a large obstacle to developing these countries post-conflict is land mines, which I notice that PS opposed Finland ratifying a treaty that bans land mines, in spite of the majority of Finnish aid going to countries that have had very significant problems with them (i.e. the Balkans and Africa).”

    Mark, a lot of current Finnish actions and policies are taken out of context, or they are one-sided! I can tell you that, because I am from Russia, and I see Finland from a different perspective than you do. Finland has ignored fact that Russia is it´s neighbour country. I see this ignorance in so many things! Finns will rather know about forest cuttings in Africa or South America than about forest cuttings in neighbour Russia (which take massive scale there)! Finns will rather know about Amerindians than about similar northern ethnic groups in Russia. Finns will rather take care of foreign asylum seekers than take care of related people (Finnic-speaking people) in Russia. Finns are caring of things that are barely their benefit, in the same time they don´t care about things that could be their benefit! Many Finnish actions currently look irrational to me. You can explain those actions only when you know that Finns have ignored and put under the carpet Russian issue. That´s the problem with Finland – currently it has simply ignored it´s geographical, historical and ethnic position to Rusia.

    And I don´t understand why Finns are giving aid to other continents, when their direct neighbours would need aid also, and why Finns are adopting many African or East Asian children, when many children from neighbour post-Soviet countries would need adoption also and so on and so on. Finns do a lot of wrong and unjustice actions towards their eastern neighbours.

  71. eyeopener

    @ Laputis.

    Distorting history should be your teaching subject. I advise you to really study Finn-Russian relationships through time. You might find some disturbing artefacts (from your point of view).

  72. Mark

    Laputis

    – “Mark, a lot of current Finnish actions and policies are taken out of context, or they are one-sided! I can tell you that, because I am from Russia, and I see Finland from a different perspective than you do.”

    Your sentence is empty, perhaps unintentionally. Which Finnish actions, and what context? And one-sided in what way? And your only qualification for saying ‘nothing’ is that you are not from Finland and so you see it absolutely clearly, while Finns don’t.

    Oh dear, Laputis! And this was in response to me catching you out saying that Finland has open arms to immigration and showing you that some 60% of asylum applications were rejected by Finland last year. I’m not surprised you lapsed into a kind of fog trying to process that information 🙂

    – “Finns will rather take care of foreign asylum seekers than take care of related people (Finnic-speaking people) in Russia.”

    Well, now you smear the good name of Finland and you project a lie into the bargain. I work with a Finnish government agency that has done extensive, hear me again, EXTENSIVE co-operation work with Russia and in particular the neighbouring provinces to share expertise, improve the life of Russians bordering Finland, and to fund development projects there. Hear me again, FUND! Hard cash from Finnish taxpayers, going to neighbouring co-operation.

    So stick your foot back in your jack boot and do your fucking homework for a change, and I mean, the real homework, not that nationalist, racist rubbish that’s clouding your thinking and judgment.

  73. Laputis

    Eyeopener:

    -“Distorting history should be your teaching subject. I advise you to really study Finn-Russian relationships through time. You might find some disturbing artefacts (from your point of view).”

    Oh gosh, you are really unbelievable. 😀 I know Finnish-Russian relationships very well. I know opinions from both sides (Russian and Finnish). I know a lot more things than you do, for sure.

  74. Mark

    Laputis

    – “So you don´t see connection between soil, wheat oats and 100 years future? You are missing gigantic point then.”

    Ughhhhhh, nope, I don’t see the ‘gigantic’ point.

    And if by that point you mean an energy crisis, then I’ve already stated that this is a problem facing all nations and people’s, not just Finns and not just immigrants living in Finland. And so again, I don’t see the obvious connection.

    – “Population, environment and sutainability are strongly connected things. Geesh, you are blind to some things. Very blind…”

    Hahahaha! Yes, I’ve got me glasses on! Now this is what I see – I see you talking about specifics, to do with immigrants taking your soil, oats and wheat. I then relate your specific point to the fact that we don’t farm the land ourselves nowadays but pop down the shop to get those things and that ‘soil’ is not biggest demand of immigrants coming to Finland. Jobs, now that might be more accurate. Then, when I have made these very specific points in reply to your very specific points, then suddenly, the conversation gets all vague and blurry – we are not longer talking about what is happening now, but what happened a hundred years ago and a hundred years into the future. Nothing specific mind, except vague reference to an energy crisis and some hopping up and down over the blindness of nations who cannot see this crisis coming (as if!). And then, again, you jump to the bigger categories and proceed to tell me that population, environment and sustainability are strongly connected and that I’m blind because seemingly I don’t see that! Of course, you don’t say how they are connected, only that they are strongly connected. I guess you mean the stealing oats, wheat, soil and the energy crisis that’s coming in a hundred years. Yep, I can see that I really don’t have the intellectual capacity to grasp the importance and subtle connection between these things. Thank God I have you to educate me.

    – “Applications from asylum seekers should be denied in 90% cases.”

    Fuck me! And you say you are against mass immigration? Can you imagine what would happen if the world was told that Finland is going to reject 90% exactly of all applications. That means that you are going to guarantee 10% of all applications. I would expect the 6000 or so applications a year would increase maybe 100-fold. Let’s see, 10% of 600,000 annual applications would be about 60,000 immigrants a year! Sounds like a great idea!

    And on what grounds are you going to deny the 90%? Sorry, you are denied because we need at least 90% rejections. No reason, just have to meet the targets, sorry!

    You are a child in a man’s world, Laputis. Now go get yourself an education and then you can start to talk and think about these things that you pretend you care about so much, but which you have only the tinniest rudimentary grasp of.

  75. Laputis

    Mark:

    -“Your sentence is empty, perhaps unintentionally. Which Finnish actions, and what context? And one-sided in what way? And your only qualification for saying ‘nothing’ is that you are not from Finland and so you see it absolutely clearly, while Finns don’t. ”

    There is a thing called “information barrier” which can be due linguistic barriers etc. Majority of Finns (and also many immigrants) don´t know Russian language, and, on other hand, majority of people from Russia don´t know neither English nor Finnish language. It creates kind of gap between informational spaces in Finland and Russia. I have seen it many times. Finns are often unaware of things going out in Russia, but they are informed (through English-speaking channels) about what is going on in other parts of the world. It creates distorted space relationships. And many Finns live in this distorted informational space. You don´t see it, and many Finns don´t see, but I do.
    However, it is enough to bring Finns over the border, to show them, what things look like just behind Finland´s border…

  76. Seppo

    “they try to pretend what they are not. The pretending, on other hand, angers many real whites, English or Finnish people.”

    Laputis, maybe you should not, as a self-proclaimed non-Finn, try to define Finnishness for us Finns.

    I am a so-called “ethnic Finn”, that is a white native speaker of Finnish whose parents, grandparents and grandgrandparents are born on this land called Finland. However, for me, Finnishness does not necessarily have anything to do with skin color, mother tongue, religion or birth place. In many cases it does, but not necessarily.

    Finnishness is an identity, a social construction. Whoever embraces this identity, is a Finn. The reasons and ways through which people have acquired a Finnish identity may vary greatly! This identity is essentially a personal one and it’s up to each individual himself to define which identity construction he is part of, if any.

    Finnishness and especially the Finnish language are very dear and important to me. But I’m sure that making Finnishness a more open, diverse and inclusive category will not hurt us as a people and a society, quite the opposite.

  77. Mark

    Seppo

    Yes, I like what you wrote Seppo.

    – “Finnishness and especially the Finnish language are very dear and important to me. But I’m sure that making Finnishness a more open, diverse and inclusive category will not hurt us as a people and a society, quite the opposite.”

    Some people in Finland, a very small minority, who love being Finns, nevertheless don’t seem to have much of a concept of what being Finnish is for the majority of other Finns. They want this groups called ‘Finns’ to only include white people born and bred here for generations and consider people from other parts of the world to be so alien that there is no way they can possibly belong to this group. They are happy with that. The only problem is that the vast majority of Finns do not want to belong to this group and that fact mostly escapes them or they dismiss it as disloyalty or liberal nonsense. While that keeps them busy arguing, it does not dismiss the fact that their ‘family’ of inward-looking Finns is very small and sadly, denies the reality of the identity of the majority of Finns, of Finnish people of different ethnic descent and even of people living outside of Finland, who are all imagined to various degrees of insanity, to be inadequate compared to ‘Finns’.

  78. Mark

    Seppo

    Identity is a question of groups and belonging. We belong in a family, we belong in our community or locality, we belong in a nation. And for some people, not many, it ends there. No wider humanity, except the faceless faces of tourists or the equally faceless faces of economic traders. None of these ‘threaten’ the family.

    Not only that, the part of the brain that sees the community/locality/nation that they love only sees a very small part and rejects the rest. They do not see you, Seppo, as expressing an essentially Finnish personality, because you are open to something beyond ‘nation’, and even to diversity in the groups where they want to see only ‘Finns born and bred – white, Scandinavians etc.’.

    The problem is profound. Their identity is based on exclusive group membership. However, that group, made up of other Finns, is not one bit bothered about making it ‘exclusive’. In fact, they might even be very hostile having this small exclusive ‘inner club’ telling the rest of the family what it means to belong to that family and who can and cannot belong.

    For all that nationalists in Finland, native born or visitors, pick arguments with immigrants about their coming to Finland, the greater battle is really with other Finns, the vast majority of other Finns, who are rather sick and tired of this small ‘band of brothers’ giving Finland a bad name in the wider world.

    And it all happens because their identity stops at ‘nation’ and fails to extend to something called ‘humanity’. Not to say that they cannot be humane, but it’s always a frugal diet of compassion and almost exclusively based on ‘familiar relation’. But this failure is not a failure of humanity necessarily, it is a failure of ‘family’. When someone starts dictating who can belong to the family, who should marry who, who gets to wear what and eat what at the family gatherings, then people are going to get rather pissed off.

    The answer to these idiots is really very simple. There are other people in the world. It’s time they extended their vision beyond the fence post!

  79. Laputis

    Mark:

    -“Oh dear, Laputis! And this was in response to me catching you out saying that Finland has open arms to immigration and showing you that some 60% of asylum applications were rejected by Finland last year. I’m not surprised you lapsed into a kind of fog trying to process that information :)”

    I am sorry, but when my relatives visited Finland this summer, they were surprised to see so many immigrants here. One of my relatives visited Finland also 10 years ago, she said, that she didn´t see then so many foreigners in Finland as now. This “mass immigration” is obvious to people, who visit Finland periodically. I am not taking out of empty air idea about “mass immigration”.

  80. Laputis

    Mark:

    -“Well, now you smear the good name of Finland and you project a lie into the bargain. I work with a Finnish government agency that has done extensive, hear me again, EXTENSIVE co-operation work with Russia and in particular the neighbouring provinces to share expertise, improve the life of Russians bordering Finland, and to fund development projects there. Hear me again, FUND! Hard cash from Finnish taxpayers, going to neighbouring co-operation.”

    I know many more projects in Russia, or from Russia, where Finns could have invested something, but they stand untouched. Finland could take a look further than closest neighbour region.
    Well, you are just unaware of what is really going on, and I don´t blame you. You simply have lack of knowledge. Gap of information…

    What is going on now in Finland, all that “mass immigration”, all that “multiculturalism” etc. can be explained only by existence of distorted informational space in Finland. In fact, Finland is not your regular Western country, although the distorted informational space makes you to think that Finland is such. In reality Finland is next to Russia, next to Eastern Europe etc. In reality, the largest immigrant groups in Finland are Russians and Estonians. But current “multiculturalism” in Finland is aimed not at Russians, not at Estonians, but at across-ocean immigrants. And so on. We have to look at bigger picture, what is in reality is going on.

    -“So stick your foot back in your jack boot and do your fucking homework for a change, and I mean, the real homework, not that nationalist, racist rubbish that’s clouding your thinking and judgment.”

    I am sorry, but who is really clouded here??? Being nationalist is not same as racist. And, by the way, I have clothes with swastika symbols. Am I nazi? Haha, of course you think now I am nazi! You have been educated, that swastika is symbol of evil nazis. But the clothes of mine with swastika symbols are folk clothes from my ethnic group! Swastika has existed thousands years before Hitler was even born! Swastika in many populations meant, and still means luck and prosperity. Only westerners such as you are clouded by judgement that swastika is “Nazi symbol”.
    So you similarly judge also about many of my writings. My anti-mass-immigration position you regard as “racism”. My statement about nationalism you regard as “racism” or “nazi”. You have clouded and blurred understanding about what I write.

  81. Mark

    Laputis

    – “One of my relatives visited Finland also 10 years ago, she said, that she didn´t see then so many foreigners in Finland as now. This “mass immigration” is obvious to people, who visit Finland periodically. I am not taking out of empty air idea about “mass immigration”.”

    Look, you cannot talk about ‘open arms’ mass immigration and then contradict actual data with just ‘but my relatives see many foreigners in Finland now’. You really make yourself look stupid.

    I’m trying to do you a favour here. If your relatives notice more foreigners, it’s because there are. You don’t get a Nobel prize for noticing that. But the biggest share of immigrants is from Russia, as you know, at 0.8%. But they mostly look the same as Finns.

    So you must be talking about Africans, Arabs and Asians. And they constitute less than half a per cent of the population. And that Laputis, as I’ve mentioned before, is not by any stretch ‘mass immigration’.

    Now if in 20 years it’s 20%, then maybe you would have a point, though I would still think that you are no more and no less a racist nationalist. Just you would be right about your facts for a change.

  82. Laputis

    Mark:

    -“Ughhhhhh, nope, I don’t see the ‘gigantic’ point.

    And if by that point you mean an energy crisis, then I’ve already stated that this is a problem facing all nations and people’s, not just Finns and not just immigrants living in Finland. And so again, I don’t see the obvious connection.”

    Oh, are you person with poor judgement? If nations and people are hit by crisis, do you know what can happen there? Right, uprisings and even wars. And do you know who can be sufferers from those uprisings and wars? Yes, “alien” people. I.e. descendands of immigrants, people with other religious or ideological systems. If economics fail in Finland, if supermarket shelves suddenly stand empty (by the way, I have experienced something like that in my life! I.e. when USSR collapsed), if people run out of food. Then native people, who can be in majority, can feel like they want to kick “strangers” out of their land (yeah, because of this ideology “the land, wheet and oats are ours, they belonged to our grandparents”). Or something along these lines.
    How this all is connected to nature or environment? If they fail, also economics fail. Purely and simply. Nothing is “out of context” here.
    I am just trying to be realist. Pardon me.

    -“Fuck me! And you say you are against mass immigration? Can you imagine what would happen if the world was told that Finland is going to reject 90% exactly of all applications. That means that you are going to guarantee 10% of all applications. I would expect the 6000 or so applications a year would increase maybe 100-fold. Let’s see, 10% of 600,000 annual applications would be about 60,000 immigrants a year! Sounds like a great idea! ”

    I was talking in context of your numbers, don´t skew now them, please. Yes, you are right that there should be set limit of numbers of accepted refugees, something like few tens of people per year. I am angering you, don´t I?

  83. Mark

    Laputis

    – “Finland could take a look further than closest neighbour region.”

    Based on what political mandate? Last time I heard, Russia was a sovereign country with its own local governments. It is not Finland’s job to ‘fix’ Russia. As it is, what you said was a smear on Finland’s good name and on it’s co-operation efforts with Russia.

    – “What is going on now in Finland, all that “mass immigration”, all that “multiculturalism” etc. can be explained only by existence of distorted informational space in Finland.”

    This sounds like the language of KGB conspiracies! 🙂 Am I warm?

    – “You have been educated, that swastika is symbol of evil nazis. But the clothes of mine with swastika symbols are folk clothes from my ethnic group.”

    Bollocks. I was reading about swastikas and their symbolism in Hindu culture probably before you were born.

    – “Only westerners such as you are clouded by judgement that swastika is “Nazi symbol”.”

    Now how difficult would it be to actually ask me what I think about swastikas rather than assuming I know nothing?

    The first 10 mentions of the word Nazi on this page were by you. All in all, you mentioned the word Nazi 25 times. The only other use of the word Nazi (6) in these posts were in direct response to your comments. In fact, here is what Eyeopener said to you –

    – “I just can help making understanding, that anti-multiculturalism or anti-mass-immigration are not same as racism, and that nationalism is not Nazism.”

    See, people are agreeing with your basic point and you are still crying foul. What a fucking knob you are!

  84. Laputis

    @ Seppo:

    I was writing already somewhere about that Finns is first and foremost ethnicity. And that it is quite much descended thing down the generations. It´s general rule from Atlantic ocean to Pacific ocean. However, in many cases it´s enough with only one parent being Finn, that the child would be regarded as Finn. It´s also general rule. Half-bloods can be counted as Finns, even if they have different skin color etc. Well, this is where Finnish identity should be indeed inclusive. You perhaps didn´t read my posts properly, I was explaining very much and detailed, what “ethnicity” means to me.
    Finnish language and identity historically has been passed down mainly patriarchally. The males brought proto-Finnish language to Finland, you can see it from genetic studies, where you see, that most of Finnish males carry Y chromosome haplogroup N1c. They might have took local women, who were not of Finnish descend. Of course, there are also other mechanisms how language or identity can be descended down the generations. But you see, that language, and also identity can be passed down only through one parent.
    I think that nowdays mixed children often can themselves choose one of identities, or have both identities etc.
    The problem with “Finnish” identity is that it involves two different meanings – ethnic one, and national one. I wrote already that “Finnish” identity is first and foremost ethnic thing. But, since country Finland has similar name, it creates confusions. Many people can regard “Finnishness” as national meaning. I think this confusion can be solved, when ethnic Finns are called as “Finns”, but Finland´s nationals called as “Finlanders” etc.

  85. Mark

    Laputis

    – “Nothing is “out of context” here. If economics fail in Finland, if supermarket shelves suddenly stand empty (by the way, I have experienced something like that in my life! I.e. when USSR collapsed), if people run out of food. Then native people, who can be in majority, can feel like they want to kick “strangers” out of their land”

    Why, because Finns are so fucking stupid that the first thing they would do in an energy crisis is start attacking foreigners or foreign-looking people? What planet are you on Laputis.

    And this possible threat of mass stupidity in the future in the face of an energy crisis is what you want to use as an argument against mass immigration today? And that is your gigantic point?

    I do notice that you did nothing to reply to concrete examples of research into renewable/safe/sustainable energy production of the future. Nope, that would just be too much like common sense. Instead, you would rather tell me how I’m a person with poor judgment.

    Okay, here is my judgment. You tell me that people who are different ideologically, religiously or ethnically from the majority will be the target of the wrath of the [stupid] majority during a national energy crisis in 100 years when all food is gone from the shops. I guess you also mean that minorities suffering in this way is not a good thing. But this possible suffering in the future—which you use as an argument against mass immigration today—is more important to you than the suffering that minorities would suffer today because idiots like you decide that people who are different cannot mix in society? And I’m supposed to think you care?

    I don’t think you are a Nazi. I think you are a Narcissist that has no real concept of what other people are trying to tell you. Come on, a little test for you. What has been my main argument against you? Paraphrase me! Let’s see if you are capable of actually articulating what people who have different opinions to you actually think.

  86. Mark

    Laputis

    – “Yes, you are right that there should be set limit of numbers of accepted refugees, something like few tens of people per year.”

    lolololol You are fucking clueless. So, what is it then, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80 or 90 applications for asylum accepted per year in Finland?

    You do realise that Finland is breaking its treaty obligations if it were to send asylum seekers back to a country where there is evidence they were persecuted? So basically you rip up those treaties? Because who the fuck needs human rights, eh!

  87. Laputis

    Mark:

    -“Based on what political mandate? Last time I heard, Russia was a sovereign country with its own local governments. It is not Finland’s job to ‘fix’ Russia. As it is, what you said was a smear on Finland’s good name and on it’s co-operation efforts with Russia. ”

    Oh dear…On one side Finland must “fix the world”, so it has to accept refugees, give donations to African children, on other hand it shouldn´t “fix Russia”. In one case Finland has good name, in other case bad name. Double-standarts, anyone? There are things in Russia, which should be fixed, and they are of quite primary importance to Finland itself. Brilliant example is nature protection, limiting industrial emissions etc.
    But not all of Finnish interests about Russia is about “fixing”, they can be of cultural value. But there´s no point of arguing with you. It´s like giving pearls to…

    -“This sounds like the language of KGB conspiracies! 🙂 Am I warm?”

    Cold, freezingly cold, close to Antarctica.

    -“The first 10 mentions of the word Nazi on this page were by you. All in all, you mentioned the word Nazi 25 times.”

    But I am all those times using “Nazi” in sarcastic sense. Besides that, I wasn´t the one, who started using this word.

    -“See, people are agreeing with your basic point and you are still crying foul. What a fucking knob you are!”

    Wait, why do you claim that I am racist then?

  88. Laputis

    Mark:

    -“You do realise that Finland is breaking its treaty obligations if it were to send asylum seekers back to a country where there is evidence they were persecuted? So basically you rip up those treaties? Because who the fuck needs human rights, eh!”

    Now you are histerical. I didn´t say nowhere that asylum seekers must be sent back to their home countries. In my opinion, they just could be sent to other countries, who are either closer in terms of culture, geographically to home countries etc., either to countries with long immigration traditions.
    In my opinion, the refugee thing is exaggerated in Finland. The obligations to receive refugees makes sense when neighbour countries are torn in wars. In such case yes, Finland is obligated to receive refugees. But not when refugees come from countries with very different cultural, geographical etc. background.

  89. Mark

    Laputis

    – “But I am all those times using “Nazi” in sarcastic sense. Besides that, I wasn´t the one, who started using this word. ”

    Laputis, that is a fucking lie. I ask anyone who reads this blog to search this page. First ten mentions about Nazis are yours, Laputis. Now tell me I’m wrong?

    – “Oh dear…On one side Finland must “fix the world”, so it has to accept refugees, give donations to African children, on other hand it shouldn´t “fix Russia”.

    Last time I heard, nearly 50,000 Russian speaking immigrants in Finland, 26,000 with citizenship of the Russian Federation. So, are you really going to tell me that Finland has done nothing to help Russians?

    In March this year, Finland and Russia entered a bilateral modernization partnership, following a meeting of the Finnish-Russian Intergovernmental Commission for Economic Cooperation in St. Petersburg. The declaration was signed by Finnish Minister for Foreign Trade and Development Paavo Väyrynen and the Russian Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov. The areas of cooperation were listed as energy efficiency, generation of electricity and heat, information technology, the forest industry, shipbuilding and the shipyard industry. It was acknowledged that Finland has special know-how in all of these fields that Russia could benefit from. The commission will meet once a year from now on to monitor progress in this partnership.

    Now no doubt you know better about all these things. So tell me, what exactly should Finland do?

    – “It´s like giving pearls to…”

    Who do you think you are, Jesus Christ? 😀

  90. Mark

    “The obligations to receive refugees makes sense when neighbour countries are torn in wars. In such case yes, Finland is obligated to receive refugees. ”

    Actually the whole point of the declaration on the rights of the refugees was about alleviating the pressures on countries neighbouring conflict zones or persecuting regimes, who receive many more refugees than they can cope with. For example, a single refugee camp for Somalis in Dadaab Kenya has nearly 500,000 people in it, and is now unofficially Kenya’s third largest city.

    – “But not when refugees come from countries with very different cultural, geographical etc. background.”

    Why? Because Finns are too stupid to know how to deal with people from different cultural or geographical backgrounds? Or is there another reason?

  91. Laputis

    Mark:

    -“Laputis, that is a fucking lie. I ask anyone who reads this blog to search this page. First ten mentions about Nazis are yours, Laputis. Now tell me I’m wrong?”

    Yes, you are wrong, because Enrique used Nazi word before me, for example.

    -“Last time I heard, nearly 50,000 Russian speaking immigrants in Finland, 26,000 with citizenship of the Russian Federation. So, are you really going to tell me that Finland has done nothing to help Russians?”

    Those Russians are not refugees LOL, and majority of them came to Finland either due intermarriages with Finns, either due work contracts, either due their Finnish ancestry (especially with Ingrian ancestry). However, I would say that their numbers should remain limited (especially those of ethnic Russians).
    Anyways, I am not talking about help to Russians. I am talking about something else…Whatever.

    -“Who do you think you are, Jesus Christ? :D”

    I am not Christian, LOL 😀

    -“Actually the whole point of the declaration on the rights of the refugees was about alleviating the pressures on countries neighbouring conflict zones or persecuting regimes, who receive many more refugees than they can cope with. For example, a single refugee camp for Somalis in Dadaab Kenya has nearly 500,000 people in it, and is now unofficially Kenya’s third largest city.”

    I know. But as I said, it´s getting exaggerated. For releasing pressure to Kenya is not necessary to involve Finland into acceptance of Somali refugees. It´s enough to involve into Somali refugee ” settling project” few countries, IMO it is enough. You don´t need to involve all the countries in the world.

    -“Why? Because Finns are too stupid to know how to deal with people from different cultural or geographical backgrounds? Or is there another reason?”

    You know what´s the reason, it has been discussed many times in this blog, not only by me. People with very different cultural or ideological (religious etc.) background can have difficulties with integrating etc. I think the reason has objective reasons, not necessarily racism.

    By the way, you didn´t answer to my question – why do you call me racist and my opinions racist?

    You see, the thing is that I am non-white person married to a white person. It sounds kinda ridiculous that I am “racist”.

  92. eyeopener

    @Lapitus.

    Are you better informed than me?? I really doubt that.

    But by all means, even it would be true that doesnot make you the Finnish Master of the
    Universe. I can read it from all your messages, you shoot so loud that maybe somebody will hear you: I AM A TRUE FINN!!

    Meaning what?? Answer the question JD asks you. Evasion again. Booooeeehhhhhh!!

    People like you are just empty shells !! Looking for a victim to marry. As you did. That in no way makes you Finnish. Like howling with the mob doesnot make you a mobster. However you seem to like it soooooo muuuuuuccccchhhh!!. Help here is a foreigner who want to show that he can be worse than you guys.

    Ever heard/saw that before??? I wonder.. what was it???

    Or are you going for the next station??

    Kicked out from some Asian area, called……?

    Hardly accepted in Finland but allowed because of marriage (I must say a clever move, you can’t get kicked out even if Finnish authority maight want to)

    But no face only a lot of shouting, excremental behavior and ostrich attitudes.

  93. eyeopener

    @ Lapitus.

    Is Mr. Lapitus a menber of Parliament or Ministryof Foreign Affairs?? Or an advisory to the Government??

    Then: if you challenge me: What opinions do you know? Who are involved? What are the issues?? From both sides?? Names.You probably will avoid answering these questions anyway?

    And you know why?? Because you only BLABLABLA….. your answer make me smile.

    Challenge me please on your field of knowledge!!

    BLABLABLA is for the bar where you can impress people. Maybe!!

  94. Seppo

    Laputis,

    “Finns is first and foremost ethnicity. And that it is quite much descended thing down the generations. It´s general rule from Atlantic ocean to Pacific ocean.”

    Who are you, as a self-proclamed non-Finn, to say what Finns are and are not? To me and most of my fellow Finns, Finnishness is NOT first and foremost ethnicity, even though it has some features of an ethnic identity.

    “You perhaps didn´t read my posts properly, I was explaining very much and detailed, what “ethnicity” means to me.”

    I did. I just don’t agree with you when it comes to Finnishness.

    “The problem with “Finnish” identity is that it involves two different meanings – ethnic one, and national one. I wrote already that “Finnish” identity is first and foremost ethnic thing. But, since country Finland has similar name, it creates confusions. Many people can regard “Finnishness” as national meaning. I think this confusion can be solved, when ethnic Finns are called as “Finns”, but Finland´s nationals called as “Finlanders” etc.”

    The modern concept of Finnishness is less than 200 years old and was always meant to be a national one. Before nationalism there was no “ethnic Finnish” identity. The different Finnish tribes did maybe feel some affinity with each other but it was not wide-spread and consistent. From the very beginning, the concept of Finnishness included also the Swedish-speaking Finns.

    At the moment there are some people who want to aggressively highlight the ethnic component of the Finnish identity, thus trying to exclude different minorities. I strongly disagree with this. Finnishness has always included people with different linguistic, religious and cultural backgrounds and so it will also in the future. If you want to emphasize which (ethno-linguistic) sub-group of Finns you represent, then you can always say that you are a suomenruotsalainen or a suomensuomalainen or a suomenvenäläinen or a suomensomalialainen etc. We don’t need to create an artificial concept of “Finlander” for that.

  95. Mark

    Laputis

    – “Yes, you are wrong, because Enrique used Nazi word before me, for example.”

    Nope. Not on this thread. You mentioned it first. And in the next post, you then mentioned it 9 times in one post, before anyone else had even got around to replying to your first post. Eyeopener mentioned concentration camps in reference to Huxley’s novel ‘The Island’, but rather about using barbed wire to keep people in. Not anything to do with Nazis. But I guess that got you started on your hobby horse.

    – “Anyways, I am not talking about help to Russians. I am talking about something else…Whatever.”

    Actually, you were very specifically talking about helping Russians, both in Russia and here in Finland. Here you go, some quotes of your posts: “There are things in Russia, which should be fixed, and they are of quite primary importance to Finland itself.”…”I know many more projects in Russia, or from Russia, where Finns could have invested something, but they stand untouched. Finland could take a look further than closest neighbour region.”

    Next…

    – “For releasing pressure to Kenya is not necessary to involve Finland into acceptance of Somali refugees. It´s enough to involve into Somali refugee ” settling project” few countries, IMO it is enough. You don´t need to involve all the countries in the world.”

    Just some context here, there are currently 43 million people in the world today who have been forcibly displaced by conflict. That is ‘forcibly displaced’, not merely fleeing persecution. The vast majority of those refugees are from poor countries and are accepted into other poor countries (80%), while others remain internally displaced. Asylum applications across the EU for example are down in 2010. Several EU countries have declining populations, such as Germany (before immigration), Italy, Poland, Czech Republic, and Hungary (EU economic zone).

    You know, your closed mind to immigration just defies logic and the natural conditions. ALL societies have minorities, many are ethnic, some religious, many of them based around language. Take a look at this CIA WORLD FACTBOOK figures on ethnic groups in different countries. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2075.html

    Homogonous groupings are the very rare exception. This IS the world we are living in, and for the most part, people get on. Yes, some don’t, but the very idea that it cannot be a peaceful co-existence between different groupings is completely contradicted by the FACTS worldwide. Take Bangladesh, where 98% are of Bengali origin – nevertheless, nearly 10% of the population are Hindus compared to the majority Muslims. Take Jordan, 98% Arab, and yet within that ‘homogeneity, you have 6% Christians and 2% Shia Muslims and others. Add to this the 1.8 million Palastinian refugees and half a million Iraqi refugees in Jordan and you start to see that that homogeneity is not straightforward. These are the very few examples on the list with seeming homogenous populations in the high nineties.

    That is the world we live in. But somehow, you want to turn it all upside down and make it something else, something ethnically and religiously homogenous? Well, good luck, Laputis. Meanwhile, the rest of us will carry on trying to find ways to make it work, because there really is NO ALTERNATIVE, even if we wanted one.

  96. Mark

    Laputis

    – “By the way, you didn´t answer to my question – why do you call me racist and my opinions racist?”

    I’ve saved this for a separate post. You said, in your very long epistle at the beginning that being a racist was “you don´t tolerate some people because of their skin color or eye shape.”

    Wrong. Because you have defined racism so narrowly, and fail to acknowledge and understand that racism is something very much broader, a prejudice that crosses ethnicity, physical features and also religious beliefs. you allow yourself to hold racist views and never have to challenge yourself.

    Because you are of one ethnicity and your wife of another ethnicity, you think you have a it is impossible for you to hold racist opinions. Wrong.

    Some people are racist towards specific groups of people who they hold a negative opinion of based only on the knowledge that they belong to a particular ethnic, racial or religious grouping.

    You hide your racism very well behind nationalism. You talk in a very disciplined way about opposing mass immigration for the sake of ‘cultural and ethnic purity’, even while you accept that some groupings are historically not homogenous, like Kazakhstan.

    You are a special breed of racist: a racist who has experienced racism against him. Behind that victimhood, you can maintain that your nationalism is based only on matters of cultural, historical and ethnic purity, even while that ‘purity’ has absolutely no place in history. History is the story of the constant mixing of peoples.

    Okay, here is your crime sheet, a BB-style summary from this page of the comments that you have made that I think identify this racist prejudice that underlies your nationalism.

    “[Enrique wants to ] bring things and people (immigrants) that are unneccessary and even dangerous.” – Q. Why are some people dangerous just because they are not Finns? = racist!

    “what Finland would have been done for it “deserving” being flooded by immigrants?” – Q. So receiving people from other countries is a kind of punishment? = racist!

    “They rarely do any threat to the society, because such immigrants often integrate well.” – Q. Unlike some immigrants who are a threat.

    “The othe kind of immigration is more part of mass immigration. F.e. immigration of low-skilled people. Or immigration of refugees from other continents with remarkably different cultures.” Q. So low-skilled means no value, and remarkably different means also of less value? = racist!

    “They are more likely to refuse to integrate, thus creating social, political or economical threat and tensions to local society. I don´t support such kind of immigration, because it can bring danger to the local society, and tension.” Q. you mean refusing to give up their cultural heritage? And this makes them dangerous? = racist.

    “And Finland should stop giving social support for low-skilled immigrants” Q. Because naturally they are of less value than Finnish low-skilled workers. = racist!

    “I had neutral view on Gypsies until they stole musical instruments from my brother? I had no “racism” against Gypsies, now I have some.” Q. I’ll ignore your quotes around ‘racism’ – so you have negative views of gypsies, because one stole an instrument from your brother? = racist and stupid. 🙂

    “Sometimes it is better to look at some further cultures from distance, there is some truth to it.” Q. So basically, as long as you have ‘distance’ to another culture, it’s okay to have prejudiced views about those people? = racist!

    “Imagine, if the difference of ideologies between similar and related people such as Latvians and Russians make societies to clash, then what happens, if the clash happens among people, who differ also by race or moral, behaviour code etc.?” Q. So tension arising from differences of ideologies, race, morality and behaviour are acceptable and understandable? It’s okay for one group to think their way is right and the other group is of no value? = racist!

    “F.e. if some of my children would want to marry a Gypsy (though I don´t like Gypises in general)…” Q. Why would you not like Gypsies in general, because ONE stole something from someone you know? Did you even bother to find out it was the Gypsy who stole the violin by the way? One of the most blatantly racist things you’ve said. = racist.

    “I don´t like certain groups because I have different ideology than them, because their views can clash with mine, because their views can disturb me personally, because I don´t feel comfortable with them, because they don´t respect me, because they hurt me etc.” Q. So you don’t see ‘individual behaviour’, but you rather conflate the behaviour of individuals with the group they belong to. The end result being that you ‘don’t like certain groups’. = RACIST!

    “There can be many reasons, why I don´t like certain groups, but there always ARE REASONS.” Q. Have you ever met a racist yet that didn’t have a reason to not like a group of people? Nope, me neither. You claim you are open to new experiences and for that reason, you cannot be a racist. Wrong. = RACIST!

    “If you dislike somebody of race, well, you will never change your view, because nobody can really change their race. And that´s why I think my views have nothing in common with racism.” Q. Why would someone go to such lengths to equate racism only with prejudice against race, when all of the rest of the civilised world uncontroversially accepts racism to be prejudice based on ethnicity or race. Now why would you do that? = racist!

    “IMO the closer is the culture and ideological system of immigrants to Finns, the bigger numbers of them can be allowed to immigrate into Finland.” Q. So you are saying that the more different they are, the less value they have as citizens? I really don’t get why you think ‘different’ is an automatic source of tension, especially when it comes to ethnic groupings. = racist!

    “Racism is aimed at people of different race, different ancestry – the things, that are not changeable.” Q. Again, you separate race and ethnicity, contrary to convention, so that you can claim that people should ‘change’ their ethnicity and so integrate. And then, any prejudice, hate or dislike (which you have in buckets) against those groups is not racism. = RACIST!

    “Generalisation is same as racism? Give me a break!” Q. Negative generalisations towards groups coupled with various calls to water down the rights of immigrants (as above) is generally enough to convince me someone is a racist. = racist!

    “If people breed like rabbits and have lower mortality rate than birth rate, their population size increases, doubles, triples, and then people run out of resources.” Q. You don’t name names, but the fact that you can equate some human groupings with rabbits is really pretty low road stuff. = RACIST!

    Well, that’s enough. I want to finish on one other point.

    “Nationalism can be tolerant.”

    Yes, but it very rarely is. And for that reason, I would certainly question it’s value as a political or social ideology. In sum, you seem to think that ‘difference’ is a problem. For some people it is. But your solution is segregation. And that was never a solution before. And it will never be a solution in the future. So who is really being a realist here, Laputis?

  97. Laputis

    Eyeopener:

    -“Are you better informed than me?? I really doubt that.”

    I actually know Russian language. So, if you don´t know Russian language, I doubt you know better than me…

    -“But by all means, even it would be true that doesnot make you the Finnish Master of the
    Universe. I can read it from all your messages, you shoot so loud that maybe somebody will hear you: I AM A TRUE FINN!!”

    LOL you are sooo funny. I wrote exactly the opposite, that I am not Finn.

  98. Laputis

    Seppo:

    -“Who are you, as a self-proclamed non-Finn, to say what Finns are and are not? To me and most of my fellow Finns, Finnishness is NOT first and foremost ethnicity, even though it has some features of an ethnic identity.”

    Then you are different from Estonians. For Estonian people “Estonianess” is first and foremost ethnic identity. I didn´t know that Finns differ so much from Estonians even though they talk closely related languages?

  99. Seppo

    Yes, in this respect we differ from Estonians. You know, Laputis, linguistic relatedness is just that, linguistic relatedness. It does not necessarily imply cultural, historical or genetic closeness.

    Languages are transmitted in many different ways. I have a Singaporean friend who is a native speaker of English but has absolutely nothing in common with English people. He has dark skin and his culture and religion are totally different. This is a modern example how a language has spread through language change and not biologically. The same has happened throughout history. Linguistic relatedness does not necessarily imply genetic or cultural relatedness.

    In Finland, unlike in Estonia, the linguistic and cultural minorities have been traditionally given the chance to become a part of Finnishness and the mainstream society. I’m not saying it has worked perfectly, but it has been possible. Obviously I understand the Estonians, their language and culture were almost killed during the Soviet times, but I don’t think it justifies the current discrimination against the Russian speakers in that country.

  100. Laputis

    Mark:

    -“I’ve saved this for a separate post. You said, in your very long epistle at the beginning that being a racist was “you don´t tolerate some people because of their skin color or eye shape.”
    Wrong. Because you have defined racism so narrowly, and fail to acknowledge and understand that racism is something very much broader, a prejudice that crosses ethnicity, physical features and also religious beliefs. you allow yourself to hold racist views and never have to challenge yourself.”

    You are wrong. Because racism is about things what people can´t change, not about what people can change. Perhaps we have been taught differently what “racism” means? It seems so. Anyway, I disagree with you.

    -“You hide your racism very well behind nationalism. You talk in a very disciplined way about opposing mass immigration for the sake of ‘cultural and ethnic purity’, even while you accept that some groupings are historically not homogenous, like Kazakhstan.”

    Wrong. I am not talking in sake of cultural and ethnic purity, but in sake of preservation of culture and ethnic group. It is not same. How you don´t understand? For preserving cultural and ethnic group you don´t need purity. For example, a mixed-blood can contribute into culture more than pure-bloods themselves, I have seen that few times. Society can benefit from mixed people, from loaning something etc. Damn your imaginations and phantasies! Why you keep talking about “purity” if I like 10 times said, that half-bloods are acceptable, that I am not Nazi etc.? I don´t understand you! I have never been talking in favor of “purity”, it´s your own invention!

    And now I have to answer to list of your misunderstandings:

    -““[Enrique wants to ] bring things and people (immigrants) that are unneccessary and even dangerous.” – Q. Why are some people dangerous just because they are not Finns? = racist!”

    I was writing in some other topic, that a group of people called “wanderers” (i.e. immigrants, nomads etc.) can bring certain problems. Anybody can become “wanderers” with regarding mentality (not respect locals, their items etc.), even Finns can be “wanderers” if giving them circumstances. Mass immigration especially can promote “wanderer” mentality in immigrant groups (even if they are Finns). It´s doesn´t matter what their ancestry, language, skin color or whatever. So where is racism…?

    -““what Finland would have been done for it “deserving” being flooded by immigrants?” – Q. So receiving people from other countries is a kind of punishment? = racist!”

    Bringing people of different ancestry, culture etc. into small country like Finland can endanger existence of Finnish ethnic group in long term. This can be regarded as punishment upon Finns (i.e. endangering their existence in long run).
    I care for diversity. For both biodiversity, and human diversity.
    If biologists talk about preservation of species, then why I can´t talk about preservation of human groups?

    -““They rarely do any threat to the society, because such immigrants often integrate well.” – Q. Unlike some immigrants who are a threat.”

    You have taken this sentence out of context. I was talking about immigration in small scale, like intermarriages, highly qualified jobs etc. The immigrants doing less paid jobs, refugees and their descendants can be threat to society, because they often stratify society with regarding results. Where is racism, pardon me?
    The less are reasons for stratifying society, the better. Understand, goal should be equal society, but it is very hard to achieve if society is stratified. And poorly qualified immigrants are prime soil for creating stratified society. That´s where is threat. Yes, there is some racism involved, but from my side, but from side of society. I am simply trying to be realist.

    -“The othe kind of immigration is more part of mass immigration. F.e. immigration of low-skilled people. Or immigration of refugees from other continents with remarkably different cultures.” Q. So low-skilled means no value, and remarkably different means also of less value? = racist!”

    Actually, it is you here, who supports racism. Because bringing low qualified workforce to Finland, so that immigrants would do “dirty” jobs for their Finnish “masters” can be qualified as racism. Why Finns wouldn´t do those “dirty” jobs? Aren´t people equal?
    And why are you interested into stratifying society?

    -““They are more likely to refuse to integrate, thus creating social, political or economical threat and tensions to local society. I don´t support such kind of immigration, because it can bring danger to the local society, and tension.” Q. you mean refusing to give up their cultural heritage? And this makes them dangerous? = racist.”

    I told you about social stratification. It´s not my invention, it is reality. Saying the truth doesn´t make me racist.

    -““And Finland should stop giving social support for low-skilled immigrants” Q. Because naturally they are of less value than Finnish low-skilled workers. = racist!”

    LOL you are funny with your “they are of less value”. I didn´t mean that nowhere. I meant, that society should avoid stratification. Which is in favor for native people and immigrants alike.

    -““I had neutral view on Gypsies until they stole musical instruments from my brother? I had no “racism” against Gypsies, now I have some.” Q. I’ll ignore your quotes around ‘racism’ – so you have negative views of gypsies, because one stole an instrument from your brother? = racist and stupid. ”

    I thought that people should be treated equally, and that thieves are thieves anywhere, and accordingly punished, to me Gypsies are no exception. Only difference with what happened with them is that not just one single person, but several persons were involved into thieving. And they were supported by their families, we know that. In all other cultures thieves would be shunned, only not in Gypsy culture. You are so funny with your defense, you literally defend thieves. And you defend them only because they are Gypsies = Racism (i.e. preference somebody because of their skin color or ancestry).

    -““Sometimes it is better to look at some further cultures from distance, there is some truth to it.” Q. So basically, as long as you have ‘distance’ to another culture, it’s okay to have prejudiced views about those people? = racist!”

    WOW I didn´t even know that somebody can take my words in this way. Keeping distance from other cultures doesn´t mean keeping prejudices about them. It´s your own “brilliant” invention. Which doesn´t make sense.

    -““Imagine, if the difference of ideologies between similar and related people such as Latvians and Russians make societies to clash, then what happens, if the clash happens among people, who differ also by race or moral, behaviour code etc.?” Q. So tension arising from differences of ideologies, race, morality and behaviour are acceptable and understandable? It’s okay for one group to think their way is right and the other group is of no value? = racist!”

    Geesh, you are putting your own words into my mouth! You are writing “acceptable and understandable” which I didn´t mean at all!!! You have misunderstood heavily what I wrote and what I meant. Why is it so difficult for you to understand what I wrote, I wonder??? I thought it is something like primitive and simple!!!

    And the list of your misunderstandings goes on. I wonder if I can have conversation with you at all, if you keep misunderstanding me. Now I know why you call me “racist” – because you MISUNDERSTAND me!

  101. Laputis

    My typo: “Yes, there is some racism involved, but from my side, but from side of society. I am simply trying to be realist.”

    Should be “Yes, there is some racism involved, but NOT from my side, but from side of society. I am simply trying to be realist.”

  102. Laputis

    Seppo:

    -“Yes, in this respect we differ from Estonians. You know, Laputis, linguistic relatedness is just that, linguistic relatedness. It does not necessarily imply cultural, historical or genetic closeness.
    Languages are transmitted in many different ways. I have a Singaporean friend who is a native speaker of English but has absolutely nothing in common with English people. He has dark skin and his culture and religion are totally different. This is a modern example how a language has spread through language change and not biologically. The same has happened throughout history. Linguistic relatedness does not necessarily imply genetic or cultural relatedness.”

    Yes, I know, I said that languages or identities can be imposed in other ways than heritage. Other way of imposing is from the ruling upper class or strata. This is what has happened to your Singaporean friend.

    -“In Finland, unlike in Estonia, the linguistic and cultural minorities have been traditionally given the chance to become a part of Finnishness and the mainstream society. I’m not saying it has worked perfectly, but it has been possible.”

    Yes, I see that from the definition of Finland Swedes. They are included into definition of “Finnishness” don´t they? But I must say you have to be careful with inclusion something like everybody, because it can become threat to current Finnish identity. However, who am I to teach? 🙂

    -“Obviously I understand the Estonians, their language and culture were almost killed during the Soviet times, but I don’t think it justifies the current discrimination against the Russian speakers in that country.”

    What makes you to think that Russians are discriminated there? 🙂 IMO they are doing much better than my ethnic group in Russia.

    In any case, Estonians don´t call Russians living in Estonia as “Estonians”. They have clearly ethnic meaning of “Estonianness”. However, I think they have preserved more original concept than your Finnish concept of “Finnishness”.

  103. Mark

    Laputis

    “You are wrong. Because racism is about things what people can´t change, not about what people can change. Perhaps we have been taught differently what “racism” means? It seems so. Anyway, I disagree with you.”

    How convenient if that were true. But I have hit the nail on the head as far as your views are concerned. You think that ‘cultural’ stuff is all things that can be changed, and so when people refuse to give up their culture, you feel that hatred/dislike against them is justified. Not only that, you are quite happy to see their universal human rights violated and to offer them watered down rights to government support. You equate these groups with ‘low skills’, and high reproductivity. You also equate these groups with ideologies, behaviours, and beliefs that you dislike, and this is justification for disliking entire groups.

    This is the Oxford definition of racism: the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race , especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

    And this is Oxford’s definition of race, in case you want to think it refers only to physical characteristics: a group of people sharing the same culture, history, language, etc.; an ethnic group:

    Now does the penny start to drop? So if at any time you conflate individual characteristics that you are perfectly free to like or dislike with a racial characteristic, and then assign a negative value to that characteristic, then you are being racist. Come back to me when you have truly grasped the issue at hand and we can continue your proper education.

  104. Laputis

    Mark, you are laughable, sorry for saying that. Sorry, but you are trying to see things which are not present.

    I am wasting too much time here anyway, should stop the arguing.

  105. Mark

    Laputis

    – “I don´t understand you! I have never been talking in favor of “purity”, it´s your own invention!”

    I will concede this point. I think that you have not spoken of it in these terms, but rather, as you say:

    – “but in sake of preservation of culture and ethnic group.”

    But the end result is the same. Preservation of what? The purity of the tradition. And again, why does living alongside people with different customs stop you from following your own customs? It is not about making the feast of culture smaller, but making it bigger.

    You do realise that a popular stream of nationalism excludes certain ethnic minorities as belonging to the national community, even while others might be allowed? They view them as inferior and having no legitimacy. The place for minorities is either minimal or non-existant. You know this, from your own experiences, and yet you still justify it in places like Finland on the basis of ‘historical contintuity’ and because, well, there are certain groups that you just don’t like. And you don’t see why someone like me might think you were just a little bit racist? Tut, tut.

    – “If biologists talk about preservation of species, then why I can´t talk about preservation of human groups?”

    First, biological analogies for human society are notoriously problematic, and only an uninformed individual uses them as loosely as you do. Second, you imagine that preservation is only possible through isolation, that Finns have to live alone, without outside influences, in order to preserve their traditions. England has huge diversity, but do you think that we have given up our traditions? Nope. Most people ENJOY the diversity. At the end of the day, tolerance of culture is a choice.

    – “The immigrants doing less paid jobs, refugees and their descendants can be threat to society, because they often stratify society with regarding results. Where is racism, pardon me?”

    I understand your point. 1st generation Immigrants doing low-paid service jobs. But you make a mistake in imagining they are somehow low-skilled. I knew plenty of dentists and doctors in London working as cleaners. And their kids typically go to university. The racism element is how you use this argument as a tool to argue against immigration. On it’s own, it’s an interesting point, to which you give only a negative and narrow slant, and then only to somehow justify an anti-immigration stance. The other point being that you measure the intrinsic value of people within society based on the job they do (that is, the value as measued in the degree of rights they enjoy). This is not acceptable for a native population and it’s not acceptable for an immigrant population. And it just happens to be intrinsic to racism, which sees some groupings as having less intrinsic value as human beings or as social and economic beings.

    – “You are so funny with your defense, you literally defend thieves. And you defend them only because they are Gypsies.”

    Come on stupid, where have I defended the theft, and where have I done it on the basis that they were Gypsies. What I have said is that you take negative invididual behaviour and interpret that as a characteristic of the group. That is the classic dynamic of racism. But you really don’t want to acknowledge it, because it would require such a huge shift in your thinking and processing. It’s okay. I understand. You are not ready for a revolution in your philosophy.

    – “Geesh, you are putting your own words into my mouth! You are writing “acceptable and understandable” which I didn´t mean at all!!!”

    And why did I interpret it like that? Because you mention these tensions that arise and rather than ask individuals to take responsibility for their prejudices, you say it is actually the basis for denying the minorities a place in the host society. That is why I interpret that as racism. Now if I’m wrong, then please come out and condemn that kind of prejudice and accept that that is not a signficant justification for anti-immigration. It’s like saying, you cannot come to Finland because we are racist, and that is bad for you!

    – “Now I know why you call me “racist” – because you MISUNDERSTAND me!”

    Keep telling yourself that. I think that the interpretations I put on your words are sometimes subtle, sometimes not, so I understand that you imagine I misunderstand you. I have said before, I don’t think you are an extremist. But I do think you have very little grasp of what racism is and how pernicious it can be. On the fundamentals, I think I am right.

    You dislike certain groups because of your perception of their negative characteristics. This you have openly admitted, though you clothe in words like ‘ideology, behaviour and beliefs’. But your mistake is not even about seperating race and these other characteristics, these ‘changeables’ as you like to call them, but in deciding that these are characteristics of ‘ethnic groupings’. In a way, you are saying, this is your identity, and I don’t like it. The flipside of that coin is that my ‘racial’ characteristics are superior to yours.

    Now if you stopped talking about national groupings and brought this down to an individual level, I would think that you had given up your prejudices and were no longer a racist; that you identity certain characteristics of people that you don’t like, which I think is perfectly valid, though perhaps no less narrow-minded. But the minute you start switching to talking about groupings. you’ve lost your legitimacy to be critical.

  106. Mark

    Laputis

    – “I am wasting too much time here anyway, should stop the arguing.”

    On the contrary, I think it is very valuable to show how someone can have racist views without realising it, how they defend them and what it is that essentially proves that they are in fact being racist. This is a very valuable discussion, and I thank you for your patience with me.

  107. Laputis

    Mark:

    -“How convenient if that were true. But I have hit the nail on the head as far as your views are concerned. You think that ‘cultural’ stuff is all things that can be changed, and so when people refuse to give up their culture, you feel that hatred/dislike against them is justified. ”

    You have to understand, that people usually are against certain elements of culture or ideology. People dislike Gypsies because of their cultural tolerance towards thieving, people dislike Islam because of it´s attitude towards women etc. If those “disturbing” elements were taken out, people were more tolerant towards Gypsies or Islam then. You have to look beneath the surface, Mark.
    And those things, the elements, can often be changed. Everything what Gypsies have to do for acceptance is stopping thieving. And one of steps of Muslims have to do for acceptance from side of non-Muslims is banning hiding hair or even face for women. You see now?

    -” Not only that, you are quite happy to see their universal human rights violated and to offer them watered down rights to government support.”

    What? WTF??? Yet again you are amazing with your imaginary skills.

    -“You equate these groups with ‘low skills’, and high reproductivity. You also equate these groups with ideologies, behaviours, and beliefs that you dislike, and this is justification for disliking entire groups.”

    WTF again! What was I equating? Where? When?

    Should I laugh about your post?

  108. Laputis

    Mark:

    -“On the contrary, I think it is very valuable to show how someone can have racist views without realising it, how they defend them and what it is that essentially proves that they are in fact being racist. This is a very valuable discussion, and I thank you for your patience with me.”

    I think you are showing yourself as phantasier and skills in imagining. Most of arguing towards you is simply correcting you! You are making mistakes in perceiving my writings. Pardon me, but I didn´t come here to constantly correct someone´s mistakes!
    And what I realised, that you are willing so hard to see “racism” that you do see it everywhere. It´s almost paranoia.

  109. Mark

    Laputis

    – “Most of arguing towards you is simply correcting you!”

    Well, that could serve as an effective definition of any kind of debating.

    – “WTF again! What was I equating? Where? When?”

    Why are you so surprised. Stop for a second and ask yourself, have I said this in such a way that leaves me open to this criticism?

    Here, look at these two quotes:

    – “People dislike Gypsies because of their cultural tolerance towards thieving, people dislike Islam because of it´s attitude towards women etc.”

    ‘Their cultural tolerance towards theiving’. I see, so you think all Gypsies tolerate thieving? You think all Muslims oppose rights for women? If not, then don’t say it. I’ve said before, if this were a dislike of individual behaviour, it would be a valid criticism. When it’s a criticism that is made against an entire group, it is racism. Nothing less. Not made up, not imagined, but genuine, bona fida racism. You are deciding that national groupings have characteristics and, importantly, they are negative. Now if you were to talk about the positive characteristics as well, and also use these instrumentally to justify their place in society, then you have truly entered the realm of cultural criticism. But until you do that, you remain a racist. The same applies to women. If you are so concerned for women, then I would expect that you have been an activist on behalf of women, i.e. profeminist? You actively engage and debate on gender issues, arguing for the rights of women and the dismantling of male hegemony? I do that. Do you? Now if you don’t do that, then you only use the women’s rights issue related to Islam as a means to further your own nationalist agenda and the discrimination against Muslims. That’s instrumental use of an issue, and also, a smokescreen to hide women.

    Now maybe you feel this is a fantasy, i.e. that it does not apply to your nationalism. That might be true, but you can acknowledge that this does in fact go on in nationalist debates? This happens – people use one agenda to further another. It’s called giving lipservice to women’s rights. If you understand racism, then you can acknowledge that, if not you, then others have labelled certain groups with negative traits and they use that as a basis for prejudice? They USE IT to justify their prejudice. It’s not that the bad behaviour of the ethnic minority leads to that prejudice.

    – “Mark wrote: “Not only that, you are quite happy to see their universal human rights violated and to offer them watered down rights to government support.”

    Laputis wrote: What? WTF???

    You said that low-skilled immigrant workers should have their right to social welfare revoked. You spoke of immigrants and not natives, but if you want to include them, by all means do so, that would be even worse, You speak of low-skilled workers I assume in terms of marketable value, but the vast majority of ‘low-skilled’ jobs have very high intrinsic social value. Take kindergarten teachers – the pool is large because the demands are low for the job, but if they stopped doing their job, society would collapse. They are looking after our most treasured thing, our children. Their intrinsic value is high, and yet they are technically, ‘low skilled’. So even talking about low-skilled as if they were of less value betrays an inherant prejudice. The fact that you equate immigrants with low-skills is only another way of undermining their value as social and economic beings. You see, I am only processing what you have written. I’m not making anything up.

  110. Seppo

    “I see that from the definition of Finland Swedes. They are included into definition of “Finnishness” don´t they? But I must say you have to be careful with inclusion something like everybody, because it can become threat to current Finnish identity.”

    Yes they are included and the same way I would like to see other minority groups included in the concept of Finnishness. As long as the so called ethnic Finns are in the majority and – important – Finnish keeps its position as the dominating language of this country, I see no “threat” in this. Quite the opposite, I think a broader and more inclusive concept of Finnishness will among other things contribute to better integration of recent immigrants into the mainstream society.

    By the way, I see no reason why the Russian-speakers of Estonia could not enjoy similar status as the Swedish-speaking Finns of Finland. At the moment their linguistic rights are not even comparable to those of the Estonian speakers.

  111. Mark

    Laputis

    I’m trying to imagine where the common ground lies between us, where you begin to see I’m not ‘out to get you’ or even to paint you as a racist JUST because you oppose immigration. Maybe I need to tell you that I think uncontrolled immigration is not good. If this is what you are trying to say, then I agree. Why? Because immigration requires resources and it also requires time to ‘integrate’ with local society. It’s also important that resources (mostly housing) given to immigrants are not just re-routed from the poor in our communities, because that is a recipe for trouble. There are challenges, and the process has to be managed properly, of course.

    However, the kind of arguments that you have put forward have not targeted this sensible management of immigration, but rather seem to be justifications of your prejudice against certain groups. You imagine some out-of-control immigration that is going to leave native Finns dispossed of their culture and their history, and it’s just not going to happen, and certainly not at the rates of immigration currently taking place.

    However, Finland is likely to see more coloured people, like yourself, and this in what has been an almost exclusively a white culture, is going to change the ethnic landscape. Minorities when they are racially different do stand out, and people notice them, so that even a small number can seem like a lot.

    Now if people object to that simply because they look different, my view is that it is racism. I think you would agree, from what you’ve written. Any keep Finland white idea is racism, nothing else. It is a feeling that arises from suspicion of that which is different, from fear, from having one’s own identity somehow questioned. That is how it is in hegemonic societies – minorities upset the sense of ‘the natural equillibrium’. But it’s fear-based and it should be challenged as a particular kind of ignorance. The simplest answer is simply to get to know people from different backgrounds. Then the differences can be matched by similarities and an undersstanding of the shared values. And there are many values that people the world over generally share in common, love of our families, a desire to work and be productive, a desire to live in an honest community.

    This feeling of maintaining the ‘colour’ spectrum of Finland’s population has nothing to do with culture or cultural traditions. Cultural preservation is a red herring dreamed up by racists who happen to be intellectuals as well. Racists who are not intellectuals generally don’t give two fucks for culture or tradition; they just don’t like black people, or asian people etc. Other people are not honest enough to admit their prejudices and so indulge a kind of baised ‘looking down the nose’ at the foreigners, and imagine they are not really being racist, but the categories are the same, the negative epithets are the same and the effect in terms of an absence of tolerance is the same.

    I’m intrigued. What do you think racism is? Apart from disliking people who look different? What else is there to racism in your book?

  112. eyeopener

    @ Laputis.

    You are so much of a “PLEASE HUG ME FINNS” kind of a person. For that you are willing the run a mental maraton to show how “MUCH I LOVE YOU HUGGERS”. Even if it takes all personal degradation to show much much “NON-FINN” you pretend to be.

    Start HUGGING YOURSELF and come down from you “I BELONG NOWHERE PLATFORM”.

    Feeling lonesome tonight??

  113. Laputis

    Mark:

    -“Their cultural tolerance towards theiving’. I see, so you think all Gypsies tolerate thieving?”

    Hello, goodmorning, didn´t you know that thieving is part of Gypsy culture?

    If my words can´t convince you, then documentary video perhaps can (there are 6 parts in overall): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6B8zDpAE0w

    You will perhaps think “oh poor Gypsies, they must be living in poverty, so they are forced to steal and rob”. But hey, look at the last, 6. part, you will see Gypsy villas in Romania.
    Besides that, my own ethnic group lives mostly in poverty, but we are not known for stealing or robbing! Rather quite opposite actually!

    Stop pitying Gypsies! They themselves are largely guilty about the situation where they are.

    If some Gypsy has chosen different path, abandon stealing and robbing, and start honest working, I welcome this Gypsy with open arms. I hope all Gypsies one day will abandon these law violations!

  114. Mark

    Morning Laputis, you happy little racist! 🙂

    – “stop pitying Gypsies!”

    Where was I pitying Gypsies? Rather, I was pulling you up on the fact that you are taking individual behaviour and applying it to a group.

    There are problems in Gypsy community. Did you actually watch that documentary? At 1.50 of the first part, the documentary maker talks about the shocking racism that they face! I guess you skipped over that part and just listened to to the parts that confirmed the problem of organised crime.

    In Italy, the problems of organised crime are equally problematic and maybe even on a grander scale, involving murder, political corruption, trafficking of people and prostitution. But I don’t see you rushing out to condemn Italians as being a nation of thieves.

    Check this out, Laputis. One good video deserves another.

    http://www.megavideo.com/?v=G6E0188O

  115. Mary Mekko

    The original question about an Uncle Tom in Finland: wouldn’t that be a Finn of Russian Jewish descent, or a Swedish Finn? More Finnish than the Finns!

    I met a very interesting fellow on my last visit to Finland in 2006, one Erik of about 60, whose grandparents were Russian Jews. We met at the grand opening of the Mormon Temple, the days before its consecration. He was certainly an Uncle Tom, in despising the Russians! When I asked if he didn’t feel allegiance to the people his grandparents came from, no! He was a Finn!

    I suppose a few Somalians born and raised in Finland could become Uncle Tom’s, why not?

  116. Mark

    Laputis

    I want to come back to this, because today I read some interesting research on gypsies in the EU. You, like many others, have talked repeatedly about crimes carried out by gypsies and yet have nothing to say about crimes committed against gypsies. According to the EU MIDIS survey, just over 50% of Roma had experienced discrimination against them in the last year while 32% had been the victims of crimes, almost none of which were reported to police because of the lack of confidence in the same. Care to comment?

Leave a Reply