The youth organisation of the right-wing nationalist True Finns party held its autumn conference in Vasa over this weekend. One of the resolutions that conference delegates agreed upon was a demand that Swedish be abandoned as an official language of the country. According to the True Finns’ youth wing, a disproportionately high amount of taxation revenue is used to offer services in Swedish in comparison with how small an area Swedish is spoken in.
This intolerant attitude is perhaps to be expected from the True Finns and thus comes as no great surprise. It would be too much to expect them to ask, if Swedish is so awful, why so many Finnish-speaking Finns have moved to Swedish-speaking areas in the last half a century? However, the True Finn’s historical revisionist attitude (Swedish has been an established language in the parts of Finland that it is found for at least as long, and sometimes longer, than Finnish) prompts an interesting point – what would Finland be like if there had never been any Swedish-speaking Finns?
Well, Finland’s cultural scene would look very different. Some of the most famous and internationally renowned artists would never have existed. There would be no Moomintrolls, no Topelius and no Sibelius – and so, ironically, no Finlandia – which some anti-Swedish language activists periodically demand to be instated as the national anthem in place of the Runeberg’s Vårt land/Maamme Suomi. Indeed, the national poet Runeberg, who wrote in Swedish, would never have written his epic poem, Fänrik Ståls sänger, which has been heavily used to rouse national sentiment on many an occasion, for instance during the Winter War (it is from this work that the lyrics for the national anthem were taken).
Would Finland still be Finland now? Or would it have become Russified after a massive defeat in a Winter War without the leadership of Mannerheim? Indeed, would we have even got as far as that before becoming a part of the Soviet Union. Who knows, without Mannerheim commanding the whites, maybe the reds already succeeded in fostering a socialist revolution as they won the civil war in 1918?
The Finnish economy would certainly look very different if Finland had never had any Swedish-speaking Finns. They’d likely be no Fazer, no Stockmann, no Ahlström, no Fiskars, no Abloy (today Assa Abloy), no Viking Line, no Kone. You’d probably not be able to get hold of a Nokia mobile phone, Nokia’s electronics department was set up by a Swedish-speaking Finn, Björn Westerlund.
Of course, if I wanted to really court controversy, I could argue that there would be no written Finnish language. The first work in written Finnish was the Mikael Agricola’s Bible. Agricola was a Swedish-speaking priest from Pernå. Agricola is often hailed as the father of the Finnish language. Its mainstream breakthrough as a language of culture came at the hands of the (Swedish-speaking) romantic nationalist Elias Lönnrot. It was Lönnrot who compiled the Kalevala, the Finnish language’s national epic, a work quite fundamental in shaping many of the beliefs of what it means to be Finnish and that spurred the national awakening. Would no Lönnrot have meant no independence from Russia?
In short, without the Swedish-speaking Finns, Finland would not be the Finland we know it today.
And in post script, I should make it clear that without the Finnish-speaking Finns it would likewise not be the country it is today. Both language groups have helped build this country into what it is. Both fought for this country as Finnish patriots. Finland is the native home of all Finnish people, regardless of whether they speak Swedish or Finnish as their mother tongue. We should not forget our common past nor abandon our common destiny.
This intolerant attitude is perhaps to be expected from the True Finns and thus comes as no great surprise. It would be too much to expect them to ask, if Swedish is so awful, why so many Finnish-speaking Finns have moved to Swedish-speaking areas in the last half a century? However, the True Finn’s historical revisionist attitude (Swedish has been an established language in the parts of Finland that it is found for at least as long, and sometimes longer, than Finnish) prompts an interesting point – what would Finland be like if there had never been any Swedish-speaking Finns?
Well, Finland’s cultural scene would look very different. Some of the most famous and internationally renowned artists would never have existed. There would be no Moomintrolls, no Topelius and no Sibelius – and so, ironically, no Finlandia – which some anti-Swedish language activists periodically demand to be instated as the national anthem in place of the Runeberg’s Vårt land/Maamme Suomi. Indeed, the national poet Runeberg, who wrote in Swedish, would never have written his epic poem, Fänrik Ståls sänger, which has been heavily used to rouse national sentiment on many an occasion, for instance during the Winter War (it is from this work that the lyrics for the national anthem were taken).
Would Finland still be Finland now? Or would it have become Russified after a massive defeat in a Winter War without the leadership of Mannerheim? Indeed, would we have even got as far as that before becoming a part of the Soviet Union. Who knows, without Mannerheim commanding the whites, maybe the reds already succeeded in fostering a socialist revolution as they won the civil war in 1918?
The Finnish economy would certainly look very different if Finland had never had any Swedish-speaking Finns. They’d likely be no Fazer, no Stockmann, no Ahlström, no Fiskars, no Abloy (today Assa Abloy), no Viking Line, no Kone. You’d probably not be able to get hold of a Nokia mobile phone, Nokia’s electronics department was set up by a Swedish-speaking Finn, Björn Westerlund.
Of course, if I wanted to really court controversy, I could argue that there would be no written Finnish language. The first work in written Finnish was the Mikael Agricola’s Bible. Agricola was a Swedish-speaking priest from Pernå. Agricola is often hailed as the father of the Finnish language. Its mainstream breakthrough as a language of culture came at the hands of the (Swedish-speaking) romantic nationalist Elias Lönnrot. It was Lönnrot who compiled the Kalevala, the Finnish language’s national epic, a work quite fundamental in shaping many of the beliefs of what it means to be Finnish and that spurred the national awakening. Would no Lönnrot have meant no independence from Russia?
In short, without the Swedish-speaking Finns, Finland would not be the Finland we know it today.
And in post script, I should make it clear that without the Finnish-speaking Finns it would likewise not be the country it is today. Both language groups have helped build this country into what it is. Both fought for this country as Finnish patriots. Finland is the native home of all Finnish people, regardless of whether they speak Swedish or Finnish as their mother tongue. We should not forget our common past nor abandon our common destiny.
Vastaukset 11
Vanhimmat
Sekoitat monta eri asiaa. Tässä kysymyksessä täytyisi erikseen pohtia seuraavia:
1) Mitä Suomesta olisi tullut ilman Ruotsin valtakunnan itäosaksi liittämistä (650 vuodeksi)?
-Tähän asiaan voi sanoa, että luultavasti oltaisiin jouduttu Venäjän alaisuuteen, koska Suomella itsellään ei ollut tarpeeksi resursseja vastustaa sitä. (Suomen väestö oli menneinä vuosisatoina jopa suhteellisesti pienempi kuin nykyään, välillä vain neljäsosa suhteessa kanta-Ruotsin väestöön. Lisäksi se oli jakautunut heimoihin.) Siis väittäisin, että Ruotsiin liittäminen oli hyvä asia.
2) Kun puhutaan Suomen sisäisestä kulttuurista, esim. noista 1800-luvun suurista nimistä - mikä oli ruotsin kielen merkitys heidän teoilleen?
-Itse väittäisin, että ei välttämättä kovin olennainen. Vahvaa kulttuuria on luotu lukemattomilla eri kielillä, suomesta sanskritiin ja mandariinikiinaan. Suomessa vain sattui olemaan valtakieli ruotsi. Itse ruotsin kieli tuskin teki vaikkapa Sibeliuksesta suurta säveltäjää. Hän olisi yhtä hyvin voinut olla suomenkielinen (kuten puoliksi olikin) tai vaikkapa ranskankielinen. Tietysti sen puolen voi huomioida, että suomen kirjallinen kehitys ei ollut vielä kovin pitkällä 1800-luvulla. Mutta se kulttuurikieli olisi yhtä hyvin voinut olla joku muu - vaikkapa ranska, jolla oli vahva asema kaikkialla Euroopassa. Ruotsin kieli ei tee autuaaksi itsessään.
Mannerheiminkaan sotataidot eivät johtuneet ruotsin kielen osaamisesta, vaan pitkästä sotaurasta Venäjällä ja muualla sekä ehkä poikkeuksellisesta lahjakkuudesta (jota on ilmennyt hyvin monien eri kielten puhujilla).
Ja mitä tulee näihin Fazereihin, Stockmanneihin ja Pauligeihin, niin he tulivat Keski-Euroopasta (Fazerin isä Sveitsistä, Stockmann Saksasta). Ruotsin kieli ei taaskaan ollut ihmevoima: he omaksuivat Suomeen tullessaan sittemmin ruotsin kielen, koska se oli tuolloin valtakieli.
"In short, without the Swedish-speaking Finns, Finland would not be the Finland we know it today."
Kyllä, mutta kysymys kuuluukin, että mikä rooli kielellä oli? Vai olivatko he kenties vain suomalaisia (tai maahanmuuttajia muualta), jotka olivat kyvykkäitä äidinkielestään riippumatta - omaksuivat ruotsin, koska se sattui olemaan valtakieli tuohon aikaan (kuten se on nyt suomi). Yhtä hyvin he olisivat voineet harjoittaa lahjakkuuttaan suomeksi, ranskaksi, saksaksi tai hindiksi. Jos ranska olisi ollut Suomessa yläluokan kieli (kuten monissa maissa 1700-luvulla ja 1800-luvullakin), niin sitten Stockmannit ja kumppanit olisivat puhuneet ranskaa.
Historian kirjoittaminen kieliryhmien kautta on melkoisen epäilyttävää. Kieli on sellainen asia, jota vaihdetaan sukupolvesta toiseen - ei mikään pysyvä tekijä. Suuri osa ruotsinkielisistä suvuista on alunperin suomenkielisiä ja toisinpäin, aatelisistamme suuri osa on vierasperäisiä (alunperin saksankielisiä, ranskankielisiä jne.) ja vain pieni osa on "alunperin" ruotsinkielisiä (jos nyt ylipäätään kielten kohdalla tuollaista termiä käytetään). Suomi voisi historiallisten sattumien kautta ollakin valtakieleltään ruotsinkielinen tai vaikka venäjänkielinen tänään. Jälkimmäisessä tapauksessa selittelisimme, kuinka venäjän kieli/venäjänkielinen eliitti on muovannut maamme.
Lyhyesti sanottuna: Suomi voisi olla kielisuhteiltaan aivan toisenlainen ja silti samankaltainen maa. Suurempi kysymys on, mitä Ruotsin valtakuntaan kuuluminen (kieliasiaa korostamatta) merkitsi Suomen tielle ja kehitykselle.
Joskus luultiin, että kulttuuria voi luoda vain muinaiskreikaksi (ateenalaisten mielestä muut olivat barbaareja), joskus näin uskottiin latinasta (Roomaa ympäröivät barbaarit), myöhemmin milloin mistäkin. Esim. saksalaisten esi-isät laskettiin barbaareiksi tuolloin. Vastaavasti Suomessa kuviteltiin eliitin piirissä (ainakin osa siitä), ettei suomen kielestä voi tulla kulttuurikieltä. Mutta niin tulivat Aleksis Kivet ja Eino Leinot.
Lopuksi haluaisin vielä sanoa, että pidän eri kielten opiskelua tärkeänä ja antoisana sekä pidän tärkeänä maamme kaksikielisyytä. Ei tule kuitenkaan ylikorostaa kielen merkitystä ihmisiä erottelevana tekijänä: kaikilla kielillä voidaan luoda korkeakulttuuria, ja kielet eivät ole pysyviä, ne muuttuvat jatkuvasti. Geenit periytyvät ja säilyvät, kieliä vaihdetaan jopa sukupolvittain (kuten Suomessa 1800-luvulla).
sanoisin jopa, että helmiä sioille tällä palstalla.
Well, after the Swedish colonisation of Finland there still remains a little minority of Swedish speaking people, 5%.
(During the colonisationmany many Finns took a Swedish name and changed their language from Finnish to Swedish. To day the majority of so called Swedes are not of Swedish origin.)
This little fivish thinks they still rule in Finland.
Since 1809 there has been a latent or open language war. The Finns want to decide which languages they need to learn in the global World (English, German, French, Spanish, chinese etc).
The little fivish is very upset. Their language is a MUST, a lingua franca.
What a problem!
...don't understand english. Their goal is to achieve a totally monolangual Finland and their english skills are totally destroyed by language of swedish in finnish schools, or so they say.
..If you want answers, please write in finnish....
Eiköhän ainoa oikeistolainen nationalistipuolue ole RKP?
PS:n kannattajiin kuuluu paljon vasemmistolaiseksi luokiteltavia. PS on tavallisten kansalaisten puolue, joka ajaa tavallisten suomalaisten asioita.
Pakkoruotsitus on taakka tavallisille suomalaisille.
Perussuomalaisten kannatus oli viime vaaleissa n. 4 % - se edustaa siis hyvin pientä vähemmistöä. RKP taas sai n. 4,5 % - se on siis suuremman vähemmistön puolue, eli RKP:n kannattajat edustavat paremmin "tavallista kansaa".
Parhaiten tavallista kansaa edustavat Kokoomus, Keskusta ja SDP, joiden kunkin kannatus oli yli 20 % - yhteensä siis yli 60 %. Tavallinen kansa on sitä, mikä on tavanomaista - eli enemmistö. Perussuomalaiset eivät ole enemmistöä, vaan keskiluokkaiset suurpuolueiden äänestäjät.
Nämä tavallisten suomalaisten puolueet (Kok, Kesk, SDP) myös puolustavat ruotsin asemaa ja kaksikielisyyttä.
ilman pakollista ruotsia.
Luulisin olevan sivistyneempi kansa, jos meillä olisi ollut esimerkiksi ranska, saksa tai englanti peruskouluissa ruotsin sijasta.
Tämä häpeällinen pakkoruotsitus on ollut valtava este suomalaisten pääseminen eteenpäin elämässä monella taholla.
Ruotsinkieliset ovat valloittaneet johtoasemat vain KAKSIKIELISYYS LAIN TUELLA.
"Luulisin olevan sivistyneempi kansa, jos meillä olisi ollut esimerkiksi ranska, saksa tai englanti peruskouluissa ruotsin sijasta."
en ole kuullutkaan, että ruotsin opiskelu estäisi mainitsemiesi kielten opiskelua?
Taisi mennä sinulta ohi, mutta minä luin noista kahta yläasteella, ja ranskakin olisi tarjolla ollut.
A touching and amusing story.
The Swedish Storyteller.
I live in a Swedish speaking part of Finland. Swedish has been spoken in Finland for many hundreds of years. My first language is English but I am learning Swedish. I have been living in Finland for some time now. My observations are that the two official languages of the state - Finnish and Swedish are very different. It is hard to learn a language that appears to have little connection with your own.
However, almost all Swedish speakers can speak Finnish, whereas Finnish speakers usually just do not want to speak Swedish. There is almost a sense of intolerance which seems similar to a sort of ethnic or racial dislike. I don't use the word hatred as that is not correct. Still people should be mindful of how strong words can be easily spoken and the consequences thereof. Fear of difference, of something not like one's own culture has, in the history of humanity, been the source of real evil.
Where I live it is possible to exist without knowing a single word of Finnish. As an ousider who speaks English I have found it easy to pick up Swedish but Finnish is like an alien language.
Finland as a state recognises 2 languages officially, although Sami has a special status as far as I understand. To change this would mean a change to the constitution. Both Swedish and Finnish are recognised in the constitution. Bilingualism of municipalities is regulated by the Language Act of 2003. In it Finnish and Swedish are defined as national languages. Swedish has been spoken in Finland since at least the 1500's, possibly earlier. That is a lot of history. The Swedish that is spoken today in finland is a unique form, much of it dielectal but it is not the same as that spoken in central Sweden.
The status of languages is reviewed once in a decade, and enacted by a government decree issued by the Finnish Council of State.
It is reasonable to discuss the issue. It is not reasonable to be instantly dismissive of an entire section of society who have their own unique linguistic and cultural traditions. Don't forget that Swedish speaking Finns consider themselves to be just as Finnish as their fellow citizens who speak Finnish. They do national service, pay taxes etc. In any reasonable and balanced society, differences are respected. When that respect is lost you find attitudes which culminate in what hapened in the former yugoslavia back in the 1990's.
It may be a good idea to allow each school or municipality the choice of languages it teaches its school population. It will require a democratic vote to do such things however.
Many other states have bilingual societies or different linguistic traditions. Ireland is a good example, where due to systematic colonisation by the British state apparatus, the native Gaelic language is now spoken by perhaps only 6 % of the population, the rest speaking the foreign English language.
Kuulostaisi paremmalta englantilaisen korvaan jos olisi: What would Finland be like without the Swedish language?