Mannerheim and Finnish provincialism

by , under All categories, Enrique

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  1. hannu

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

    Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact

  2. Tiwaz

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

    You are so right! We should have opened our arms to foreigners so that it would have been possible for USSR to establish 5th column in Finland!

    How we did not see how this would have made our life better…

    Honestly, I am noticing here serious need to bash Finns which leads to certain people to even ignore reality in their fervent desire to try to keep blaming Finns to be racists.

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

    And this is utter, absolute bullshit.

    Do you want reality? LOOK ACROSS THE GULF!

    Estonia did all the things you apparently hope Finland would have done. They opened their arms to the world, they did not doggedly stand for what was theirs despite the odds, not that they had much chance to succeed even if they did considering size difference.

    Reason for whole mess was lunatic running “multicultural” society which collapsed on it’s own impossibility. Stalin.

    Nothing short of bending over and playing dead would have prevented those wars.

    Winter war was all about Soviet aggression, which of course some people here again blame on Finns. After all, wonderful multiculturalist Soviets must have been so horribly first attacked by Finns that they had no alternative but go to war.

    Continuation was about opportunity to get back what was wrongfully taken during Winter war.

  3. Tony Garcia

    Well let’s talk about “petty“ nationalism, shall we?

    My grandfather was one of those “petty” nationalist you are talking about. He was living in Brazil and seeing what Mussolini was doing to Italy. When the war broke he voluntarily joined the Brazilian task force to fight for his country.

    He, among many others, gave his “petty” life so we could be here today enjoin freedom. The same freedom liberals are so ready to give up to appease Muslims.

    The same goes to my wife’s “petty” family members who lost their “petty” life in the war so you could insult and offend them in our blog.

    Let me tell you something, I’m proud of my grandfather nationalism. The same goes to my wife. And we spare no effort in teach our children about their sacrifice and how proud they should also be.

    From all the aspects of multiculturalism I don’t like, and they are many, what I hate most is its double standards.

    If one writes…

    “Racism is alive and kicking in Finland”

    Even though, he/she provides no substance to this allegation, it’s regarded as a must needed debate.

    However if one writes…

    “Honour violence is alive and kicking in Islam”

    Well… we all know what would happen, don’t we?

    • Enrique

      Tony, I commend what your grandfather did. I am the first person who will defend to the death our liberal, democratic ideals. I grew up in such countries and was educated in them. I have, as contrast, seen what it is like to live in autocratic countries.
      You speak of multiculturalism but I think in essence it is a synonym for equal treatment and respect for the law. Why should we even use such a term if the law guarantees such freedoms, like the right to one’s faith? While you speak of your grandfather fighting against fascism, you are actually suggesting that we should throw away our Constitution and Equality Act and put strict rules about how people should assimilate to our culture.
      Some do not make the distinction but I do: nationalism is when somebody thinks he is better than another person and patriotism is a sense of community.

  4. Tony Garcia

    “Can we still see this same suspicion and mistrust today sprinkled in our views of immigrants?”

    No we can’t and that has already been proved here time after time. This is just an easy way to “justify” the failure of some immigrants.

    • Enrique

      Amigo Tony, I moved to Finland on a permanent basis in December 1978. I have actually lived most of that time in this country and seen how it has grown from a relatively closed country with 12,000 immigrants to one with over 130,000 today and a EU member. Petty provincialism and the fact that Finland was geographically and spiritually isolated was one factor why there are still strong attitudes against immigrants. This is pretty incredible taking into account that 400,000 people from Karelia came as refugees after the war. Do you think they got a nice reception? Think again.

  5. Tiwaz

    -“You speak of multiculturalism but I think in essence it is a synonym for equal treatment and respect for the law. Why should we even use such a term if the law guarantees such freedoms, like the right to one’s faith?”

    Problem is that people of certain faiths refuse to accept that our laws are above that faiths laws.

    “While you speak of your grandfather fighting against fascism, you are actually suggesting that we should throw away our Constitution and Equality Act and put strict rules about how people should assimilate to our culture.”

    It is necessary for good of society to have immigrants assimilate instead of founding their own cliques.

    That is in interests of immigrants as well. I would say that laws should be changed to address the issue of immigrant refusal to adjust to Finnish society and conditions.

    My grandfathers did not fight to have Finland lose it’s identity and become yet another multicultural shithole. They fought to keep foreigners who would impose their ways upon us away from our home. To secure Finns land we can call our own, place where our culture remains supreme.

  6. hannu

    “This is pretty incredible taking into account that 400,000 people from Karelia came as refugees after the war.”

    Bullshit. They came as evacuee not as refugee and finland relocated them, of course since they were and are finns. And do you think it could be smooth operation when 11% of people had to move? I dont count finnswede assholes.

    • Enrique

      Hannu, some of you have given the word “refugee” such a negative meaning that you cannot apply to the Karelians. Well, they WERE refugees – people displaced by war.

    • Enrique

      –So called refugees gave bad name for it with people like you. Its insult to call karelians as refugee.

      That is what a refugee is and now you see what happens when you group different people into one category. My great gradfather was a refugee and I am very proud of him. So much so, in fact, that my third son carries his name.

  7. Tiwaz

    Karelians cannot be called refugees same way as refugees we receive today are.

    Karelians are and were culturally and linguistically connected to rest of Finland. They were, essentially, Finns.

    It could be said that it was massive movement of natives from one area of native land to another, and did not go without problems by long shot. Specially Swedish speakers were adamant in not permitting any of these Karelians in their areas.

    But ultimately issue was far cry from current refugee situation. Karelians were Finns, differences between them and people of areas they moved into were relatively small, compared to differences between Finns and refugees from abroad.

    Later refugees cause cultural conflict when their cultural tradition violates Finnish cultural tradition and refugees refuse to adjust to their new conditions.

  8. Tony Garcia

    Enrique I apologize if I misunderstood what you are trying to say in this post. It’s not the first time I find myself embarrassed for misuse/misunderstand a term or word when writing in English.

    But this time I did some homework before write my comment.

    From Cambridge dictionary…

    nationalism noun
    /ˈnæʃ.ən.əl.ɪ.zəm/, /ˈnæʃ.nə.lɪ-/ n [U]

    • the wish for and the attempt to achieve political independence for your country or nation

    • a great or too great love of your own country

    However it would be silly for me to engage in a discussion with you about English language…

  9. Tony Garcia

    “Do you think they got a nice reception? Think again.”

    If you say do, I don’t need to think again, I do believe you. That did happen, but now the reasons some groups are seen with suspicion in Finland is due their own behavior.

    Those very same groups are seen in the very same way all across Europe.

    “you are actually suggesting that we should throw away our Constitution and Equality Act”

    Nop I’m not, I’m suggesting the opposite, that we keep things just the way they are. No change no appeasement. Sorry Enrique we are not the one asking for changing to accommodate cultural backgrounds.

    I agree with what you said about law, respect and freedom, you just insist in saying it to the wrong group…

  10. Tony Garcia

    “…like the right to one’s faith?”

    That sounds good to me, but I wonder what we do when this right goes, somehow, against our laws and constitution?

    Can I set one example here?

    Islam, like Christianity has different groups within. Some more radical some less. One of the most radical, apparently, are the Shiites. Once there plenty of Shiites Iraqis coming to Finland and, as we already know, they won’t go back, we could use them as example.

    They have specific views about women rights. In many Shiites mosques in the UK women have special praying times. They can’t enter all the places and they can’t get any important job, if any at all.

    In Finland, however, gender equality works very well. The law is there and it’s enforced quite well, maybe not perfect, but quite well…

    So what if a group of Shiites decide to open a Mosque in Helsinki and impose their rules upon women? What shall we do Enrique?

    1. Tell them that they can practice their faith as long as they don’t discriminate against women, explaining our laws and constitution?

    2.In name of community cohesion and cultural sensitiveness just let them be?

    3.Change our anti discrimination laws making it flexible depending on the religion?

    4.Pretend that is not happening in the UK and won’t ever happen in Finland?

    What is the way to go?

  11. Tony Garcia

    Dr Taj Hargey my fellow immigrant I salute you. Amigo Enrique if we just had more immigrants like him, the life would be so much better…

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6938161.ece

    “Muslims who have settled in Switzerland (and elsewhere in Europe) should not confuse culture with creed. To become integrated into their surroundings, they must relinquish the cultural baggage of their ancestral homelands. They should practice a Swiss Islam that is rooted in the society in which they live.”

    “When European Muslims unthinkingly endorse this warped theology by desiring medieval Sharia, defending honour killings, stoning to death, forced marriages, Muslim exceptionalism and a separatist society, they only invoke fear and exacerbate anti-Muslim sentiment. When Europe’s Muslims extol such un-Koranic doctrines as the niqab (face veil), they exclude themselves from the mainstream.“

    And what I’ve been saying here time after time…

    “Only when Muslim immigrants and converts in Europe reject the twisted ideology of a fundamentalist male clergy will the chief causes of anti-Muslim prejudice in Europe recede”

  12. willie

    -“It is necessary for good of society to have immigrants assimilate instead of founding their own cliques.”

    Bingo. Tiwaz and I don’t see eye to eye on all things, put on this point I am in full agreement.

    When my ancestors left for the U.S., the first thing these ultra-religious Finns realized was that it would be beneficial for their women to lose the headscarves. Not too long ago, the religious Finnish women would keep their hair covered after marriage. They realized it would be beneficial to have their children educated in the working language of the land, although one small Finnish community in Minnesota filed a lawsuit against the state trying to win the right to educate their children in Finnish. Thank goodness those good-hearted simpletons lost that battle.

    Assimilation doesn’t mean you have to give everything up. Most American-Finns don’t speak Finnish these days, but they have held on to a few things that make up their cultural identity (sauna, sisu, alcoholism).
    Assimilation is a gesture to the host culture that one appreciates the benefits of being a USEFUL part of the culture.

    And might I add, that I as a maahanmuutaja am really starting to get pissed off by the pakolaiset. Its not racism that causes Finns to blur the two categories, its the moron refugees taking all the attention by refusing to become a productive part of Finnish culture.

    • Enrique

      -”It is necessary for good of society to have immigrants assimilate instead of founding their own cliques.”

      If you think of it, the US offers immigrants a lot of opportunities to adapt since it is a mosaic of nationalities and ethnic groups.If one ever did a study on immigrants in Finland, I think one of the first things that you would notice is how much some want to be a part of this society but cannot becasue they cannot find work to begin with.

      Willie, I don’t think that assimilation as a concept works. its meaning (giving up your culture) depends on which group you belong to (look at the situation of blacks/hispanics and Finns). The issue that makes US society so interesting and rich is its diversity. That, I believe, is the issue at heart in Finland as well – thus accepting diversity and being a part of this society (not being different and being excluded from society). On the one hand, the more self-starter the immigrant is in the adaption process the better; it is also helpful if society as a whole sees immigration as an asset NOT as something negative.

  13. hannu

    I would like that you enrique take beating as something richening and not something negative. Its diverse way how we look on how we can be touched.

  14. Tony Garcia

    “I think one of the first things that you would notice is how much some want to be a part of this society…”

    I would very much like to see this kind of study, I really want to know how much is this “some”…

    “its meaning (giving up your culture)”

    What part of… “but they have held on to a few things that make up their cultural identity (sauna, sisu, alcoholism).” you didn’t understand?

    “look at the situation of blacks/hispanics and Finns”

    Let’s have look at it, with group would you say have succeeded in their endeavour?

    “The issue that makes US society so interesting and rich is its diversity”

    Could we add violent in this list?

    “thus accepting diversity and being a part of this society ”

    And how should this be done? Imposed by legislation of ask the people how they want their country to be?

    “not being different and being excluded from society”

    Wrong, you exclude yourself from society when insist in being different.

    “it is also helpful if society as a whole sees immigration as an asset NOT as something negative.”

    They don’t, they see good immigrants as an asset and the bad one as a burden, and so do I…

  15. Tiwaz

    -“If you think of it, the US offers immigrants a lot of opportunities to adapt since it is a mosaic of nationalities and ethnic groups.”

    And never, not single time, did it occur to you that we are not speaking of USA? Have you EVER thought that because countries are DIFFERENT, solutions which may work somewhere do not work elsewhere?

    You apparently want to mold whole world into form of USA, because that is country you associate most. You cannot accept that we Finns want our Finland to be Finland. Not USA of Finland.

    Think about that for a moment someday and feel shamed of yourself.

    -“If one ever did a study on immigrants in Finland, I think one of the first things that you would notice is how much some want to be a part of this society but cannot becasue they cannot find work to begin with.”

    And this is because THEY DO NOT HAVE SKILLS TO WORK.

    You are hired to do a job, that means you must have skills to do it. If you do not, you are not hired. Why is this so difficult concept?

    I cannot get a job as CEO of Nokia or Chairman of Bank of Finland because I do not have skills for the job. Is this discrimination? No, it is about me not having skills to do my job.

    Immigrants should accept that they have to learn few things to have any hope of success.

    Finnish language and culture are first two things.

    -“Willie, I don’t think that assimilation as a concept works.”

    It has worked for generations. Assimilation and demand of cohesion has created greatest nations and empires known to man.

    Multiculturalism has only created miserable failures.

    -“its meaning (giving up your culture) depends on which group you belong to (look at the situation of blacks/hispanics and Finns).”

    And as said, which group decided to fit in and which group is most successful?

    Oh gosh! Answer to both questions is Finns!!

    Does this not tell you something?

    -“The issue that makes US society so interesting and rich is its diversity.”

    So go there. I have seen USA and I wouldn’t want to live int that shithole even if they paid me. So why you insist that my perfectly nice home has to be molded into image of that failure? I do not want it, most people do not want it.

    If you love USA so much, go there and be happy! And let me, Willie and rest be happy in Finland as it is!

    -“That, I believe, is the issue at heart in Finland as well – thus accepting diversity and being a part of this society (not being different and being excluded from society).”

    No. Issue at heart, which you refuse to see, is that Finland is Finland. This is not USA. Things here are not like they are at USA.

    Thus, things must be done differently than in USA. For one thing, we could see that unlike in USA in Finland natives are still majority population and have their own culture.

    In wonderland of USA, they are poor, alcoholic wretches put into plots of land where nobody could prosper.

    Are you guessing why I, native of Finland, do not want our country to emulate USA?

    -“On the one hand, the more self-starter the immigrant is in the adaption process the better; it is also helpful if society as a whole sees immigration as an asset NOT as something negative.”

    Seeing immigration as asset requires immigration to BE an asset.

    Whole thinking that one must think positive is idiotic. We have to take immigration, look at it’s effects and then say what it is. And that is what Finns do. Problem for you is that immigration is negative.

    Far too large portion of immigrants are useless uneducated wretches who do not contribute in positive way to anything but crime statistics.

    They refuse to leave their cultural baggage behind, they refuse to learn way of the land here. They refuse to do anything which would make them beneficial for this nation, instead demanding that we must turn this perfectly working nation into image of their failed country of origin.

    So how can I, or anyone for that matter, see immigration as positive force if large portions of immigrants we have refuse to contribute positively to society?

  16. Tony Garcia

    Hi Enrique,

    You didn’t answer my question about how we put together gender equality and Islam, so I wonder if I should ask another question… Well let’s see what happen…

    Along gender quality, freedom is another priceless value that we have here in the west. Particularly the freedom to choose to whom we will marry. As you know, another very important aspect whiting Islam is the power the family has to decide to whom a woman should marry.

    So I will ask your opinion on this as well, how, in our opinion, we should handle this cultural difference?

    1. Enforce our law, teaching the children about their freedom, and persecuting the families who insist in forced married?
    2. Let them be, keeping them above the law.
    3. Change the law, so some families, depending on their religion, could hold the power to decide the daughter married, so keeping them under the law?
    4. This is just not happening.

    I also would like to know, if you care to spare few minutes, how you think female genital mutilation should be handled by the west?

    As you know FMG is not a crime but part of many cultures in Africa. Also, for us it can be seeing as barbaric, but for them it’s duty the parents have to their baby girls. Believe it or not (I’m not being sarcastic) but they do this because they love their children.

    • Enrique

      –You didn’t answer my question about how we put together gender equality and Islam, so I wonder if I should ask another question… Well let’s see what happen…

      Tony, you know perfectly well my answer. In a society people have a right to chose what they want to do. You cannot impose anything on anyone. Having lived under a dictatorship in Argentina for a couple of years and by a country like the former Soviet Union has taught me to be on my guard of anyone who may want to take away basic freedoms. I also grew up in the United States during the turbulent 1960s and 1970s.
      If we are a society that has a lot of cultures, then we should learn how to respect each other. However, the society we have is one that won’t be turned into one that accommodates one group as is the case today in some countries or in the future. The main words are diversity and mutual respect.

  17. Tony Garcia

    You know, I’m not asking those question because I’m trying to be funny or provocative, but to show a big flaw in multiculturalism.

    Your points here have always been very clear…

    1. Keep our values and laws.
    2. Not have an multi-tier society
    3. Not impose our culture and values to foreigners.

    The problem I see is how we can have the number 1 and 2 together with the number 3. Most of our values have been translated into law, and many of non-western cultural values goes against these laws.

    Gender discrimination, forced marriage, bigamy, FGM, underage marriage. All this is part of many cultures coming to west. So how can we put all this together? In the UK those practices are well spread, and the government is making a blind eye to it.

    You said once that multiculturalism is the best way to protect minorities. Really? Who is protecting those people who live under these practices? I’m sure you are aware the case in Germany where the judge told the beaten muslin wife that this is their culture. Who multiculturalism protected? The victim wife or the aggressor husband?

    IMHO multiculturalism may work very well in books but I just can’t see how it works in real life.

    How we keep our values, create a united, equal and free society, having all under protection of the law at the same time we allow non-westerns to bring their cultural background, not imposing our values (laws) to them?

  18. Tony Garcia

    Basic freedoms? We can’t impose anything to anyone? I’m really sorry but I’m really confused now…

    I made a clear list of cultural practices that are against our laws, gender discrimination, forced marriage, bigamy, FGM, underage marriage. Are those basic freedoms?

    So we shouldn’t impose our laws with prohibit those practices? Is that what you’re saying?

    Sorry for asking again but I really want to understand this.

    • Enrique

      Yes, Tony, that is the basis of our society. You cannot go around (nor anyone else) impose their way of life on us unless it is against the law or contrary to the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Why is diversity so difficult for you to accept? It is the most normal thing in societies that are made up of immigrants. Let cultures be cultural bygones.

      –I made a clear list of cultural practices that are against our laws, gender discrimination, forced marriage, bigamy, FGM, underage marriage. Are those basic freedoms?

      Who says they are? They happen in white societies as well and they are against the law. You take these things and explode them out of proportion. In all groups there are all types. Exclude them and express hostility through exclusion and you will have your ghettos spring up in societies that claim to be “tolerant,” which I believe they are not. You have not lived as a black man nor a Muslim and felt the racism hard enough to understand that society’s problems are not fixed by behaving correctly. If the blacks in the United States would have accepted their destiny as seen by white people they would still be slaves picking cotton; the same goes for the Amerindians, who are finding their identity on their own in Latin America.
      You like Finnish society and so do I. Treat people with dignity to begin with and you will start creating a harmonious society. Start to treat them like your inferiors and you will sow the seeds of present and future hatred. It is as simple as that.
      Or are you suggesting that we create a “culture police force” that arrests and kicks out people from our society that don’t think like us? Good luck, my friend.

  19. Tony Garcia

    “…unless it is against the law…”

    Thanks for answering my question.

    “Why is diversity so difficult for you to accept?”

    Only the parts of it with goes against our laws. I was very clear about that, you are just spinning my words.

    “Or are you suggesting that we create a “culture police force” that arrests and kicks out people from our society that don’t think like us?”

    Am I? Did you really read what I wrote?

    “Good luck, my friend.”

    For me? I’m not the one defending multiculturalism.

  20. Tony Garcia

    “You take these things and explode them out of proportion”

    Well my apologies for that. I just tough that 3.000 women in forced married every year, 74.000 women already victim of FGM and 6.500 children in risk every year in UK alone was a significant number, but I guess I was wrong.

    But once we can’t force our values upon them I guess this is OK then.

  21. Tony Garcia

    Well, how appropriate…

    In today’s paper another person exploding things out of proportion.

    Enrique do you think Mrs Nammi is also suggesting that we create a “culture police force” that arrests and kicks out people from our society that don’t think like us?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1233918/Honour-crime-40-rising-fundamentalism.html

    Diana Nammi, of the Iranian and Kurdish Women’s Rights Organisation, said the group is now dealing with four times more complaints relating to honour than two years ago”

    “One reason is the rise in fundamentalism. The problem is increasing in communities around the UK. ‘We are seeing a rise not only in honour killings, but also in female genital mutilation and polygamy.”

    “She added: ‘The rise in Sharia courts is another indication of more fundamental beliefs.”

    “Honour-based violence, including crimes like murder, rape and kidnap has rocketed in London during the past year. Reported instances of intimidation and attempts at forced marriage have also increased by 60 per cent.”

  22. Tony Garcia

    “You mean that paper what muslim countries couldnt sign since its against sharia…”

    They don’t need it, they have their own…

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairo_Declaration_on_Human_Rights_in_Islam

    “The CDHRI could be criticized for falling short of international human rights standards by distinguishing different fundamental equality of men and women (Art 6) and for permitting killing according to Sharia law (Art 2A).”

    “In particular, CDHRI has been criticised for failing to guarantee freedom of religion”

    “Adama Dieng, a member of the International Commission of Jurists, criticised the CDHRI. He argued that the declaration gravely threatens the inter-cultural consensus on which the international human rights instruments are based; that it introduces intolerable discrimination against non-Muslims and women. He further argued that the CDHRI reveals a deliberately restrictive character in regard to certain fundamental rights and freedoms, to the point that certain essential provisions are below the legal standards in effect in a number of Muslim countries; it uses the cover of the “Islamic Shari’a (Law)” to justify the legitimacy of practices, such as corporal punishment, which attack the integrity and dignity of the human being.”

  23. Tony Garcia

    And about Mr. Mahmood? Is he also suggesting that we create a “culture police force” that arrests and kicks out people from our society that don’t think like us?

    http://www.sundaymercury.net/news/sundaymercuryexclusives/2009/12/06/birmingham-brothers-fighting-for-taliban-66331-25328873/2/

    “Khalid Mahmood, Muslim Labour MP for Perry Barr, said: “These boys going over to fight in Afghanistan is no real surprise to me. Groups like HuT have been operating like this for quite some time, recruiting people into the nexus of terrorism.”

    “Because we respect human rights and civil liberties, HuT has been allowed to continue but these people do not respect those things. They are turning our youngsters into killers, either at home or overseas.

    “They need to be held accountable.”

  24. DeTant Blomhat

    Yes and the question is was the “fear and mistrust” unwarranted? The restriction act of 1939 worked to keep the “means of production” in Finnish hands, basically it was in lieu of nationalization but worked towardsd the same end to be able to keep the country “neutral” so that there could be no invasion if some third power controlled a strategic industry, eg. Petsamo nickel. How about studying some history and not relying on your hollywood films all the time.

    • Enrique

      –The restriction act of 1939 worked to keep the “means of production” in Finnish hands, basically it was in lieu of nationalization but worked towardsd the same end to be able to keep the country “neutral” so that there could be no invasion if some third power controlled a strategic industry, eg. Petsamo nickel.

      The law was an answer to the trade wars during the 1930s depression. Petsamos was lost after the Continuation War (1944) but Finland still kept this law in force until the very end (1995 EU membership). I think it is an excellent example of the how Finland saw and interacted with the outside world. Please stop seeing SF movies for a change. The cold war ended a long time ago and so did those things you learned in school about Finland and the outside world.

  25. hannu

    “In which context?”

    I dont understand… well pick then declaration of independence you ungrateful twat.

    To pay your and mine freedom we did kill 1% of nation and then lost more in wars to keep it. “in what context…” Go behind sauna and serve yourself…

    • Enrique

      –I dont understand… well pick then declaration of independence you ungrateful ****.

      Wow, Hannu, why all this aggression? But let me make a point – the way you speak of other minorities tells me that you have no idea about war. You grew up with a silver spoon in your mouth. Easy, isn’t it, to belittle other groups from the comfort of your sofa.

  26. hannu

    I have idea about war… i have seen it thru reading and listening and i dont want it. So there has be NO minorities. No lefthanded lesbians or cripple savonians. That causes war. We have heavenly bought land where we do rules and arent under others power.
    You belittle our independence and for sure you get hostile answer.
    And silver spoon, where it is? Show me it, i come from poor family and everything i have done and have is because i fought for it.

    • Enrique

      –You belittle our independence and for sure you get hostile answer. And silver spoon, where it is?

      The silver spoon is the social welfare state and the education you received. You have no idea about war. Your views of other people is arrogant and hostile. You do that because it is an easy target. It is like being a bully at school. Pick on somebody your own size…

    • Enrique

      –Show someone who i picked what is smaller than finland.

      Yes, people who are unemployed and excluded from society. It doesn’t take much “courage” to show your hostility towards such people.

  27. hannu

    “Yes, people who are unemployed and excluded from society. It doesn’t take much “courage” to show your hostility towards such people.”

    And you think im employed and included?

    • Enrique

      –And you think im employed and included?

      Well, I hope so. If not, it saddens me.

  28. Tiwaz

    -“Yes, people who are unemployed and excluded from society. It doesn’t take much “courage” to show your hostility towards such people.”

    Their own fault. Learn useful skills, learn how Finnish culture expects you to act in interview.

    And behold! Thy shall be no longer unemployed not excluded!

    Duty is for immigrants to adjust to country they move into, not for country to adjust to immigrants.

Leave a Reply