The role of the swedish language in Finland

[Noinu]

Okay, I partly agree with Sentinel, learning as many languages as possible will, I find, automatically broaden your horizons and thus help you to understand, not only others' speach but their cultures as well (language is said to go very tightly with a certain culture, i.e eskimos and snow/ice).

Like Sentinel, I come from a family with two languages (Finnish and Swiss-German), I live in a 50/50 Finnish/Swedish speaking community and thus have learned Swedish at both my kindergarten and school (although I must admit, I could do a lot better ^^;;).

But, I must admit, that you, Rêve Rouge, have a point. The last few months (and years really) have been excrutiating here in Finland, with the status of the Swedish language. It seems no one wants it anymore, no one wants to learn it, no one wants to use it and many do whatever they can to make the lives of those who speak Swedish as their #1 language, as hard as the possibly can.
The problem though, doesn't rise from having two languages, it rises from the fact that these people have this inbuilt mechanism to not understand the usefulness of a language. It's kinda like racists saying 'I'm not racist, but'...i.e 'I do like Swedes, but I don't want to learn their language'.

And I'm sure in England and Russia one can find a lot more strict language policies, concerning small indigenous languages.

I do think people should be able to keep languages, I think the world would stop having most cultures if they couldn't, and as a history buff, I would be sad to see some wonderfully colourful and ancient cultures just disappear, 'cause no one knows anymore.
But learning more languages, would in my opinion too, be the answer.

[Sentinel]

Like Sentinel, I come from a family with two languages

Actually my family is entirely finnish, I learned the swedish because we live in Sweden. ;)

But yeah I understand what you mean in your post, and agree that the swedish language is to be preserved in Finland. The issue is a bit complicated though. We must remember that the negative attitude towards it partially originates in the times when Swedish was the language of the nobility and the upper class -- which it continued to be long after Finland ceased to belong to Sweden -- and partially in the obviously lesser status of the finnish language in Sweden.

I fully support the right of the finland-swedish to education and other services in their own language in the entire country, to the degree it can practically be arranged of course. They are a minority in Finland and their right to their language and cultural identity must absolutely be recognised.

I'm more sceptical towards the idea that all finns should learn swedish though, especially in areas where there is no swedish speaking population. That is counterproductive, as forcing people to learn it against their will unnecessarily increases the hostile attitude towards the swedish minority language amongst the finnish speaking populace.

[Noinu]

Actually my family is entirely finnish, I learned the swedish because we live in Sweden. ;)

But yeah I understand what you mean in your post, and agree that the swedish language is to be preserved in Finland. The issue is a bit complicated though. We must remember that the negative attitude towards it partially originates in the times when Swedish was the language of the nobility and the upper class -- which it continued to be long after Finland ceased to belong to Sweden -- and partially in the obviously lesser status of the finnish language in Sweden.

I fully support the right of the finland-swedish to education and other services in their own language in the entire country, to the degree it can practically be arranged of course. They are a minority in Finland and their right to their language and cultural identity must absolutely be recognised.

I'm more sceptical towards the idea that all finns should learn swedish though, especially in areas where there is no swedish speaking population. That is counterproductive, as forcing people to learn it against their will unnecessarily increases the hostile attitude towards the swedish minority language amongst the finnish speaking populace.

Yes, I should've written background instead of family :)

The one thing I never understood, was why people always complained about having to learn Swedish at school. Sure, it's mandatory, but so is everything else. Math, English, even biology. So why Swedish? What's so terrible with Swedish? It's even a rather easy language, well compared to Finnish and German, at least. Anyway, not really my point here :D

Sure, I do think that in eastern Finland, learning Russian, would be a lot more useful, but once you hit a certain age, learning languages, gets a bit more difficult. It takes more time and more effort. And to be able to give all of the Swedish speaking population the same rights as the Finnish speaking, people must learn enough Swedish. We here at Tampere University, only have ONE Swedish course. ONE. No more is mandatory. You learn NOTHING in that one course. So if you haven't learned it at school, before this, you won't learn in University and thus are not capable of doing those jobs that need Swedish skills just as much as Finnish skills.
It would be wonderful to make learning Swedish completely optional, the problem is, then no one would learn it, since no one wants to learn it. I've tried to make my point to almost my entire class at school, that Swedish is a useful language and it's place in Finland should be kept, but no one wants it. They all keep saying 'I don't need it'. At the moment at least, just to be able to keep equal rights to both Swedish and Finnish speakers in Finland, Swedish needs to be obligatory, just like Finnish is obligatory (and much more so than Swedish) for those in Swedish speaking schools.

But, here comes the next one. I think the Finnish saame should have these exact same rights.

Anyway my point really is that I do know it's counterproductive, but the problem seems to be that is counterproductivity only concerns Swedish. No other subject. And yes, that might easily be because of the Swedish occupation, but why is Russian then more useful to learn? They occupied Finland too.

[Sentinel]

It would be wonderful to make learning Swedish completely optional, the problem is, then no one would learn it, since no one wants to learn it.

In the largely swedish speaking areas on the west/south coast people would continue learning it, and I have nothing against the state supporting that by funding if necessary. The right of the finland-swedish to service in their own language would be guaranteed at least in the swedish speaking areas. I think that it would be a fair enough policy.

Or to put it in another way, the most that can be reasonably demanded, especially as long as the status of the finnish language remains as low as it currently is in Sweden. Remember that no-one would ever come to think of the idea of demanding that all swedish people in Sweden learn finnish, despite the shared history of the countries, and the fact that there has always by tradition lived a finnish speaking minority here. Because of this unequality, and for historical reasons, it is perceived as chauvinist by the finnish speakers in Finland to be commanded to learn Swedish, a language spoken by only 6% of the population.

So I respectfully disagree with your position on this matter. I think that Finland should abandon the 'two official languages' policy, and instead implement a new, progressive set of laws to safeguard the rights of all minorities, including but not limited to the swedish speaking minority, in the country. I also definitely think that everyone in Finland should be obliged to study at least one -- choice free -- language besides finnish.

Besides swedish, english or russian would probably be the practically most beneficial ones in the region.

[Noinu]

In the largely swedish speaking areas on the west/south coast people would continue learning it, and I have nothing against the state supporting that by funding if necessary. The right of the finland-swedish to service in their own language would be guaranteed at least in the swedish speaking areas. I think that it would be a fair enough policy.

Or to put it in another way, the most that can be reasonably demanded, especially as long as the status of the finnish language remains as low as it currently is in Sweden. Remember that no-one would ever come to think of the idea of demanding that all swedish people in Sweden learn finnish, despite the shared history of the countries, and the fact that there has always by tradition lived a finnish speaking minority here. Because of this unequality, and for historical reasons, it is perceived as chauvinist by the finnish speakers in Finland to be commanded to learn Swedish, a language spoken by only 6% of the population.

So I respectfully disagree with your position on this matter. I think that Finland should abandon the 'two official languages' policy, and instead implement a new, progressive set of laws to safeguard the rights of all minorities, including but not limited to the swedish speaking minority, in the country. I also definitely think that everyone in Finland should be obliged to study at least one -- choice free -- language besides finnish.

Besides swedish, english or russian would probably be the practically most beneficial ones in the region.

I am still going to ask this, just for the sake of it now, there are a lot of places in Finland, where the majority of the population is Finnish speaking, but there are quite a lot of Swedish speakers as well (i.e the eastern coast between Helsinki and Hamina). If one would be to guarantee rights for minorities as well, how would one do with the languages?
And for example the government, how would they be? Would they have the obligation to speak both Finnish and Swedish, or should they only speak Finnish? The Finnish state does all in it's power to centralise the government to Helsinki, thus everyone in the whole of Finland would be governed by a few twats (sorry) in Helsinki. The ones living in and around Vasa, would only get Finnish service when contacting the government, since Helsinki would be an only Finnish speaking community.
(What I'd fear for one is that then most of the people one has to contact would be just like Vanhanen, the prime minister who barely speaks Finnish even though he should speak English too).

[Sentinel]

I am still going to ask this, just for the sake of it now, there are a lot of places in Finland, where the majority of the population is Finnish speaking, but there are quite a lot of Swedish speakers as well (i.e the eastern coast between Helsinki and Hamina).

Well, I do support using public funds to support the swedish schools and other important services in areas where there is a considerable swedish speaking population, even if there is no majority -- just as I support the right to basic education in their first language for immigrant children where it can be arranged, ie at least in the capital region, and other areas where they are numerous.

I'm not sure if it's reasonable to tell everyone to learn swedish, or for all services to be provided in swedish, in majority finnish speaking areas though. In any case, I think that these things should be decided regionally after what percentage of the population speaks which language. So, similarly, in areas where there isn't a substantial amount finnish speakers, services in the finnish language aren't necessary.

So, long story short, instead of supporting the current two official languages policy, I support planning the distribution of services in all minority languages in Finland after demand, in good old socialist fashion. :)

[Noinu]

Well, I do support using public funds to support the swedish schools and other important services in areas where there is a considerable swedish speaking population, even if there is no majority -- just as I support the right to basic education in their first language for immigrants where it can be arranged, ie at least in the capital region, and other areas where they are numerous.

I'm not sure if it's reasonable to tell everyone to learn swedish, or for all services to be provided in swedish, in majority finnish speaking areas though. In any case, I think that these things should be decided regionally after what percentage of the population speaks which language. So, similarly, in areas where there isn't a substantial amount finnish speakers, services in the finnish language aren't necessary.

So, long story short, instead of supporting the current two official languages policy, I support planning the distribution of services in all minority languages in Finland after demand, in good old socialist fashion. :)

It's not like I wouldn't understand this, I find it a wonderful idea and I wish I could trust it would work. But even when I just think about my own community; Sipoo. (Or for almost half Sibbo, since it is a Finnish and Swedish speaking community). In the early 90s and before Sipoo was for most part (and I mean far over 50%) Swedish speaking. Since it is a rural community, a lot of new families moved to the area in the 90s and most were Finnish speaking. The minute Sipoo ceased to be over 50% Swedish speaking the road signs were changed (they used to be Swedish names on top and Finnish names below). They HAD to change the Finnish names on top, because the majority was now Finnish speaking.

It's ridiculous and sadly this sort of sentiment went directly into everything else as well. Half of the doctors stopped speaking Swedish, even though many of those who need healthcare in Sipoo are Swedish speaking, since most of the over 65-year-olds are Swedish speaking.

I just wish people would give a shit. If they would, there'd be no problems whatsoever.

I don't mean to start again and again with the same things, I do understand your point and it is a fine one, I just cannot be optimistic towards the idea, since people just don't care enough to make the effort themselves, even in areas where most are Swedish speaking. Even the Swedish speaking families stop teaching Swedish to their kids! They speak Finnish at home, because 'it will be easier for the children'. Like hell it will.

[Sentinel]

Being a finnish speaker in Sweden I do understand your concerns -- I'm part of a minority which only recently was granted some limited rights. I'm convinced though, that with true socialists in power the system I support would work, both in Finland and elsewhere. ;)


***

Perhaps a mod could split our conversation into a thread of it's own, suggested target forum Discrimination, suggested topic name 'The role of the swedish language in Finland'

[Noinu]

Being a finnish speaker in Sweden I do understand your concerns -- I'm part of a minority which only recently was granted some limited rights. I'm convinced though, that with true socialists in power the system I support would work, both in Finland and elsewhere. ;)


***

Perhaps a mod could split our conversation into a thread of it's own, suggested target forum Discrimination, suggested topic name 'The role of the swedish language in Finland'

I'm sure that would be a fine solution and as a matter of fact, I do believe that too. Sadly the world isn't that fine just yet and oh hell.



Anyway that would be quite an interesting thread to have.

[Sentinel]

For any mod who has time to do it, the posts that need to be split are numbers 3, 4, 5, 6, 45, 48, 49, 54, 55, 56.

[Noinu]

The following is a newspaper article from Helsingin Sanomat. I appologise for the bad translation, I could not find one on the newspaper website, so I had to translate it myself.
The news is concerning a complaint sent to the parliamentary ombudsman, Petri Jääskeläinen, about an incident last November when the local police in Espoo used only Finnish to both end a party, question and fine several of the teenagers in question.

Now I don't know all that much about this incident myself, but the news of this complaint has ended in widespread irritation from many in the Finnish speaking community bashing the Swedish language and Swedes as well (even though Finnish-Swedish has little to do with Swedes).

Several comments have not only been made about the incident but also about the value of life for the Swedish speaking community. I find it extremely alarming when people go around saying they should be lynched because they want to speak their mothertongue.

The original article: http://omakaupunki.hs.fi/paakaupunkiseutu/uutiset/espoon_poliisille_sapiskaa_juhlien_keskeyttamisest a_vain/




The police are required to use both Finnish and Swedish in bilingual areas, Petri Jääskeläinen, the parliamentary ombudsman reminds.


He spoke out concerning a case, where the police in Espoo ended a loud party of 50 teenagers in Matinkylä, Espoo. They also took four 18-year-old partygoers to jail in November 2009.


The police had used strictly only Finnish during the incident, even after one of the teenagers had called the emergency number concerned of the obvious language issue.


Jääskeläinen does not criticise any individual officers since the events of that night are not clear enough.
Instead he sees the course of events as indication to that the police did not have enough will, skill or understanding to fulfil the basic language rights.


This appeal toward the language issue has already been seen as an attempt to make work more difficult to the police.


Jääskeläinen finds it alarming that neither the Ministry of the Interior nor the police department of the provincial government saw anything to point out in the incident.



Jääskeläinen says that the police should have used both Finnish and Swedish when ordering the teenagers to leave the party. Especially important would have been to use the customers language when the teenagers were questioned and fined.


Jääskeläinen notes that it can be difficult to fulfil these basic language rights in a fast moving situation, when there are many people present.
This situation however was not fast-paced or dangerous.


The police say they only spoke Finnish, because they did not know the teenagers’ wishes for service in Swedish.


After the incident the teenagers suspected, in the newspaper Hufvudstadsbladet, that the police were irritated with them speaking Swedish. The youngsters also say that one of the other teens present was from the Åland Islands, and did not speak any Finnish at all.
The police did however not know of this.


The complaint to the parliamentary ombudsman came from three of the teenagers and the Swedish Assembly of Finland, Folktinget.


STT

[Obzervi]

I do think people should be able to keep languages, I think the world would stop having most cultures if they couldn't, and as a history buff, I would be sad to see some wonderfully colourful and ancient cultures just disappear, 'cause no one knows anymore.
But learning more languages, would in my opinion too, be the answer.
Cultures and languages merely exist to separate people. The ideal situation would a single global langauge.

[Noinu]

Cultures and languages merely exist to separate people. The ideal situation would a single global langauge.

Cultures can just as easily unite people. To think of cultures merely as separating elements is a rather simple way of looking at humanity.

[NecroCommie]

Cultures can just as easily unite people. To think of cultures merely as separating elements is a rather simple way of looking at humanity.
The matter of unification is irrelevant. Nations and cultures are artificial and as such irrelevant. We should not base any policies on matters that even theoretically can be used to promote policies of culture and nation, for that is a slippery slope which can lead to fullblown nationalism.

Besides, cultures are not important. Humans are. If we acknowledge the role of culture in one area we will have to acknowledge it in others too, and that is downright dangerous. If our policies serve human needs, there really should be no need to resort to national and cultural policies. Policies taken simply due to cultural identity itself are purely reactionary. What this means in the finnish situation is that swedish languages should not be artificially imposed onto areas where swedish is obviously not spoken. For example, east finland has more reason to take russian language as official one, rather than swedish. There is a point in which a language becomes so irrelevant that no one should expect to get all the services with that language. Still swedish is expected to be spoken in the most ridiculous of positions, due to: "just because". If that isn't a daft reason then nothing is.

More about the subject in my first blogpost.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

@Noinu

Do i get you right that you think by stop giving the swedish language its special position in Finland, it will endly dissapear?

If then you shouldnt worrie to much, look at the swedish towns Kiruna and Gällivare (which are located above the arctic circle) where big parts of the population have finnish, or sami, or both as theire first language, despite frome the centralization of stockholm and swedish being the main language in all media, public service and soo, they still keep theire first languages. So dont worry :)

[Noinu]

@Noinu

Do i get you right that you think by stop giving the swedish language its special position in Finland, it will endly dissapear?

If then you shouldnt worrie to much, look at the swedish towns Kiruna and Gällivare (which are located above the arctic circle) where big parts of the population have finnish, or sami, or both as theire first language, despite frome the centralization of stockholm and swedish being the main language in all media, public service and soo, they still keep theire first languages. So dont worry :)

I don't think the Swedish language will completely disappear from Finland, but around here, it will. Why do I think this? Because the change has already started, without any decline in the Swedish speaking population. In fact Sipoo has now more Swedish speakers than two years ago, when Helsinki hadn't yet stolen a piece of the community. Still less and less people speak Swedish, thus not being able to give any services in Swedish and less and less of the Swedish speakers speak Swedish on a daily basis. Why? Because no one answers them, just 'I don't speak Swedish'.

[Noinu]

The matter of unification is irrelevant. Nations and cultures are artificial and as such irrelevant. We should not base any policies on matters that even theoretically can be used to promote policies of culture and nation, for that is a slippery slope which can lead to fullblown nationalism.

Besides, cultures are not important. Humans are. If we acknowledge the role of culture in one area we will have to acknowledge it in others too, and that is downright dangerous. If our policies serve human needs, there really should be no need to resort to national and cultural policies. Policies taken simply due to cultural identity itself are purely reactionary. What this means in the finnish situation is that swedish languages should not be artificially imposed onto areas where swedish is obviously not spoken. For example, east finland has more reason to take russian language as official one, rather than swedish. There is a point in which a language becomes so irrelevant that no one should expect to get all the services with that language. Still swedish is expected to be spoken in the most ridiculous of positions, due to: "just because". If that isn't a daft reason then nothing is.

More about the subject in my first blogpost.

If humans are important, cultures are important. Humans have never existed without cultures. It's like saying half of being humans is completely irrelevant and 'dangerous'.
1. I think all cultures should be recognised. 2. I never said Russian wasn't a better choice for those in eastern Finland.
3. You're welcome to have your opinion, and I will not agree with you.

[NecroCommie]

Humans have never existed without cultures. While this might be true, this...

If humans are important, cultures are important.
... is not. What I meant is that human needs should always and without exception be prioritized above cultural "needs". In the case of finland, this would mean that we shouldn't concern ourselves with whether or not services are offered in swedish too, but rather the concern should be whether or not swedish speaking populace can receive services.

The difference might be slight, but very important.

[Noinu]

While this might be true, this...

... is not. What I meant is that human needs should always and without exception be prioritized above cultural "needs". In the case of finland, this would mean that we shouldn't concern ourselves with whether or not services are offered in swedish too, but rather the concern should be whether or not swedish speaking populace can receive services.

The difference might be slight, but very important.

Firstly I'll ask about the last thing, how on Earth is there a difference? Whether or not services are offered in Swedish is exactly the same as whether or not services are given to the Swedish speaking population. First of all, they do get service, just in Finnish, and there are (especially over 65 yo) people who do not speak Finnish thus not getting the service they legally should get.
I would very much like for you to point out the slight difference your speaking of, if it is so important.

Secondly, cultures will always exist. It's not possible to eradicate cultures. The only possibility is to make such a mass culture that every single human being is in it, but I cannot see how that would even in the slightest be a good thing.
Just because one has a certain culture, does not make different from others, or somehow wrong. Ever heard of Karelian pies or maybe kantele? Sure you have, I know you have, how about having no cultures in the world? Neither of those things would exist. Just because they exist do not make them evil and I really wouldn't like to have a world where I couldn't listen to music, eat good food and read books. All are parts of culture. Does it matter what culture? No. Are they dangerous because they belong to culture? No.
For me, for example books and food, are important.

Humand needs and cultural needs? Excuse me? Personally I don't see the point of looking at any cultural "needs". Of course the important thing is to make the lives of everyone so that everyone has enough food, fresh water etc etc, but who gets the right to decide that mental health is unimportant? For my mental health being, it is important that I get my time alone with a nice book for example. Deleting culture from existance would automatically result in my mental decline. Sure, the world might be a better place without me jabbering on, but I'm sure there are others that would go pretty mad with nothing of the sort to relax with. Cultural things are for a lot of people a way to relax, how on Earth is stress a way to fulfil human needs?

[NecroCommie]

Firstly I'll ask about the last thing, how on Earth is there a difference? Whether or not services are offered in Swedish is exactly the same as whether or not services are given to the Swedish speaking population. First of all, they do get service, just in Finnish, and there are (especially over 65 yo) people who do not speak Finnish thus not getting the service they legally should get.
I would very much like for you to point out the slight difference your speaking of, if it is so important.
There is a difference. If we make sure services are offered i swedish, it will put limitations also to people in areas without any swedish speakers. If we prioritize that the swedish speakers get service, the limitations put on services will only affect areas where swedish make up a significant enough demograph.


Secondly, cultures will always exist. It's not possible to eradicate cultures.
I have never ever suggested the eradication of cultures. I am merely saying that they have no place in politics, save perhaps if language barriers establish hardships on more important policies.


The only possibility is to make such a mass culture that every single human being is in it, but I cannot see how that would even in the slightest be a good thing.

This is not necessary if people would just stop pretending that cultural differences matter.


No. Are they dangerous because they belong to culture? No.
For me, for example books and food, are important.

I am not saying that cultures are dangerous per se (although outright dangerous cultural features exist too). What I am saying is that identity politics based on culture are dangerous.

Humand needs and cultural needs? Excuse me? Personally I don't see the point of looking at any cultural "needs". Of course the important thing is to make the lives of everyone so that everyone has enough food, fresh water etc etc, but who gets the right to decide that mental health is unimportant?
Mental health manifests itself as very real material phenomenae. It is not a cultural issue.
For my mental health being, it is important that I get my time alone with a nice book for example. Deleting culture from existance would automatically result in my mental decline.
Again the point is not to eradicate culture, for example literature, but the point is to stop pretending that for example finnish literature is worth saving because it is finnish or literature. If some cultural features are disappearing from the world, it is because people see no need for it and protecting such dying cultures is futile. Culture is a constantly shifting zeitgeist. Cultural features are dying and and being born anew every day. Trying to halt that shift and "protect" current culture is reactionary.

[Noinu]

There is a difference. If we make sure services are offered i swedish, it will put limitations also to people in areas without any swedish speakers. If we prioritize that the swedish speakers get service, the limitations put on services will only affect areas where swedish make up a significant enough demograph.

And what would you find a "significant enough demograph"? I find this to be extremely important, since for example the dispute in Ostrobothnia when a few communities who wanted to join Jakobstad and not Vasa, for then they could keep Swedish as a majority language and thus be able to sustain services in Swedish. Did you happen to read about the news? It was a pretty big fight, both Jakobstad and the small community agreed that them joining would be much better than the otherway around, but the government thought it a terrible idea. So when the government tries to do what it can to make the lives of the Swedish speaking community difficult, how would one choose what places get to have services in Swedish?
And when there are only a few places like that, it might just result in pretty obvious segregation.


I have never ever suggested the eradication of cultures. I am merely saying that they have no place in politics, save perhaps if language barriers establish hardships on more important policies.

Really cannot see your point with this.

This is not necessary if people would just stop pretending that cultural differences matter.


I am not saying that cultures are dangerous per se (although outright dangerous cultural features exist too). What I am saying is that identity politics based on culture are dangerous.

And there are dangerous features in other things as well, not just culture.



Mental health manifests itself as very real material phenomenae. It is not a cultural issue.

Ahem, did you even answer my point with this one? Mental health is a very real issue, and some cultural features can easily help with mental health problems. What do you do to relax?


Again the point is not to eradicate culture, for example literature, but the point is to stop pretending that for example finnish literature is worth saving because it is finnish or literature. If some cultural features are disappearing from the world, it is because people see no need for it and protecting such dying cultures is futile. Culture is a constantly shifting zeitgeist. Cultural features are dying and and being born anew every day. Trying to halt that shift and "protect" current culture is reactionary.

All cultures change, evolve and parts disappear, never did I say this is bad. But it's easy to play with peoples irritation toward certain aspects of culture, or certain cultures themselves and make it so that they would get wiped out without these cultures being 'dying cultures'.
Not to mention I've had a lot of people wonder why on Earth I'd ever want to learn Latin, 'It's a dead language'. The hell it is, the easiest way to learn any of the larger European languages (including Russian) is to first learn Latin.
For example, with this thread in mind, the finnish-swedish culture is not even near to dying, but there are thousands of people who want it to die. It's not a matter of time taking it's course, it's a matter of unbelievably ignorant people wanting to get rid of something they don't even notice in their daily lives.

[Obzervi]

Secondly, cultures will always exist. It's not possible to eradicate cultures.


I never claimed it would be possible to entirely remove culture, but the goal is to diminish the differences between cultures as much as possible. Create a big mixing bowl where no culture is "pure". This is the only way to bring the humans in the world together as one. If everybody started mixing there would be no more "pure" cultures. Placing importance on culture leads to nationalism and racism.

[NecroCommie]

And what would you find a "significant enough demograph"? I find this to be extremely important, since for example the dispute in Ostrobothnia when a few communities who wanted to join Jakobstad and not Vasa, for then they could keep Swedish as a majority language and thus be able to sustain services in Swedish. Did you happen to read about the news? It was a pretty big fight, both Jakobstad and the small community agreed that them joining would be much better than the otherway around, but the government thought it a terrible idea. So when the government tries to do what it can to make the lives of the Swedish speaking community difficult, how would one choose what places get to have services in Swedish?
And when there are only a few places like that, it might just result in pretty obvious segregation.
Yes I am aware of that dispute since my ex lives in Jakobstad (happens to agree with me on this issue). And seeing that this entire discussion takes place in a communist forum I am sure we both know what I think is the ideal situation. A situation in which the community would get to decide what languages are official. This would not remove swedish from swedish speaking areas, but it would remove the unecessary strain from lapland and eastern finland.



Really cannot see your point with this.

The point is that you seem to think I want to eradicate the very notion of culture. That is not the case. What I am however claiming is that cultural differences have no place in politics. Culture, like religion, is a matter of personal preference for every individual. State, or communal councils, have no place interfering with the natural flow of cultural change.



And there are dangerous features in other things as well, not just culture.

Ad hominem.



Ahem, did you even answer my point with this one? Mental health is a very real issue, and some cultural features can easily help with mental health problems. What do you do to relax?

Yes I did, and I happen to agree. I would simply word it otherway. Mental health IS a real issue, but hardly a cultural one. It is a medical issue for which certain cultural aspects can help, but once again it is not the business of society to dictate which kind of cultural aspects are available.



All cultures change, evolve and parts disappear, never did I say this is bad. But it's easy to play with peoples irritation toward certain aspects of culture, or certain cultures themselves and make it so that they would get wiped out without these cultures being 'dying cultures'.

But that would be interfering with the natural flow of culture, which is exactly what I oppose. This issue is not that black and white. If we remove swedish as the official language, it does not mean that we are simultaneosly forced to ban swedish language from swedish speaking areas.


Not to mention I've had a lot of people wonder why on Earth I'd ever want to learn Latin, 'It's a dead language'. The hell it is, the easiest way to learn any of the larger European languages (including Russian) is to first learn Latin.

A fine example of culture being a matter of personal preference. But you have to understand that if you would be the only one in europe wanting to study latin, it would be unreasonable to expect some university to put up a course just for you.

For example, with this thread in mind, the finnish-swedish culture is not even near to dying
It is already dead for the most of finnish regions.

...but there are thousands of people who want it to die.
And we should oppose them as well. The point is that we can only do that from "culturally secular" point of view.

[Noinu]

[QUOTE]Yes I am aware of that dispute since my ex lives in Jakobstad (happens to agree with me on this issue). And seeing that this entire discussion takes place in a communist forum I am sure we both know what I think is the ideal situation. A situation in which the community would get to decide what languages are official. This would not remove swedish from swedish speaking areas, but it would remove the unecessary strain from lapland and eastern finland.

Well good for you, I know ten and they agree with me, but who cares, right?
Oh and hey, the world isn't communistic yet, the discussion barely is about how to have Swedish in a communistic Finland, more of what it is now.



The point is that you seem to think I want to eradicate the very notion of culture. That is not the case. What I am however claiming is that cultural differences have no place in politics. Culture, like religion, is a matter of personal preference for every individual. State, or communal councils, have no place interfering with the natural flow of cultural change.

Have you ever thought that politics derive from culture? Probably not, maybe you think politics are just a matter of fact and thus biological, not cultural. How would you take politics away from culture, when culture is what made politics?



Ad hominem.


Ad hominem is often a fault of argumentation. Good job.


Yes I did, and I happen to agree. I would simply word it otherway. Mental health IS a real issue, but hardly a cultural one. It is a medical issue for which certain cultural aspects can help, but once again it is not the business of society to dictate which kind of cultural aspects are available.

And if the business of society is to make sure that society is not cultural, then how are there cultural features available? Hmm?



But that would be interfering with the natural flow of culture, which is exactly what I oppose. This issue is not that black and white. If we remove swedish as the official language, it does not mean that we are simultaneosly forced to ban swedish language from swedish speaking areas.

But for largely forcing many people to move into these Swedish speaking areas, thus contributing in segregation.


A fine example of culture being a matter of personal preference. But you have to understand that if you would be the only one in europe wanting to study latin, it would be unreasonable to expect some university to put up a course just for you.

Well actually, if a University says they have courses in Latin, they theoretically are obligated to give the course even just for me.


It is already dead for the most of finnish regions.

The hell it is. Just because eastern and northern Finland don't have all that many Swedish speakers, doesn't mean 'most Finnish regions' don't. Most of the Finnish population lives in the south and on the coastlines.


And we should oppose them as well. The point is that we can only do that from "culturally secular" point of view.

Culturally secular? Make your point clearer, please.

[Dimentio]

In general, discrimination has gone the other way in Finland. Without Swedish, you have it hard to enter higher education in Finland, which is adversedly affecting the small mainland communities which are Finnish-speaking. This is also a cause behind the Finnish disdain for Sweden.

It would be like if you had to learn German in Poland to be able to go to a university.

This is like if the Spanish Europeans in Bolivia would protest against the advance of Quechua.

[Noinu]

Actually you can easily go to University without Swedish. I seriously wonder where you got that idea?

EDIT: Thought it best to explain why I don't agree with you on this: Most of my class in high school are studying at University (not all in the same uni, some in Joensuu, some in Tampere, many in Jyväskylä and Helsinki). 99% of them didn't do the Swedish matriculation exam (which is optional) and most barely passed the course exams at school. So they don't speak, write or understand Swedish and yet, they're studying. How's that possible if what you say is true? Well it wouldn't be.
You see, all you need to get into Uni, is to pass your entrance exams (which btw, are in Finnish (of course you can choose the Swedish version in a few schools but that's only if you want to study the subject in Swedish, you can't do the Swedish exam and then study in Finnish)).
So Swedish is not needed to get into University.

[NecroCommie]

[QUOTE=NecroCommie;1923027]Oh and hey, the world isn't communistic yet, the discussion barely is about how to have Swedish in a communistic Finland, more of what it is now.
Well, you DID ask how we would decide how much swedish population is enough, and my reply was very clear: we don't the municipalities do.



Have you ever thought that politics derive from culture? Probably not, maybe you think politics are just a matter of fact and thus biological, not cultural. How would you take politics away from culture, when culture is what made politics?

Culture might have affected politics in history, but politics is far from being a manifestation of culture. I guess you didn't read my blog post on nationalism seeing that this issue is explained in it.


Ad hominem is often a fault of argumentation. Good job.

I am very much aware of this. I just wanted to raise your attention on the ad hominem that you conjured up.



And if the business of society is to make sure that society is not cultural, then how are there cultural features available? Hmm?

I never ever mentioned society. Society has all reason to be cultural, and in fact I think it should have as rich culture as possible. It is precicely because of this that I abhor state intervention in culture, including linguistic identity politics.



But for largely forcing many people to move into these Swedish speaking areas, thus contributing in segregation.

I don't see how it would force anyone to move anywere considering how nearly all swedish speakers speak finnish also. This also increases the absurdity of swedish as a mandatory language.

Also, even if it did force swedish populations to move, someone is going to suffer in some form. The options are as follows, remove the swedish as an official language (with whatever effects it might have), or continue this absurd victimization of the swedish speaking minority. They can keep their language, but it is outrageous to demand that every service is provided in swedish seeing that somalians and russians would also have legimate claims with that logic. As things stand, somali and russian are not going to be official languages, so forcing swedish to be one is a decision made on basis of double standard.



Well actually, if a University says they have courses in Latin, they theoretically are obligated to give the course even just for me.

It really doesn't remove the fact that such high demands would be unreasonable, or the fact that the demands made in defence of the special status of swedish languages are unreasonable.


The hell it is. Just because eastern and northern Finland don't have all that many Swedish speakers, doesn't mean 'most Finnish regions' don't. Most of the Finnish population lives in the south and on the coastlines.
...Where english is even more necessary than swedish.
signed: person who has spent 8 months in a library in Espoo, (fucking Espoo!), without having to resort to swedish even once. English was mandatory daily however. Why isn't english an official language? And saying that Tampere would have significant swedish speaking minority is quite laughable. If such diminishing minorities made so outrageous status claims anywhere else in europe they would be laughed at... no! They are laughed at. And for good reason too, seeing that the only reason for these demands are identity politics derived from some obscure pseudo-nationalism.

Hell! I live in southern Ostrobothnia and I practically never hear swedish anywhere! Truth is, regions where swedish language is an authentic societal phenomenon are few, restricted to the south-western and western coasts, and diminishing even with the attempt at artificially keeping the language alive.

And even if swedish was a disappearing language only in lapland, it does not remove the fact that in the case of lapland the mandatory nature of swedish would be absurd at best. The attitude that Karelia and lapland just need to "live with it" is non constructive.


Culturally secular? Make your point clearer, please.
Separation of cultural identity and state. We cannot judge attacks on cultural groups if we acknowledge the imaginary cultural identities as valid political factors. That is to say, for example, that we cannot judge nationalist rhetorics if we accept their claim that nations matter.

[Noinu]

...

Whoops, I totally forgot this debate :O how the hell that happened, I cannot understand.
Although, I think it's evolved into a point of ad nauseam for the both of us, so maybe better for me to back down and let you have it. I mean, I do understand in what a minority I am on this one, and I certainly do not hold it against people.

On a completely other note, still relating to this thread; the news about the police officers who didn't speak Swedish (I'm not going to go into that part), there came hundreds of comments about how horrible Swedish speakers are when they 'refuse to speak Finnish in Finland' (which of course, we both know is not true, since they all speak Finnish as well, except maybe over 65 yos and those from Åland), and how good it would be if one would deport them all to Sweden or better yet, beat them all to death.
What would you suggest one might do against these sorts of attitudes?