Tag: Globalization

360° Finland: Truth bubbles, polarization and one-size fits all globalization

Posted on by Migrant Tales

Many people ask nowadays: ”Why don’t we agree on anything anymore?” My answer is: look at the structures!

Truth bubbles

“Truth bubbles” can be characterized as the contemporary “folk disease”.Fingers have been pointed at the algorithms of social media companies such as Facebook for filtering information based on likes in a way that is conducive to creating and enforcing them. Social-media users would see only things they wanted to see in their newsfeed and follow the narratives they already supported. While prejudicial filtering of information is how human cognition functions, and is not alarming in itself, Facebook truth bubbles bring that filtering to the next level. It minimizes the chances that we encounter contradicting information accidentally.

Read the original posting here.

Some analysts claimed that truth bubbles worked in favor of Trump in the 2016 US presidential elections. Trump’s supporters would only see news in their feed that casted his alt-right agenda in a positive light. Some news agencies have exploited the mechanism for maximizing their profits by publishing tailored news articles for different truth bubbles. If you wonder how this works, the same piece of news is published for liberals and conservatives; just some keywords are altered to suit the taste of the target audience. Perhaps even more worryingly, truth bubbles decrease the likelihood that people with opposing views exchange ideas and learn from each other.

Continue reading “360° Finland: Truth bubbles, polarization and one-size fits all globalization”

CEO Whalroos claims the social welfare system marginalizes Finns

Posted on by Migrant Tales

By Enrique Tessieri

Björn Wahlroos, chairman of the board of banks Sampo Group, Nordea and forest group UPM-Kymnmene, was quoted on Sunday’s Helsingin Sanomat as stating that the   present social welfare state system is the main culprit for marginalizing Finns. He said that outgoing President Tarja Halonen had put a dent in the credibility of the executive branch by polarizing Finnish society. 

“During Halonen’s mandate the [credibility of] presidential institution has suffered,” he said. “I wouldn’t [go as far as to] state that she was not fit to be president, but her position has been different from what the people expressed in the parliamentary election.”

What is Whalroos implying? Does he claim that while 81% of Finns did not vote for an anti-EU and anti-immigration party, the Perussuomalaiset (PS), the president should jump on the populist bandwagon and echo what 19.1% of Finns voted for?

Since Whalroos represents the conservative model of our society, or the epitome of capitalist greed for some, his views have a lot of relevance to Finns but especially to immigrants and minorities.

If more social inequality is going to occur in Finland in the years ahead due to the diminishing role of the welfare state, the impact on Finns, immigrants and minorities will not only come in benefits but in a totally new set of values. This, I believe, is the central issue. What are those new values that will guide us in an ever-growing dog-eat-dog society?

One of the first matters to fly out of the window in Whalroos’ economic model for Finland is social equality (tasa-arvo).

But concepts such as social equality have little meaning for immigrants, minorities and Finnish with international backgrounds if they do not exist in practice. Even if we have to take Wahlroos’ claims with a pinch of salt, he is right in claiming that the present social welfare system does marginalize some people, especially immigrants.  City officials and politicians use social welfare services to sweep under the rug serious social problems like acceptance of immigrants.

Moreover, Whalroos, a former activist of the communist party when he was a student, simplifies things and stumbles on the same problem that other conservatives make: Less control of the economy will resolve all of our society’s problems.

If you want to see what kinds of societies economic liberalism has created, visit the United States and other countries like Argentina. You will rapidly get a good idea of how neo-liberal capitalism  has fueled social inequality, poverty at the cost of higher dividends for shareholders.

While Whalroos speaks highly of President-elect Sauli Niinstö, it is unclear if the new president will be as outspoken as his predecessor on issues like social inequality and racism.

A poll by MTV3 of the presidential candidates showed that Niinistö agreed with PS chairman Timo Soini and Sari Essayah of the Christian Democrats that the far right did not pose a threat to Finland.

guardian.co.uk: A world without borders makes economic sense

Posted on by Migrant Tales

Comment: Here is a good question: Why do we restrict immigration? Who does the present system benefit? These are some of the questions that Michael A Clemens looks at in the guardian.co.uk story below.

He writes:  “Large numbers of people wish to move permanently to another country – more than 40% of adults in the poorest quarter of nations. But most of them are either ineligible for any form of legal movement or face waiting lists of a decade or more. Those giant walls are a human creation, but cause more than just human harm: they hobble the global economy, costing the world roughly half its potential economic product.”

And continues: “Many people fear that even a minor increase in international migration will wreck their own economies and societies. Those fears deserve a hearing. They are old fears, of the kind that filled US newspapers a century ago. The US population subsequently quadrupled, largely through immigration to already-settled areas. Today, even in crisis, America is the richest country in the world. History, too, deserves a hearing.”

Do you agree?

______________

By Michael A Clemens

What is the biggest single drag on the beleaguered global economy? Opponents of globalisation might point to the current crisis, which shrank the world economy by about 5%. Proponents of globalisation might point to the remaining barriers to international flows of goods and capital, which also serve to shrink the world economy by approximately 5%. That sounds like a lot.

Read whole story.

Tunisian president flees country amid violent protests

Posted on by Migrant Tales

Tunisian president Zine El Abidine Ben, who had ruled his country with an iron fist, is believed to have fled to France on Friday after mounting street violence and protests.  The big question is how far the revolution in Tunisia will go. Is the next head on the block the prime minister, Mohammed Ghannouchi, who declared temporary rule?

Columnist Gideon Rachman of the Financial Times writes:  “(The former president) runs an autocratic, pro-western government, with a young population angered by high unemployment, corruption and police brutality. Rising food prices are also contributing to unrest.”

The Guardian’s Middle East correspondent, Ian Black,  reports:  “Bloody street clashes in Tunis trigger fears of a domino effect that could shake other authoritarian states.”

Tunisians took to the streets and ended President Zine El Abidine Ben’s twenty-year rule. Photo AFP

One of the shocking matters that will surprise many Westerners about these autocratic regimes is that we have been directly involved in supporting them as was the case with the coup that put the Shah of Iran in power in 1953.

The extent of the dilemma that the West faces in this region is stated by Rachman: “American policy has gone backwards and forwards. In the wake of 9/11, the Americans decided that the Saudi autocracy was thoroughly corrupt and was stoking up radicalism in the Middle East. In 2005 Condi Rice, then Secretary of State, made a famous speech in Cairo calling for democratic reforms in the region. But the election of Hamas in Gaza demonstrated to the Americans that Islamists were quite likely to win free elections. The House of Saud and Hosni Mubarak suddenly looked like quite good bets, again.

Finland’s winning identity of the twenty-first century

Posted on by Migrant Tales

When Finland gained its independence in 1917, an extensive Finnicization program began. Those that had foreign or non-Lutheran backgrounds were encouraged to throw away their history and amalgamate. In seven years, Finland will celebrate its centenary as an independent nation. What will be its winning identity in this century?

If we were able to forge a national identity in the 1920s by amalgamation and Finnicizing surnames, the same method would probably not work  today because diversity is seen in a totally different light than back then.

Contrary to the first three decades of independence, Finland is in no threat of being overtaken by another country as was the case with the former Soviet Union.

Finland faces today different types of threats like aging, attracting skilled professionals, financing our comprehensive social welfare system, global warming and ever-competitive global markets. Even populism has poked its head from the undercurrent of discontent as one of the threats to our future growth as a vibrant and dynamic nation.

What type of a Finnish identity do we need to pull us through this century if in the previous one it was highly exclusive and amalgamated?

I believe that the key word is diversity. We are all “us” in such a society irrespective of our backgrounds. All of us work together for the common good of  society that has the ability to accept others in a spirit of equality as is enshrined in our laws.

One of the matters that has always impressed me about Finns is that we  shun arrogance. Our offer of treating others in a spirit of equality  offers a good springboard to build a society that will not be overcome by greed.

Our greatest enemy that can put in jeopardy our society of this century are the old culprits of exclusion and very selective pathways to incorporation.

Acceptance, opportunity and inclusion will be the trademarks of success of our society in the twenty-first century. Without them we are doomed.

Is this the Finland we want to build in this century? The drawing was published in Strange Days(1984) by Rabbah Boussuira.

The multicultural society of the future

Posted on by Migrant Tales

It seems odd that in today’s technologically advanced societies in Europe and elsewhere our views of other groups continue to pose major challenges. If I had to picture the situation in a cartoon, I would draw a picture of one of our first primates, Australopithecus africanus, which existed 2-3 million years before present sitting in front of a computer and speaking to the future with a Skype time machine.

Even though an image of an Australopithecus africanus may shock some of us, we could, if we learned how to communicate with this ancestor, find common opinions on how diversity can jeopardize the social integrity of the group.

Even though the picture suggests that Australopithecus africanus was monogamous, what values would we share in common with this primate ancestor? Source: Mendelianblogs.files.wordpress.com

If there is a new watershed that the Internet and globalization has brought it could be the chance to be more independent from some of the more adverse values (like those that fuel racism and discrimination) of society. Thus we could, so to speak, eat our cultural cake and have it at the same time.

The problem, I believe, is that traditional modern societies and some of its different members, especially the seats of power, are reticent to such change because it would undermine their economic, political and social power.  Race or ethnicity is only a pretext to identify and exclude others from society’s pot of gold.

The modern society of the future (unless we end up destroying ourselves) will be built on diversity inside a hybrid cultural existence. We accept this form of society because we profit from it economically, environmentally and socially. If, however, we resist this change in a bellicose fashion, we will continue to be regulated by wars and petty and not-so-petty conflicts.

The new society that sees diversity as normal will be a huge step from classifying our world from the suspicious and hostile “us” and “them.”

Is multiculturalism good for Finland?

Posted on by Migrant Tales

One of the surprising matters about the debate on multiculturalism is how little we understand the basic terms. Take for instance the term multicultural. Does it only mean a society comprised physically of many (multi) cultures, or is it  a policy that facilitates the participation of immigrants and  ethnic minorities in a society?

Finland is not officially a multicultural society like Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom, but our laws shows multicultural sensibility (Constitution, Citizenship and Non-Discrimination Act) towards minorities.

What do people mean in Finland when we speak of “multicultural society?” Are we referring to a society comprised physically of many cultures and/or official policy through laws such as the Non-Discrimination Act?

I suspect that it is a bit of the both.

If  we are still pretty much in the dark about what multiculturalism is and implies for Finland, how can we debate the issue effectively?

One of the reasons why some believe that multiculturalism is good for Finland is because there are so few immigrants in this country. It is a bit like being in favor of peace. Everyone will agree that peace is important but when the chips are down and war breaks out, some of us turn into Rambos.

Since multiculturalism (as a policy) has become a hypersensitive political issue during these difficult economic times, I believe that this moment is a better time than ever to discuss inequalities in our society: discrimination, exclusion and unemployment.

The recession in Finland has most likely hardened attitudes against the small immigrant community.

Is multiculturalism as a policy good for Finland?

Answering the question requires us to understand four phases:  immigrants, recognition, acceptance and incorporation into society. We are probably entering the second phase (recognition) in Finland.

Even though integration in global markets is vital to Finland’s survival and success as a country, over 20% immigrant unemployment nationally reveals a lot about the role of these people in this country. How can society benefit from newcomers  if exceptionally high unemployment continues to be an issue?  How are our “multicultural sensible” policies promoting greater incorporation of some minorities in society?

Is multiculturalism good for Finland?

Probably the question should be turned around: Is Finland ready for multiculturalism?