You’d think that most Finns know that their country is part of the globalized world…Well, almost everyone knows but there are just a few who haven’t figured it out.
Kouvola Sanomat: Do you have anything against being hired by a foreign-owned company?
Ville-Matti Ahola: “At the moment I am employed, but if I needed a job I’d be happy to accept [working for a foreign company]. Jobs are so hard to find these days.”
Timo Pöljö: “Of course I’d accept. Now I have to drive long distances to work. If the workplace were in this town I could bike to work”.
Jenni Ylätalo: “Absolutely not. I moved to Kaipiainen because this is a small village and one does not see foreigners here. I’m patriotic and think Finland belongs to the Finns”.
Outi Vainonen: “Hard to say. I do not have a job at the moment and one needs a job. But it’s a difficult topic since one can’t tell what kind of people foreigners are”.
Modern Finnish racism has two sources: nationalism imbedded deep in our history coupled with low self-esteem. Compared with the 1970s, 1980s or 1990s, matters have got better though there is still a lot of room for improvement.
One of the cornerstones of Finnish nationalism is the myth that we are alone and therefore we must be self-reliant to the extreme. The truth, however, is that we could not have become an independent nation nor have made it through two terrible wars with the former Soviet Union without outside help and support.
Thanks to our resolve in the Winter War (1939-40), the conflict took a critical turn in favor of Finland after England and France were threatening to send troops to fight against the Red Army. If this had happened, it would have changed the course of World War 2.
Despite the hatred that some Finns have of Russians, it was Czar Aleksander II that gave language rights to Finnish-langauge Finns. As a Grand Duchy of Russia, Finland also got its own currency. These rights, which were gained in a single decade, were more than what the Finnish-langauge Finns got when they were under Swedish rule during 1249-1809.
Despite ardent nationalism and diehard suspicion of the Russians, leaders of Finland’s independence intelligently understood that it would be a wise choice to maintain the country officially bilingual. The final adoption of the flag was done in the spirit of the Nordic region as well, even though Akseli Gallen-Kallela proposed one that had a red background and the Finnish lion.
This was the official flag that waved over Finland from January to May 1918. It was designed by Akseli Gallen-Kallela. Source: Wikipedia
While our independence and national unity were based on our hatred of the Russians and to a lesser degree of the Swedes, Finland’s fear of outsiders took a new turn in the 1930s. During the Great Depression, Finland enacted the Restricting Act of 1939 (law 219/1939) that kept foreigners and outside investment to a minimum. Moreover, responsiblity for immigrant affairs during that decade was handed to the secret police, which saw foreigners as a threat to national security.
The interesting question to ask is how come nationalism continues to shape the view that some Finns have of the outside world? Why do politicians still scare Finns and maintain the myth that we will be invaded?
The answer is simple: It is profitable.
It reaps rewards because it offers instant short-term benefits if you want to smother dissent rapidly, encourage self-censorship of the media and public, as well as support public enterprises and institutions at the cost of competition. Worst of all, it creates an antagonistic situation between immigrants and the rest of the population. How can one integrate smoothly in such a hostile atmosphere?
The Finland of the future, which we are building today, will have more freedom of thought, less self-censorship of the media and public, greater competition, acceptance that we are a culturally diverse and start to see the outside world (especially Russia) in a less defensive fashion.
Politicians, institutions like the Finnish Border Guard and other public leaders who continue to inject fear of the outside world, choose to live in the past because it is profitable.
It is high time they modernize their view of the world and embrace the challenges of the new century in a novel way. Why?
Because it is more profitable for Finland in the long-term.
If one wants to do an interesting study into the role of the state and the media, one could look at the cold war years of Finland.
An article written by Max Jakobson, Substance and Appearance: Finland, is one example of how the governments viewed foreign journalists. He writes: “As a result, Finland is forever at the mercy of the itinerant columnist who after lunch and cocktails in Helsinki is ready to pronounce himself upon the fate of the Finnish people.”
Notice that he uses the word “columnist” not “journalist.”
When the article was written in 1980, there was little to no criticism even by the Finnish media on our special relations with the former Soviet Union. Even though it is a great matter that Finland retained its independence despite two wars with the Soviet Union, Jakobson asks a key question in the article whether Finlandization forced the country to give up any essential national interests in order to have good relations with Moscow.
He writes: “Here it is important to distinguish between substance and appearance, between abstract principle and political reality and to make the distinction in terms of the Finnish experience. One again it is necessary to take the account of the legacy of the war.”
One of the biggest flaws in the article is that it aims to be THE only opinion on how we should interpret Helsinki-Moscow relations. Nobody, except for a few wise men such as Jakobson, were able to speak publicly about Finnish-Soviet relations. The former diplomat does not mention a word about the censorship and self-censorship that existed on this front even though he stresses how “Western” we are.
What does Jakobson’s article tell us today? It shows, I believe, a country that has seen foreigners with suspicion. Even though there are valid factors that have fueled this suspicion, it has been reinforced over and over by our history. Apart from having few foreigners in the country, the Restricting Act of 1939 also made made foreign investment virtually impossible.
Like the government, which must have reaped a lot of political benefits from our special relation with Moscow, Finland enjoyed and grew accustomed to being a geopolitical recluse.
Language rights in 1862, independence from Russia in 1917, civil war, Winter and Continuation War and Cold War tell us of a continuing story that has fueled suspicion of outsiders. So, for a foreign journalist to come to Finland and, “after lunch and cocktails,” to write about our special relation with the Soviet Union naturally hits a very nationalistic nerve.
The impact of the previous century on the present one explains why some of us continue to see immigrants as a threat.
Those reticent one-sided views or ourselves and the outside world we learned in the previous century may turn out to be a threat to our future because opening up is still a painful process.
