Talk:Swedish-speaking population of Finland/Archive 5
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Quite a number of IP edits
An "interesting" phenomenon on this page is the increasing number of anonymous IP edits lately... Monegasque (talk) 16:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- I have filed a sockpuppet investigation on Podomi. Feel free to add comments. --MPorciusCato (talk) 17:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Ahem. A 'mass migration' is something different from "a massive migration"... might this be the problem in one of the paragraphs? Clarifer (talk) 16:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- If you want to replace "massive" by some other qualifier which you find more objective (or no qualifier at all), I won't object. Monegasque (talk) 17:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- No mention of the absolute numbers of the people in the quote (as no-one knows). Therefore, I removed any mention of quantities. The quote only suggests that there may have been more men than women among the early settlers. Clarifer (talk) 19:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- That's fine with me. Monegasque (talk) 19:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- No mention of the absolute numbers of the people in the quote (as no-one knows). Therefore, I removed any mention of quantities. The quote only suggests that there may have been more men than women among the early settlers. Clarifer (talk) 19:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
It happens often that forget to log in. Not because of purpose attempt to hide myself. I have always strong academic sources to back my claims, so there´s no need for external support. No need for investigation, most of the stuff which does not fit the fennonationalist view and which are attempts to increase the neutrality of the article is most likely from me. BTW I made the history introduction more neutral. As there were interest to introduce any Swedish studies supporting the continuation theory, there´s very little reason to stick to the old version. Wikipedia should not be used presenting romantic Fennonationalistic views as the sole truth. The reader must be aware of the broader context and the ideological motives of the researcher. And for fennos I recommend recent studies on the spread of Uralic languages to North Europe. You can start f.e from a study by Finnish Juha Janhunen, ( När kom Finnarna till Finland, 2005) and yes there are loads place names with pre-historical germanic etymology.Podomi (talk) 17:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Early Germanic place names in Finland have absolutely nothing to do with today's Finland-Swedes. In fact, the only ones that can even remotely claim a continuum of heritage to those place names are the current Finnish-speakers in the areas of Satakunta and Kalanti. Clarifer (talk) 19:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- If anyone should wonder: Clarifer is making a reference to the many waves of Germanic immigrants who were gradually assimilated by the West Finnish tribes over a long period before Finland became a part of Sweden. Monegasque (talk) 19:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- All of your assesments are valid, nevertheless in the old version the reader got an impression that the non-existance of the continuity theory a fact. I have been taught that a fact is only a fact when it is unamiously perceived as such in a scientific community. This is still by far an issue in which we don´t have facts. There are very recent Swedish studies which indicates Germanic continuity in Österbotten. Obviously all Finnish-speaking scholars turned the view down. However, less and less scholars are holding the view that Finns have been in Finland for 9000 years, as the reknown study, financed by the Finnish minister of internal affairs suggested in the 70´s. Moreoever, I have source or I had source on contemporary Finnish historian, a professor in university of Turku, who supports partial continuity theory, he addresses that there were Swedish-spealers in SW Finland as late as 700AD before the bulk of them finnicized. The only fact seems to be that the overwhelming majority of contemporary Finland-Swedes are result of the recent, middle aged population movement, however my own personal view is that some of Northern Germanic dialects spoken in Finland are so archaich (Närpes, f.e) that they have turned to somewhat comprehensible Swedish only after they´ve been exposed to modern Swedish colonialistsPodomi (talk) 20:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- There are very recent Swedish studies which indicates Germanic continuity in Österbotten. Curiously, these "recent" studies (bulk of them dates back to the early 90's) have been criticized by several Swedish-speaking historians, linguists and archaeologists in Finland...Why? Well, simply because it involved a lot of substandard argumentation and generally crappy research with nationalistic overtones.--130.234.5.138 (talk) 09:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Edit However, less and less scholars are holding the view that Finns have been in Finland for 9000 years. Actually, this is quite right. Personally I think that it is nonsense to even speak of ethnic Finns or ethnic Finland-Swedes before the late 19th century. They were not ethnic anything until they developed group identities inspired by nationalism.--130.234.5.138 (talk) 10:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- I quite agree. Moreover, I'd like to add that Podomi's brand of militant racial nationalism is rejected by the vast majority of Swedish-speakers, for whom people like Podomi are nothing but an embarrassment. It is strictly a lunatic fringe phenomenon. Such extremistic POV-pushing should not be permitted on Wikipedia. Podomi has repeatedly broken against quite a number of Wikipedia rules. Apparently he thinks that the patience of the Wikipedia community will last forever. Monegasque (talk) 10:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- There are very recent Swedish studies which indicates Germanic continuity in Österbotten. Curiously, these "recent" studies (bulk of them dates back to the early 90's) have been criticized by several Swedish-speaking historians, linguists and archaeologists in Finland...Why? Well, simply because it involved a lot of substandard argumentation and generally crappy research with nationalistic overtones.--130.234.5.138 (talk) 09:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Edit However, less and less scholars are holding the view that Finns have been in Finland for 9000 years. Actually, this is quite right. Personally I think that it is nonsense to even speak of ethnic Finns or ethnic Finland-Swedes before the late 19th century. They were not ethnic anything until they developed group identities inspired by nationalism.--130.234.5.138 (talk) 10:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- All of your assesments are valid, nevertheless in the old version the reader got an impression that the non-existance of the continuity theory a fact. I have been taught that a fact is only a fact when it is unamiously perceived as such in a scientific community. This is still by far an issue in which we don´t have facts. There are very recent Swedish studies which indicates Germanic continuity in Österbotten. Obviously all Finnish-speaking scholars turned the view down. However, less and less scholars are holding the view that Finns have been in Finland for 9000 years, as the reknown study, financed by the Finnish minister of internal affairs suggested in the 70´s. Moreoever, I have source or I had source on contemporary Finnish historian, a professor in university of Turku, who supports partial continuity theory, he addresses that there were Swedish-spealers in SW Finland as late as 700AD before the bulk of them finnicized. The only fact seems to be that the overwhelming majority of contemporary Finland-Swedes are result of the recent, middle aged population movement, however my own personal view is that some of Northern Germanic dialects spoken in Finland are so archaich (Närpes, f.e) that they have turned to somewhat comprehensible Swedish only after they´ve been exposed to modern Swedish colonialistsPodomi (talk) 20:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Tears, boys, my heart is broken. It wasn´t long time ago when MPontusCato, followed by an edit war, let me know that it is not irrelevant whether I am right or wrong, he continued to emphasize that wikipedia is not for the sake of truth. An argument I´ve constantly hear from Finns while bringing academic sources to the debate. Now that I have brought an impartial, third party Canadian source regarding the continuity theory, I am being accused of bias. Howcome?
- Speaking of militant racial nationalism, I think I have heard about it.
- Den finlandssvenska självbilden (2008, university of lund)
- "Den dominerande finska inställningen till det svenska och överhuvudtaget allt icke finskt, kan uppfattas som stundtals närmast militant intolerant. Landet för en allmänt restriktiv invandrarpolitik. Att den så kallade äktfinska rörelsen upplever detta som positivt må vara hänt, men detta kan ha haft viss betydelse rent samhällsekonomiskt".
- Curiously, these "recent" studies (bulk of them dates back to the early 90's) have been criticized by several Swedish-speaking historians, linguists and archaeologists in Finland...Why? Well, simply because it involved a lot of substandard argumentation and generally crappy research with nationalistic overtones.
- British cultural anthropologist, Phd and a lecturer at a Finnish university, Edward Dutton (2008) has addressed the collective sentiments of Finnish scientific communnity, ironically his analysis fits to you very accurately.
- "Battling to be 'European': myth and the finnish race debate"
- "Finns (Correct) v Foreigners (Incorrect)
- This distinction is related to the above point. In general, Finnish scholars are drawn upon as ‘authorities’ while foreign scholars – whose racial ideas are disagreeable – are heavily critiqued. There thus appears to be a very basic Finnish patriotism here. Anttonen (2005, 125) remarks that Finland is a strongly consensus-based society which sees itself as being very united. He argues that Finns generally dislike outsiders to a greater extent than other European nations. It is thus, he argues, a highly patriotic society and this aspect of the myth may reflect that".
- My views are more liberal as opposed to what is mainstream for a Finland-Swedes, thus I never have any problems in validating my claims. Anyway, after seeing so much of Finnish culture chauvinism and arrogance applied towards small national minorities, I am starting to consider hiring bigger guns.Podomi (talk) 11:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- "Liberal"? Yes, and the earth is flat. Podomi's thoughts can only be called "liberal" if we can include such thinkers as Arthur de Gobineau and Houston Stewart Chamberlain in his own particular brand of so-called "liberalism". Compared to Podomi's thinking, a party like for instance Sverigedemokraterna appears actually quite liberal. Moreover, I'm a Swedish-speaking Finn myself, so it's no wonder I greatly resent the way he's trying to portray this population group. Objectively speaking, he's working as an agent provocateur for the extremists of Suomalaisuuden Liitto. As a matter of fact, by now I'm actually convinced that he's doing that quite conciously. His thoughts and language correspond exactly to the negative stereotype about Swedish-speaking Finns that the extremist fringe among Finnish-speakers is trying to spread. And in the way he uses the English language there are some very interesting mistakes. For example, in a passage above he speaks of Swedish "colonialists" when what he means is "colonists" (that is, the several waves of Swedish people who settled in Western Finland during the Middle Ages). It so happens that these two words in Swedish are almost identical with the corresponding English words: "kolonist" and "kolonialist". What's really interesting about Podomi's choice of words is this: no person whose first language is Swedish and who has at least a secondary-school education would mix the words "kolonist" and "kolonialist". However, a person whose first language is, for instance, Finnish could well mix these two, as the Finnish language translates "colonist" by "siirtokuntalainen" and "colonialist" either by "kolonialisti" or indirectly as "siirtomaavallan kannattaja". As the Finnish-language term for "colonist" doesn't resemble at all the corresponding English term, a Finnish-speaker writing in English could easily make precisely this kind of mistake. And, of course, this is what I very strongly suspect this so-called "Podomi" of being in reality: a Finnish-speaking extreme nationalist who is trying to make the Swedish-speaking Finns look bad. Moreover, calling the Swedish settlers "colonialists" instead of "colonists" is very revealing, as it is exactly the language of the extremist fringe among the Finnish-speakers. No Swedish-speaking Finn would use that word is this context. Moreover: the kind of mistakes Podomi keeps making when he writes in English are typical for Finnish-speakers, not Swedish-speakers. As an example, I quote Podomi: "should focus ourselves in finding more neutral title for the article. I am afraid the English expression "Swedish-speaking Finn" does pretty bad job in describing finlandssvenskhet or finlandssvenskarna". It should, of course, be "finding a more neutral title" and "does a pretty bad job". Omitting the article is an error very commonly encountered in the use of English by people whose first language lacks articles, such as Slavic languages and Finnish. Swedish, on the other hand, is relatively closely related to English and has articles. This is why this kind of mistake is rarely made by a Swedish-speaker. There are other very clear traces of an unmistakably Finnish syntax in Podomi's prose as well. Need I go on?
- Our "friend" Podomi is definitely not what he pretends to be. Monegasque (talk) 14:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- My views are more liberal as opposed to what is mainstream for a Finland-Swedes, thus I never have any problems in validating my claims. Anyway, after seeing so much of Finnish culture chauvinism and arrogance applied towards small national minorities, I am starting to consider hiring bigger guns.Podomi (talk) 11:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- Anyway, I beg for an apology if I haven´t thought about the limits of Finnish self-esteem enough. Howeever, as Finland-Swedish scholar Leif Höckerstedt addressed, who exactly wins with the political talk emphasizing the closeness of the two ethnicities in Finland (the chauvinistic "one folk, one fuhrer" -talk ). How can Swedish culture in Finland sustain itself if we are constantly told that there´s nothing to preserve as we are already allegedly all the same. Ethnic minorities do not survive under such policy. The Turkish officials refer the Kurds as "Mountain Turks", that´s even worse than the "Swedish-speaking Finn". I wonder what is the official Chinese policy towards Tibetians, I wonder if they referred as "Bad behaving Chinese"? I am really apalled by the intolerance several Finnish posters have expressed against Swedes in Finland. The constant attempt to deny and hide their ethnicity or camouflage Swedishness as some sort of political incorrectness and extreme. I have even accused of being racist. Howcome the identity or Swedishness of a five percent minority can be racist? We are two people and two languages (två folk, två språk, germansk och ugrisk), hopefully even intolerant Fenno chauvinists accept this in the future, we are living in a period of multiculturalism and liberalism, there´s no room anymore for preserving some mythical unity of one folk.Podomi (talk) 14:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- Montesques little speculations are cute. Yes, english is not my first language. Everything else can be perceived as ad hominems. What I am has zero relevance, they do not make my argument worse or the better. Anyway, in my defense I can add that I do lot of typos and "forget" words in sentences while my typing does not match with my though process.
- I address that my choice of words may convey meanings which can be viewed as harsh by the mainstream. I referred Swedes as colonialists since that´s the word Kari Tarkiainen used (2008). To me it is not negative expression, I don´t associate it to some violent conquest. Some others parhaps do. Well, anyway we can use expressions such as "population movement". And yes, my views have been very embraced by the posters who have identified as Finland-Swedes, if thats legitimates my cause or not. It really doesn´t matter. I have a view and it happens that my particular view receives lot of support in academia and in non-state financed research. I think we are in a very wrong paths if we are to focus on what Finns think about Finland-Swedes. Finland-Swedes are people, they don´t need to validate or market themselves to legitimate existance to the majority. No offense Montesque, I find your reasoning quite dangerous.
- "Diskussionen tycks gå ut på att se oss genom finska ögon och få oss att agera så att majoriteten blir nöjd" -Höckerstedt, 2009
- Moreover, the more I have communicated with Finns, the more I have become certain on the accuracy of the message of Finland-Swedish study. The dominating attitude in Finnish society appears to be hostile towards Swedish culture. That´s an harsh comment, but you guys don´t leave me much of a choice.
- "Den finlandssvenska självbilden" (2008, university of Lund)
- "Den dominerande finska inställningen till det svenska och överhuvudtaget allt icke finskt, kan uppfattas som stundtals närmast militant intolerant. Landet för en allmänt restriktiv invandrarpolitik. Att den så kallade äktfinska rörelsen upplever detta som positivt må vara hänt, men detta kan ha haft viss betydelse rent samhällsekonomiskt".Podomi (talk) 14:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- It seems that Podomi hasn't read the latest survey commissioned by Magma... About Tarkiainen: on which page exactly and in which context does he refer to the Swedish settlers as "colonialists"? I'd like to read that with my own eyes without having to go through the whole book to find the relevant quote. Monegasque (talk) 15:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- "Den dominerande finska inställningen till det svenska och överhuvudtaget allt icke finskt, kan uppfattas som stundtals närmast militant intolerant. Landet för en allmänt restriktiv invandrarpolitik. Att den så kallade äktfinska rörelsen upplever detta som positivt må vara hänt, men detta kan ha haft viss betydelse rent samhällsekonomiskt".Podomi (talk) 14:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- It seems that any compromise regarding the title will not be reached. Perhaps it would a be good idea to stop this endless debate and proceed. Let Podomi request for a move. Regarding Podomi's true motives: I have suspected myself that he is actually a anti-finlandssvensk provocateur, because his racially based ethnonationalism and grotesque ethnic stereotypes concerning Finnish-speakers are rather caricature-like. His opinions and the language he uses go far beyond what would be necessary if his only intention was the affirmation and empowerment of the finlandssvensk identity - a legimate goal that I will support as long as it does not stray into cultural chauvinism, racial thinking and hostile demonizing of us Finnish-speakers.
- However, Podomi's acting in Swedish Wikipedia proves that he has good command of the Swedish language, a rare skill among supporters of the Suomalaisuuden liitto. So perhaps he is just a very original and stubborn Swedish-speaking individual writing clumsy English and residing in the rotten trenches of the language strife and racist ultra-nationalism from the 1920's.--130.234.5.138 (talk) 15:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- That doesn't explain why he can't make the distinction between a "colonist" and a "colonialist" which, as I pointed out, are virtually the same words in Swedish: "kolonist" and "kolonialist". No Swedish-speaking person with some degree of education would make that mistake. And then his characteristically Finnish syntax and all those omissions of articles which are typical for Slavs and Finnish-speakers, not Swedish-speakers... Monegasque (talk) 16:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Finnish ethnonationalism
Tarkiainen uses the expression, den svenska kolonisationen. Anyway, just few words about the process which is aimed to cast me as some sort of radical, for dearing the brake the Fennonationalist myths.
Montesque and MPorciusCato have initiated some sort of speculation of me being an agent provocateur for not portraying Finland-Swedes according to accepted norms of Finns.
This is ridiculous.
1) Given that I was an agent provocateur for Suomalaisuuden liitto I would be dat more efficient, to put it in modest way. I´d run the wiki circus through several IP´s and I´d use foreign proxies. I´d either buy or acquire moderating rights for wikipedia. And after that I´d elicit the whole army of academic sources which dig into the most senstitive and taboo-laden aspects of Finnish society regarding its ethnic minorities. I´d introduce studies which cast Finland as third-world Eastern European state which is not willing embrace fixed territory principle for the endangered Swedish minority. Basically all the studies would excude Finnish culture chauvinism in regards of Swedes. Finns ofcourse feel them as victims for having had to fight for their language and culture to be accepted in Finland, but I wouldn´t bother too much about it. I´d show studies in where Finns rank Finland-Swedes as the most non-desired ethnicities in Europe and push and agenda which generally depict Finland as intolerant and racist towards Swedish minority.
So in nutshell, I am not an agent provocateur, all I want is this site to be neutral. This site should not be used to boost the non- existing Finnish self-confidence (sorry for a stereotype) or to put Finland-Swedes into some accepted norms. Finland-Swedes do not need to market themselves for being accepted. They can be as much of Swedes and representants of the "fifth colonn" as they wish. Wikipedia should never be some kind of a proxy or a caveat to prompt Finnish nationalism. We are here to give neutral view of Finland-Swedes to an international audience. I am afraid we are far from being neutral if our sole purpose is to saddle "Swedish-speaking finns" as some sort of Finns who just express Finnishnness in Swedish language.
If anything I am biased. I believe Finland-Swedes should presented in a neutral way but in a positive light. That is the reason why I removed Tore Modeens analysis on the Finnish unwillingnes to accept Swedish nationality in Finland. I believed it would have portrayed Finns as intolerant. Something we don´t need to have in the article of Swedish-speaking FinnsPodomi (talk) 15:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- If Podomi's command of Swedish were just a little better, he'd realise that the proper word to associate with the expression "den svenska kolonisationen" is "kolonist" and not "kolonialist". A "kolonialist" in Swedish is a supporter of a political ideology (colonialism), and this is not what Tarkiainen is referring to here. A "kolonist" in Swedish is essentially the same thing as a settler. That word has nothing to do with any political ideology. In the Swedish language, the word "kolonialist", on the contrary, is always associated with supporting the political ideology of colonialism and is virtually always used in a negative sense. If Podomi doesn't understand this difference, it can only mean two things. Either Swedish is not his first language (as I strongly suspect) or his educational level is not very high (which seems like a plausible alternative as well). Generally speaking, Podomi, by his language, by the level of his "arguments" and by his rabble-rousing style gives indeed a thoroughly halvbildad (to use a good Swedish word) impression of himself. Monegasque (talk) 16:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- What is the purpose of your crazy rants? As if I am here to give an educated or uneducated view of myself. I am here to make to article more neutral and better. It doesn´t matter what is going on in discussion forum. It doesn´t matter wether I am an agent provocateur, a Finn or a Swede. What should you do wwith information of my background. How would things turn different if I turned out be an agent provocateur, a Finn or a chinese. You are wasting your energy on non-sense. Let just say as hint that I am not frantically worried what third party is thinking about me. This already outrules one ethnicity in question. Anyway, the site looks good. I just removed some unverifiable speculation with strong tinge of manifestation. The stuff cannot be verified from any sources. Other than that we are doing fine. Hopefully no one starts to act like a baby again. Otherwise I am forced to add some new (referenced) material and studies to the article, which I wouldn´t have energy for otherwise. So be nice;)Podomi (talk) 20:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Monecasque, what are you after with your "one school of though"? Do you deny that Finns and Finland-Swedes would not collectively perceive the term finlandssvenskar to have an ethno cultural connotation?What kind of a Swedish-speaking Finn you really are? LOL. Perhaps a finnish 70´s immigrant to Sweden who speaks Swedish, this would explain your lack of common knowledge of Finland. According to Höckerstedts(2000)gallup-style study on Finnish perception regarding on Finland-Swedes, several cultural themes popped in. In fact the answers were similar to that of Finland-Swedish self-perception.
"Självfallet kan man diskutera vad som ingår i denna gruppidentifikation (finlandssvensk) förutom svenska språket och vissa historiska händelser: samhörighet med Sverige, kräftätning, snapvisesjungande,Luciatraditionen, skärgårdsliv, ankdammen, upplevelser i språkstrid, fonderna, SFP osv. I varje fall är det klart att den mera omfattande betydelsen fortfarande lever och att många inte upplever den som relevant eller accetabelt och därför undvikar hela ordet, t.e Jörn Donner, som i bok från 1980 meddelar sig "att vara finne som talar svenska" http://www.ling.helsinki.fi/~fkarlsso/edelfelt.pdf"
Moreover, these findings were supported by Edward Duttons (2008) study which assessed that Finns do not perceive class differences between their own ethno-cultural group but perceive as having ethno-linguistic form, in the sense that Finland-Swedes are perceived to members of upper-class. It should be clear by everyone that finlandssvenskar, carry more in dept features than simple language.
Anyway, if you keep pushing your aggressive POV I am forced to starting to use direct citats by the late professor in international law and minority rights, Tore Modeen. Then the reader would know for certain what kind of school of though we are dealing with.Podomi (talk) 11:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
BTW, Monacasque, is professor and the leader of Finland-Swedish think-thank, one of the major political NGOs representing Finland-Swedes, Mr Forsgård extreme and non-mainstream?
"Vi ska komma ihåg vårt historiska arv och inte bara tala om språk utan om kulturarv. Alla Europeiska minoriteter är medvetna om sitt historiska arv men vi finlandssvenskar tenderar att glömma det vi är stolta över. (HBL, interview, Volt 7.2 2009) We have to more precise of what kind of school of thought we are dealing with. The school of minority rights and international law and the school of biggest Finland-Swedish political NGO. Remember these the next time when your try to illegitimize the ethnic identity of Finland-Swedes—Preceding unsigned comment added by Podomi (talk • contribs) 11:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
- Forsgård is talking about "kulturarv", that is, cultural heritage, and that is not controversial at all. As a matter of fact, it's quite mainstream. But "cultural heritage" and "ethnicity" are two very different concepts indeed. To talk about "ethnicity" (a problematic concept since it's very difficult to define in a scientifically valid way devoid of bias) and to stress it as strongly as the people grouped around Finlandssvensk Samling, a fringe group of perhaps 500 people (in 2005 according to themselves) keep doing (such as Höckerstedt, whose pamphlets and opinion pieces Podomi keeps quoting as if he were some impartial and unbiased expert) is controversial indeed among the Swedish-speaking community. The views presented by Podomi are essentially a radicalized and caricature-like version of FSS's approach and in no way reflect the line of the Swedish Assembly of Finland, the Swedish People's Party, Hufvudstadsbladet, Vasabladet etc. Podomi seems to living in some strange parallel reality where everything we know is upside down. He would perhaps be well advised to cut down somewhat on his consumption of black coffee, which, to judge by the quality and general tone of his rants, is probably very high. Monegasque (talk) 12:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
- Ethnicity is the culture. What else would it be? I suggest you introduce you to the basic concepts of ethnicity in wikipedias ethnicity-article. Ethnicity is not diffucult to define.
- From wikipedia. (Ethnic group). This apllies 100% to Finland-Swedes
- "An ethnic group is a group of human beings whose members identify with each other, usually on a presumed or real common heritage.[1][2] Ethnic identity is further marked by the recognition from others of a group's distinctiveness[3] and the recognition of common cultural, linguistic, religious, behavioral or biological traits,[1][4] real or presumed, as indicators of contrast to other groups.
- Moreover, the view of Finland-Swedes as an distinct ethnicity was supported in study on the collective self-perception of Finland-Swedes (den finlandssvenska självbilden, 2008) and ironically the study collected the material from the above mentioned Swedish-speaking newspapers you just mentioned. Even Finns perceive distinct characteristics on Finland-Swedes than they do not hold on themselves, and these characteristics exceed the language. So the Finland-Swedish ethnicity is reciprocative. Both Finns and Swedes agree on it. I´d like to see even one non-state sponsored study which would imply that Finland-Swedes are not an ethnicity. The reason SFP imply against this common notion is because ethnicity equals the same as race to them. They are populists. Finland-Swedes are not seperate race in contrast to Finns, although we are 100% sure about that either, but they are a distinct ethnicity. That´s a fact per se. And by fact I am mean this information is agreed unamiously among the academics ie. scientific community.
- What is controversial is the notion of Finland-Swedes as distinct nationality. This is not supported by Finns, as they try to deny it (Modeen 1999) and not supported unamiously by the members of Finland-Swedes themselves either. However, the concept of Finland-Swedes as nationality holds still support in certain circuits, such as FISS f.e. Anyway, what is so radical in FISS? Even the debuty CEO of Swedish peoples party belongs to the organization.Podomi (talk) 12:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
- Ethnicity is the culture. What else would it be? I suggest you introduce you to the basic concepts of ethnicity in wikipedias ethnicity-article. Ethnicity is not diffucult to define. You are talking nonsense again. Ask any social scientist, and he will tell you that 1) ethnicity is often hard to define, especially when it is a question of minority identities and 2) ethnicity refers above all to conscious identity and is only indirectly related to cultural heritage. These simple facts have been explained to you over and over again in two different languages. Unfortunately you seem to refuse to acknowledge it. In fact, it seems that anything that does not fit with your black-and-white ethnochauvinism is water off goose´s back. You simply do not reflect anything that is said to you, making it a very hard and frustrating (and boring) job to discuss with you.--88.112.130.46 (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
- What is controversial is the notion of Finland-Swedes as distinct nationality. This is not supported by Finns, as they try to deny it (Modeen 1999) and not supported unamiously by the members of Finland-Swedes themselves either. However, the concept of Finland-Swedes as nationality holds still support in certain circuits, such as FISS f.e. Anyway, what is so radical in FISS? Even the debuty CEO of Swedish peoples party belongs to the organization.Podomi (talk) 12:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, I guess we have to agree that we disagree. Ethnicity to scientific community is rather one-sided thing. Not a theme which sparks any radical debate. In a nutshell, ethnicity is "we" and the "others". Finland-Swedes refer themselves as finlandssvenskar as opposed to finnar. Hence, a group distinguishes between itself and the "others". This as black and white as it sounds. Linguistic group is already by default an ethnic group. I am slightly concerned that are trying to make some kind of a puzzle of this. Remember your beloved sources by SFP does not have a base on any scientific study, nor can it be rationally defended. It´s a voice that some poor "politrukki" has put on their website in order to not give any prompt for Finnish stereotypes which often depicts Finland-Swedes as some sort of state-traitors, ie "Fifth colonn". And as we know sociologists view is already presented in the study, and we all know what´s the verdict in regards to Finland-Swedes. Anyway, on monday I call to SFP and ask them to remove that propaganda on their website, after that the issue is solved for good.Podomi (talk) 19:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
- The only thing I agree is that you are completely misinformed of ethnicity reserch in social sciences and history. I am concerned that you suffer from a delusion that your simplistic and naive views represent the "academic" or "scientific" view-point of ethnicity. Any self-identified group is "we" (having Wir-Gefühl) as opposed to others, but not every group with a distinct identity is an ethnic group. Ethnicity is not a neutral, descriptive term.--88.112.130.46 (talk) 19:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, I guess we have to agree that we disagree. Ethnicity to scientific community is rather one-sided thing. Not a theme which sparks any radical debate. In a nutshell, ethnicity is "we" and the "others". Finland-Swedes refer themselves as finlandssvenskar as opposed to finnar. Hence, a group distinguishes between itself and the "others". This as black and white as it sounds. Linguistic group is already by default an ethnic group. I am slightly concerned that are trying to make some kind of a puzzle of this. Remember your beloved sources by SFP does not have a base on any scientific study, nor can it be rationally defended. It´s a voice that some poor "politrukki" has put on their website in order to not give any prompt for Finnish stereotypes which often depicts Finland-Swedes as some sort of state-traitors, ie "Fifth colonn". And as we know sociologists view is already presented in the study, and we all know what´s the verdict in regards to Finland-Swedes. Anyway, on monday I call to SFP and ask them to remove that propaganda on their website, after that the issue is solved for good.Podomi (talk) 19:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, that´s why I mentioned "in a nuttshell", ethnicity is usually expressed as "we" and "others", in regards to language, religion or biological origin. And ofcourse Finland-Swedes are an ethnic group because Finns perceive them as "others". This is not just about how Finland-Swedes see themselves. Good article which came to day in Daily Telegraph. Interestingly, I remember I assessed that Finns cannot be perceived outside from other Uralics, the author of the article suggest Greenlanders as a good equivalent for Finns.
- "Expat life in Finland: Arctic exploration sheds light on Finland"
- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/expat/4205519/Expat-life-in-Finland-Arctic-exploration-sheds-light-on-Finland.html
- "Greenland, a Danish colony, shows comparable symptoms because its history has been oddly similar. And in both countries there is a myth that there is no social class even though there conspicuously is. It is "we Finns" and the Swedish-speakers or "we Inuit" and the Danes".Podomi (talk) 22:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
- The Inuit language belongs, of course, to the Eskimo-Aleut languages, not to the Uralic language group. And the Swedish-speaking Finns certainly do not constitute a "social class". That Podomi could make such elementary mistakes shows, once again, the low level of his general education. An then: "perceived as others"? Is that supposed to be an argument? So are the people of Savo, for instance, as they speak a different dialect of the Finnish language. That "perceived as others" argument can used about any group of people that differs from their neighbours in at least one way, be it language, dialect, religion or whatever. That is indeed a truism. Podomi is very obviously totally clueless about what constitutes a scientifically valid argument, and so he keeps on presenting pamphlets, opinion pieces and the like (and, moreover, his personal conclusions and original theories) as if they had some scientific value. I have understood for a time ago that the likelihood of Podomi having a university-level education is zero, but why keeps on demonstrating his ignorance of scientific methodology, as if it were a source of pride to him, is a mystery to me. Monegasque (talk) 09:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- "Greenland, a Danish colony, shows comparable symptoms because its history has been oddly similar. And in both countries there is a myth that there is no social class even though there conspicuously is. It is "we Finns" and the Swedish-speakers or "we Inuit" and the Danes".Podomi (talk) 22:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
- Moneqasque, you are not being very intellectual here. Edward Duttons article was journalism, however, what the Phd. Dutton suggest with the "we" and "the others, Swedish-speakers" is that class research in Finland has revealed that Finns do not perceive to have social class among themselves, but they perceive it to have an ethno-linguistic feature. That is, they perceive Swedish-speakers to be the upper-class, and the "others". That´s why we have wikipedia article in Finnish with a sub-title "käsitys suomenruotsalaisesta eliitistä". Moreover, Finns do not attribute just the class aspect on Finland-Swedes, they attribute behavioral patterns, life-style, mental moods, symbols..etc. These are aspects which contribute to the fact that Finland-Swedes are an ethnicity. Whether this is correcet or not may be debated, but it shows the patterns of believe; the ethnicity is marked with either real or presumed recognition of "we" and "them". I admit I am not being very original, almost all of this has already been mentioned in the academic study of Finland-Swedish self-perception, (Den finlandssvenska självbilden, 2008), which reaches the same conclusion on the topic as I do. Anyway, tt is generally believed that Savo, Carelians and Häme folk have been different ethnicities, but they speak the same language these days, dialect or some local traditions alone is not held as a valid feature for distinct ethnicity. Moreover, the above mentioned tribes lack the seperate nationality aspect, which still is a living concept among Finland-Swedes, less so than previously, though.
- Yes, I know eskimo languages do not belong to Uralics, that why I was surprised at first for the comparison. Anyway, the similarities in the pre-historic beliefs, behavior patterns of Eskimos and Finns sounds interesting. Maybe it is about some kind of a broader Nomadic, hunter gatherer Nort-Asian connection.Podomi (talk) 10:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- So now it us Finnish-speakers who define the Swedish-speakers ethnicity, as some us see the Swedish-speakers as "others" in some sense? This is still a bizarre argument, but at least it is a huge improvement compared to Podomi's earlier race-based definition of ethnicity. Compliments. However, the fact remains that all regional, social, linguistic, dialectal etc. identities are not ethnic identities, as ethnicity is a strongly marked identity-political concept with no neutral or objective existence. All Swedish-speakers in Finland do not share same subjective identity projects, although some of them exert their personal right to consider their individual selves as representatives of a distinct ethnicity.--212.146.44.208 (talk) 16:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)Edit And being a historian myself, I retain my right to be very sceptical of Dr. Dutton's ideas of Finno-Inuit connection. I am aware, of course, of the shamanic and animistic heritage in the most archaic layers of the Finnish folklore (even the Scandinavians are believed to have practised Eurasian/North Asian shamanism during the Viking Age). However, in Finland the hunter-gatherer existence belongs to a past so distant that it is simply inconceivable that it could have an influence on the present-day cultural patterns. I find the idea far too romantic to be taken seriously. And to be quite exact, the traditional hunter-gatherer patterns in Fennoscandia have been semi-nomadic. Of course, all this has nothing to do with the Swedish-speaking identity in Finland.--212.146.44.208 (talk) 17:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I know eskimo languages do not belong to Uralics, that why I was surprised at first for the comparison. Anyway, the similarities in the pre-historic beliefs, behavior patterns of Eskimos and Finns sounds interesting. Maybe it is about some kind of a broader Nomadic, hunter gatherer Nort-Asian connection.Podomi (talk) 10:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- As much as I have introduced myself on the ethnic discourse, I have never seen any political aspect applied to the concept of ethnicity. Never. Are you suggesting that political affinity and artificial state-borders has some significance in determing ethnicity?
- The only reason why we have such a fuss about this is something that is obvious to everyone. Finland-Swedish ethnicity has a higher social prestige as opposed to Finns. You guys are denying the ethnicity of Sami or Roma minorities, but Finland-Swedes seem to be the exception. Anyway, Edward Duttons upcoming book on Finland will deal with issue.
- Suggestion that Northern Asiatic shamanic tradition do not have a merit for todays Finland is rather interesting remark, did you actually even the read the article?http://www.telegraph.co.uk/expat/4205519/Expat-life-in-Finland-Arctic-exploration-sheds-light-on-Finland.htmlPodomi (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting that political affinity and artificial state-borders has some significance in determing ethnicity? Of course not. I am talking about identity politics of different self-identified groups, not about national states. If a group presents itself as an ethnic group, the presentation is usually more prestige-laden and demanding and has more political importance than a claim of being a non-ethnic minority. Obviously we have been reading different books. I believe I have read better ones. I do not waste my time by commenting this staggeringly stupid shamanic bullshit anymore. --212.146.44.208 (talk) 19:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)Edit Unsurprisingly, Dutton's brief (and quite silly) paper does not even mention the word "shamanism". All this trolling makes me wonder...are you a provocateur after all? It is very hard to believe that a genuine Svecoman ethnonationalist would be a pathetic caricature. If your real agenda is the strenghening of anti-Swedish opinions in Finland, you have failed in my respect. Having said that, I will withdraw myself from any communicative contact with you. If you are serious, which I very much doubt now, it is a complete waste of time to discuss with you. If you are a provocateur, as I tend to believe now, you are quilty of a crime. You have revealed yout true intention by overdoing your role. Goodbye.--212.146.44.208 (talk) 19:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- The anonymous poster above writes that he tends to believe that Podomi is an agent provocateur. I certainly believe so too. His language and behaviour fits exactly the negative stereotype about Swedish-speakers often presented by the extremist fringe among Finnish-speakers. I'd even say that he's acting like a caricature of that stereotype. As I'm a Swedish-speaker myself, I, for reasons easy to understand, do not like this at all. Moreover, I have important news: I wrote earlier that the mistakes Podomi makes when he writes English are typical of people whose first language lacks articles, such as Slavic languages and Finnish, which makes it very unlikely that his first language could be Swedish. The next step was, of course, to do a little research on the Swedish-language Wikipedia. And, sure enough, Podomi was very easy to find there (his identity there is Jeffertvå;he's already been banned a couple of times but he keeps coming back), as he's always his very own self:the same arguments, the same quotes, the same conclusions, the same vulgar , halvbildad style. But the most interesting fact about Podomi/Jeffertvå is this: the Swedish he writes is full of grammatical errors. And I don't mean "just" spelling mistakes, it's far worse than that. There's absolutely no possibility that Podomi/Jeffertvå's first language could be Swedish. I checked out the Finnish-language Wikipedia as well and, unsurprisingly, Podomi has been trolling there as well. I scanned his Finnish-language prose for errors, but couldn't find any. Of course, this doesn't prove that Podomi's first language is necessarily Finnish, it just proves that his Finnish is much better than his Swedish. All right: by now we know without the shadow of a doubt that Podomi's first language is not Swedish. What interest is he serving, who is he really working for? We don't know that for certain, and may never know. Maybe he really is as unbalanced as he seems to be. But one thing is certain:He is not acting in good faith. He must be stopped. He has no right to keep on sabotaging Wikipedia forever. Monegasque (talk) 22:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting that political affinity and artificial state-borders has some significance in determing ethnicity? Of course not. I am talking about identity politics of different self-identified groups, not about national states. If a group presents itself as an ethnic group, the presentation is usually more prestige-laden and demanding and has more political importance than a claim of being a non-ethnic minority. Obviously we have been reading different books. I believe I have read better ones. I do not waste my time by commenting this staggeringly stupid shamanic bullshit anymore. --212.146.44.208 (talk) 19:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)Edit Unsurprisingly, Dutton's brief (and quite silly) paper does not even mention the word "shamanism". All this trolling makes me wonder...are you a provocateur after all? It is very hard to believe that a genuine Svecoman ethnonationalist would be a pathetic caricature. If your real agenda is the strenghening of anti-Swedish opinions in Finland, you have failed in my respect. Having said that, I will withdraw myself from any communicative contact with you. If you are serious, which I very much doubt now, it is a complete waste of time to discuss with you. If you are a provocateur, as I tend to believe now, you are quilty of a crime. You have revealed yout true intention by overdoing your role. Goodbye.--212.146.44.208 (talk) 19:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- Suggestion that Northern Asiatic shamanic tradition do not have a merit for todays Finland is rather interesting remark, did you actually even the read the article?http://www.telegraph.co.uk/expat/4205519/Expat-life-in-Finland-Arctic-exploration-sheds-light-on-Finland.htmlPodomi (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- I wrote about the alleged provocateur hints in the post which started this chapter. I won´t go there again, but I am just apalled by this fennochauvinism; there seem to be some kind of perverse though reighning that Finland-Swedes should be legitimize their status with the norms Finns are giving. This is a dangerous thought. I don´t care about whether Finns start to like Finland-Swedes more or less after the article, I care about the standards of an encyclopedia. The self-confidence of Finns should never be priority in any isssue, and certainly not in regards of Finland-Swedes.
- Montesque, are suggesting that people whose mother-tongue is not Swedish shall not be contribute to wikipedia, especially not if the person writes something which the ethnocnationalist Finns do not like, lol! You are indulging some scary thoughts there. This page must be set in international surveillance.Podomi (talk) 09:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- Anyway, I am very happy with the article in its present form, I think the content is neutral, apart from the title. Is there something which disturbs you or something you find non-neutral in the text, Montesque? I understand that Fenno nationalist who´ve used to the one-sided view of Finland-Swedes may not find everything in the text as suitable for their view but it doesn´t equal that the text would less neutral.Podomi (talk) 11:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- It is interesting to see you implicitly acknowledge that your mother-tongue is not Swedish. Thus, it is rather impossible for you to be a finlandssvensk, although you have given a very strong reason for us to assume that. If you are not a finlandssvensk, but you are promoting a very strong "race"-based agenda on finlandssvensk identity politics, there remains a question whether you are a Finnish-speaker or a speaker of a Slavic language. Thus, the question is whether you are trying to sow discord on the basis of a Fennoman agenda or whether you have even more sinister motives. --MPorciusCato (talk) 15:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed. Some relevant Wikipedia articles which might help to shed some light on Podomi's case: False flag, Black propaganda, Cyber warfare. Monegasque (talk) 15:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- I have an interesting update. I took a closer look at Podomi's prose in the Finnish-language Wiki (first as "JFK", and then, as gets in trouble as JFK, under different IP addresses that can be traced to the Helsinki School of Economics). Podomi writes Finnish clearly better than Swedish, but his spelling tends to be quite "experimental" and he makes several grammatical errors that a person whose first language is Finnish would not make. Some conclusions: 1) He lives in the Helsinki region. 2) He habitually logs in at the Helsinki School of Economics. 3) His first language is neither Swedish nor Finnish, although he at first pretended to be Swedish-speaking. Need I go on about Podomi's likely motives and the framework he's probably acting in? By the way, there are some articles that might interest some people reading this: Disinformation. Active measures. Web brigades. Очень интересно... Monegasque (talk) 23:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed. Some relevant Wikipedia articles which might help to shed some light on Podomi's case: False flag, Black propaganda, Cyber warfare. Monegasque (talk) 15:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- It is interesting to see you implicitly acknowledge that your mother-tongue is not Swedish. Thus, it is rather impossible for you to be a finlandssvensk, although you have given a very strong reason for us to assume that. If you are not a finlandssvensk, but you are promoting a very strong "race"-based agenda on finlandssvensk identity politics, there remains a question whether you are a Finnish-speaker or a speaker of a Slavic language. Thus, the question is whether you are trying to sow discord on the basis of a Fennoman agenda or whether you have even more sinister motives. --MPorciusCato (talk) 15:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- This exceeds the wikipedia netiquette. I have never conducted anything illeagal online. On the contrary your behavior of adding unreferenced, non-verifiable self-manifestations on the the text is borderline vandalism. Are you suggesting that I am not welcome to contribute to the article and thus increase the understanding of Finland-Swedes for international audience? Speculations of my motivates is rather parody-esque, as if it would mattter. Howabout if I disclose that I am a Lithuanian-descent with one parent being either Finn, Mainland-Swedish or a Finland-Swede, and work simply to give higher standards for the article? You guys arent´t very creative with your reasoning. However, you should not give personal information about me, whether correct o of not, to public. I understand that the issuef Finland-Swedes is senstive for Finns but this goes way above the limits. Moreover, the attempt to illegitimize me and deny my acces to page based on some wild speculation of my political motives is very reminiscent to Soviet tactics.Podomi (talk) 07:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
- Podomi seems to be changing his linguistic, national etc identity like a chameleon. Now that his bluff about being supposedly a Swedish-speaker has been called, he's saying that he's half "Lithuanian" and half something mysterious that he's not prepared to disclose. I wonder what he'll be next week... Until recently he's pretended to be Swedish-speaking, no doubt calculating that if he presents himself as a member of the population group this article discusses who just happens to feel strongly about the issue, he'll be treated more leniently by the other redactors and his many violations of Wikipedia rules, his recurrent use of invective, his POV-pushing etc, will be pardoned. At first, he was to a certain degree successful with his bluffing. He has systematically accused real Swedish-speakers, including several Wikipedia editors, (as well as the Swedish-speaking mainstream in Finland, such as the Folktinget, the Swedish People's Party and the Swedish-speaking media) of being either mere puppets of the Finnish state or basically dishonest, unpatriotic, rootless and scheming people who "pretend to be Finnish" in order to get advantages from the state. The possibility that Podomi's prose may well qualify as hate speech and have legal consequences for the real person behind the chameleon-like "Podomi" has already been hinted to by other people than myself, both on this page and elsewhere (his activities here seem to be only the tip of an iceberg;he's active elsewhere as well and he has been discussed elsewhere). As the section of the Finnish legislation which deals with hate speech is subject to interpretation by the relevant authorities, it isn't possible to predict whether he will or not face charges; that is for the Public Prosecutor to decide. It's important to note that no private citizen can press charges for hate speech according to Finnish legislation. He has systematically accused Finnish-speakers, including several Wikipedia editors, of chauvinism, nationalism etc and repeatedly used ethnic slurs about them (at the same time pretending to be a Swedish-speaker), obviously in order to provoke and increase anti-Swedish feeling among Finnish-speakers. This may qualify as hate speech as well. He has repeatedly used straw man arguments, referred to mere opinion pieces and pamphlets as if they were objective research and, moreover, quoted utterly selectively and in several cases referred to different sources as supposedly proving a point which they actually don't prove. He has routinely distorted the truth in other ways as well. To sum up: he has the whole time been acting in bad faith. To list every single case where he has broken against Wikipedia rules would be a a very tedious task, as the list would be very long and most of us have other things to do besides counting every single factual untruth, ethnic slur, piece of invective, reverting of valid, referenced information etc that Podomi has made himself guilty of, but it may well come to that. The other editors, including myself, have until now been far too lenient with him. The best course of action for him would be to withdraw voluntarily. Wikipedia is not a playground for people of his kind. Monegasque (talk) 11:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
- This exceeds the wikipedia netiquette. I have never conducted anything illeagal online. On the contrary your behavior of adding unreferenced, non-verifiable self-manifestations on the the text is borderline vandalism. Are you suggesting that I am not welcome to contribute to the article and thus increase the understanding of Finland-Swedes for international audience? Speculations of my motivates is rather parody-esque, as if it would mattter. Howabout if I disclose that I am a Lithuanian-descent with one parent being either Finn, Mainland-Swedish or a Finland-Swede, and work simply to give higher standards for the article? You guys arent´t very creative with your reasoning. However, you should not give personal information about me, whether correct o of not, to public. I understand that the issuef Finland-Swedes is senstive for Finns but this goes way above the limits. Moreover, the attempt to illegitimize me and deny my acces to page based on some wild speculation of my political motives is very reminiscent to Soviet tactics.Podomi (talk) 07:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
You are loosing it up. I am dead serious. What is it in the article that you find offending? To imply that I would face criminal charges for introducing studies such as (Den finlandssvenska självbilden, 2008; The cultural rights of the ethnic Swedish group in Finland, 1999; Fusk finnar eller östvenskar, 2000; The Finland-Swedish Wheel of migration, 2005; Conflict and compromise in multilingual society, case Finland 1993; Språkgränser och samhällsstruktur 1981 et cetara) is ridiculous, in fact its even beyond riduculous. In what kind of Soviet era are you living? Basically what you are suggesting is that this article should subject to self-critisism because everything else would mean that Finns start to hate Swedes. What kind of a picture you are yourself giving of Finns? Are saying that Finns are collectively racist, so racist that will start to hate Swedes, a 5% minority group, incase we are having something inappropriate in the article, from a fennonationalist point of view, that is. The way I see it is that you´ve just given a bigger insult to Finns that not even the most blatant Swedo-chauvinist could have conjured. What is your purpose here? It does not have anything to do with sincere interest of editing an encyclopedia, that is for sure. You seem to have your own goals to advance. Congratulations. You are scaring person. And what´s with your critisism of my reactions to SFP and Folktinget, their view is very well covered in the text. Also your view of "Swedish-speaking" editors seem to be very one-sided to put in moderate terms. Moreover, your hate-speech against me is even more insane when applied to a real context. If I was here to make Swedes look bad, then why would I deliberately move an explicit citat by Tore Modeen who suggesting that Finns deny the Swedish nationality in Finland? Why did I do it? Because I want to portay Finland-Swedish in a positive light, in a positive but neutral light. Not in a light which makes Finns look intolerent. This was an act which I received goodwill from posters identified as Finns. Ofcourse you don´t know anything about this because you appeared to the scene two weeks ago and immeadiately started to hount me. Do you have other suggestions why I restrain from posting other studies from academic journals, a studies which would make nationalistic finns vomit? Because I don´t want portray Swedes in away which would make Finns look bad. And yes, I am a Swedish-speaker, although it has zero relevance to the topic. Many of the finnic posters editing the Finland-Swedish articles have not cared about Finland-Swedish mainstream views before, so why should be interested in them now? And by mainstream I don´t mean Snellman. Cheers from the Helsinki School of Economics. LOL. I won´t have any doubts about your deep knowledge of extreme fringe-groups, I wonder where that knowledge has originated from.Podomi (talk) 12:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Swedish settlers and the Finnish-speaking population
It appears our that our text is now being partly misrecited. The text says that the "Finnish substrate toponyms (place names) within today's Swedish speaking areas have been interpreted as indicative of earlier permanent Finnish settlements in the area"
However, Mikael Reuter is receiting the exact study (Pitkänen) and reciting her study: "När de första svenskarna bosatte sig här, troligen under senare hälften av 1100-talet, kom de i kontakt med en äldre finsk befolkning. Finnarna nyttjade uppenbarligen skär-gården huvud-sakligen bara säsongvis, men de hade naturligtvis gett orterna namn, som sedan de svenska inflyttarna tog över och anpassade till sitt eget språk". http://www.kotus.fi/index.phtml?l=sv&s=1649
I change to current term of "permanent" to seasonal. We have no certainty of permanent Finnish settlements in the coast before the arrival of Swedes.Podomi (talk) 20:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'd like to point out that we cannot have any certainty about anything that happened 1000 years ago. We cannot even be totally sure that Charlemagne existed. Yet, we can say with good certainty that the Ainiala, Saarelma and Sjöblom express in their book Nimistöntutkimuksen perusteet (Finnish literature society, 2008) the opinion that the Finnish settlement was permanent. So, I suggest we agree that there exists two well-founded scholarly opinions on the matter. (In my opinion, the Finnish settlement may have been partially permanent, partially seasonal.) --MPorciusCato (talk) 15:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Is it co-incidence or not that you "forgot" professor Paula Wilsons bok "röster från framtiden", although uralicist Juha Janhunen (2008) already heavily critized her work:
- "Framför allt kan hon vara över att hon vågar vara svensk i ett land vars svenska befolkningen annars sedan årtionden har accepterat rollen av frivilliga främlingar i sitt eget land. Kronologiskt är svenskan inte mera främmande än finskan. Men sanningen är, att båda språken har `kommit` hit mycket senare än Wilson tror. För att motverka den enspråkiga finska nationalstatens förenhetliga tryck behöver man inte uppdikta fiktiva rötter till svenskan. Det räcker att man inser hur korta det finska Finlands rötter är.-Juha Janhunen, 2008
- Anyway, I am happy that you admit the two sided view on this, but why do let the text stay unaltered in its original form and do not seek to change it to more neutral form? This is something I don´t understand in you MPontus. The study by Pitkänen as recited in the text does not imply of permanent settling prior to Swedes.(BTW you should also check Derek Fewster study "Vision of past glory" it´s about the scientific honousty and quality of Finnish history studies and archeology.Podomi (talk) 07:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Fewster has written in an equally nasty tone about Svecomaniac views of prehistory...and the Vision of Past Glory deals mostly pre-War research. So please stop distorting facts.--130.234.68.221 (talk) 08:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Anyway, I am happy that you admit the two sided view on this, but why do let the text stay unaltered in its original form and do not seek to change it to more neutral form? This is something I don´t understand in you MPontus. The study by Pitkänen as recited in the text does not imply of permanent settling prior to Swedes.(BTW you should also check Derek Fewster study "Vision of past glory" it´s about the scientific honousty and quality of Finnish history studies and archeology.Podomi (talk) 07:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Wrong Podomi. 1. Read the direct quotation from Pitkänen's work in the lower part of the article. It states: "Another indication of older Finnish settlement is evidenced by the fact that native speakers of Finnish named so many different types of places in the area that the substrate nomenclature seems to consist of names referring to village settlement rather than to names of natural features." Once again you have been caught at distorting the picture. 2. You seem to be the one here who accepts only a one-sided story. Please do not accuse others of something you yourself are conducting. Clarifer (talk) 14:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Swedish-speaking Finns of Finnish origin?
This sub-thread needs more elaboration. Most of the families in the section originate from Svenskfinland (Boije af Gennäs, Pojo. Creutz, Pernå, etc) and their founders have been Finland-Swedes. It should be emphasized that the "Finnish origin" implies family records in the country prior the establishment of church recors. Or we can just erase every notion of origin altogether. For the time being I added a slight notion to the text which refers to origins in Finland, as opposed to "Finnish"-origins.Podomi (talk) 08:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Germanic is not synonymous with Swedish. We do neet discuss the Proto-Germanic population components in this article. And please, try to write better ("grose" "anacronicism"). You mispell in three different languages.--130.234.68.213 (talk) 10:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- I am bad typer, perhaps a dyslexia. Anyway, I have one problem regarding the text about the possible continuity theory. The article refers to "present day concensus" of Finnish archeologist who are against the Germanic continuity from antique to present. Then we have loads of references from Meinander. What I find problematic is the credibility of Finnish archeologist, which, to put it bluntly, is not sound.
- During the big archelogic symposium in 1980, under the lead of Meinander it was presented that there was a continuous settlements by Finns for more than 10 000 years in Finland. The leading Finnish linguisticans already raised lot of scepticism over the idea, but it never bothered these scholars. Today when we have the proto-Uralic language as an reconstruction, the linguisticans have been enabled to present new suggestions on the arrival period of Finns. Janhunen ("När kom Finnarna till Finland", 2005) presents that Finns showed up in "Finland" in 400AD and Sami's around 0. Ante Aikio, a leading Sami scholar suggest that Sami languages appeared in modern day Finland 650-0BC. The present day concensus of linguisticans is strongly against of Finnish presence in Finland from antique, (see f,e. Finnish wikipedia http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uralilaiset_kielet, the chapter "tutkimusparadigmat"). So we should stress in the text that the view of Finnish scholarly arcehologic concensus has been subjected to fierce critisism and that their track record is particularly poor.
- There´s now the risk that the reader actually takes Meinander and "The Finnish archeologic consensus" as a reliable source. We should address that even the Finnish presence in Österland/Finland after the early middle-age has been questioned by the Linguistic concensus in Finland. (Derek Fewster, “The Invention of the Finnish Stone Age : Polithics, Ethnicity and Archaeology”, Dig it all : Papers dedicated to Ari Siiriäinen (Helsinki, 1999).Podomi (talk) 16:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- I apologize, it was unnecessary and rude to comment your typing. Regarding the rest of your comment, it is perhaps not insignificant that Meinander was a Swedish-speaker. "Antique" is not a term suitable for Finnish history, and you seem to be rather confused in other respects too.
- Otherwise the chronology of the Uralic languages is not very relevant here, because the new (and so far controversial, although I tend to accept them) dates presented by Aikio and Janhunen are still earlier than the MIA (Middle Iron Age) settlement in Southern Ostrobothnia. It is not important for the status or identity for the Swedish-speakers whether the Uralic languages have been spoken in Finland for 10 0000 or 3000 or 2000 years. These chronological differences simply do not have any effect on the interpretations concerning the Germanic continuity in Finland. It is relatively widely accepted that there was a Proto-Germanic presence in Finland Proper around 2000 years ago - in an area which does not have a significant Swedish presence during the historically documented times, and, consequently, no Germanic continuity.
- The new chronology of the Uralic languages has not influenced the theories on the origin of Swedish-speaking population in Finland, and there is no logical reason why it should have such an influence. Even if it seems rather likely that the Finnish and Sámi languages are not so old as it was thought previously, it does not invalidate the current views of the Swedish colöniozation on the coastal areas during the 13th and 14th centuries.
- You write "We should address that even the Finnish presence in Österland/Finland after the early middle-age has been questioned by the Linguistic concensus in Finland." This is horrible nonsense, and no linguist has ever claimed so!! You have misunderstood something. Apparently you do not know what "early middle ages" mean. Even if we accept that Finnish was not spoken in Finland until 2000 years ago, it is still several centuries earlier than the start of the early middle ages. Your claim that the Finnish presence has been questioned after the early middle ages is even more absurd. Perhaps Fewster (I have read the article several years ago) is here pointing out to the fact any Finnish national identity did not exist during the the high and late middle ages. However, in this discussion we are referring to linguistical presences and not to national identities.
- Besides, the "scholarly consensus" obviously includes representives of manydifferent sciences and not just archaeologists. No one has written of "archaeological consensus" here.
- --212.146.44.208 (talk) 15:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- There´s now the risk that the reader actually takes Meinander and "The Finnish archeologic consensus" as a reliable source. We should address that even the Finnish presence in Österland/Finland after the early middle-age has been questioned by the Linguistic concensus in Finland. (Derek Fewster, “The Invention of the Finnish Stone Age : Polithics, Ethnicity and Archaeology”, Dig it all : Papers dedicated to Ari Siiriäinen (Helsinki, 1999).Podomi (talk) 16:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- I don´t agree. These hocus pocus scholars such as Meinander (it doens´t matter that he was a Swedish speaker because Swedish-speakers in Finland have more or less jumped to the Fennonationalistic bandwagon, see Snellman and Forsman/Yrjö-Koskinen) explicitly stated that Finn were in Finland for 10 000. Janhunen nor Aikio do not sport any controversial views, their work is supported by the whole linguistic consensus in Russia and much of Finland too. I should also point out that Aikio was only referring to Sami´s, obviously Finns arrived later.
- Here´s a new study (2005) for you, <usurped URL>, it should be rather clear that "Finnish archeologic consensus" does not have a similar hard stance against the Germanic continuity as was the case much of the 20th century. This should reflect on the article itself. Perhaps you can do something about it? Ouh, and "antique" was obviously meant to be "ancient".Podomi (talk) 10:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- "Ancient" does not belong to the terminology of Finland's history either. Otherwise your comment is again suggestive of ignorance and prejudice. Professor Meinander's conclusions are certainly not convincing, but they are not hocus pocus either. They are simply old-fashioned science, based on a methodology that was once internationally accepted but is not any more (see cultural-history archaeology).
- The 10 000 years deep chronology of the Uralic presence in Finland has been definitely falsified in recent research, but it is simply ridiculous to brand an earlier scholar like Meinander as a charlatan just because his research is obsolete.
- Your comments of the contoversiality of Janhunen and Aikio are just personal opinions of an uninformed layman whose opinions, frankly, do not count. However, as I said, I have no personal reasons to think that Janhunen and Aikio are wrong. It is just that their chronology is not yet universally accepted. The 10 000 years chronology cannot be taken seriously, but the more moderate chronology maintaining 5000 - 6000 years long Uralic presence in Finland still has some supporters (e. g., Professor Jorma Koivulehto). You or me might not agree with him, but it does not matter here.
- Generqally, I do not care whether you agree with me or not, because I do not think that you are informed enough on this subject to be taken seriously. You did not actually prove any of my points wrong. In referring to Haggrén, you are yet again misrepresenting a source in a very gross way. Haggrén writes of indications of agricultural and occupation continuity in Western Nyland. He does not make any conclusions concerning continuous Swedish or Germanic linguistical presence from the Iron Age to the medieval period.--130.234.68.220 (talk) 10:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- Here´s a new study (2005) for you, <usurped URL>, it should be rather clear that "Finnish archeologic consensus" does not have a similar hard stance against the Germanic continuity as was the case much of the 20th century. This should reflect on the article itself. Perhaps you can do something about it? Ouh, and "antique" was obviously meant to be "ancient".Podomi (talk) 10:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I am a beginner to the realm of archeology. However, to me Haggren (2005) was indeed strongly enunciating of Germanic presence from Iron Age to present. I could be wrong in this, however, the article did not even once mentioned the word "Finn", "Finnish settlement" or "Fenno-Ugrian". Moreover, the settlements in Nyland lacked some peculiar cultural cues for Fenno-Ugrian speaking groups.
- Anyway, my point was not to make some definite conclusions in the text, I aknowledge it myself that the evidence is too light weight, but the text should be altered to the extent that the reader understands that everything is still open. Right now there´s definitely too strong weight on the verdict of the "Finnish archeologic consensus".Podomi (talk) 11:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- With my competence in Ancient Germanic studies and my knowledge of Uralic (especially Finnic and Sami) studies, I feel compelled to weigh in, and concur with Podomi's criticism. There has been a trend in archaeology now for several decades to over-emphasise ethnolinguistic continuity, although archaeology (even with supplementary genetic evidence) can impossibly rule out small-scale migrations and ethnolinguistic change mediated by elite networks (obviously, especially in prehistoric Northern Europe, population densities have always been extremely low and there is even less chance of finding evidence pointing to breaks of continuity, especially migrations, than elsewhere), and even historical migrations and battles often leave no clearly detectable trace in the archaeological and genetic record. Therefore pronunciations of millennia-old continuity should never be trusted – they are totally at odds with historical and ethnological experience from around the world. Although archaeologists are aware that cultures and languages are not the same, they keep interfering with linguistics and try to challenge conclusions based on historical-linguistic research. Their confidence is quite unwarranted. I completely fail to understand why archaeologists are not more careful and do not stick to collecting their pots and tools, and naming their archaeological cultures and horizons without trying to imply anything about the prehistorical ethnolinguistic landscape. Especially considering cases such as Finland where there has been such a readiness – even in academic circles – to ascribe continuity to Finnic but not to Germanic in the 20th century (completely counter to the 19th century consensus which accepted that the Finnish language is the result of a relatively recent migration to Finland, i. e. only after the start of the Christian era), archaeologists should not be surprised when linguists begin to suspect that archaeologists succumb to nationalistic interests (or anticipate such pressure, even if not consciously subservient to it) – yes, including the nationalistic interests of indigenous (well, "indigenous" only relative to European colonisation) ethnic groups such as Native Americans, Australians and whatnot, an especially insidious form of so-called political correctness. However, nationalism is no better if indulged in by "victim peoples". Everyone is an immigrant; even Ethiopians are unlikely to have stayed put in the same place for ten thousands or even millions of years. I am dismayed that even Johanna Laakso in her FAQ uncritically accepts the "Finnish continuity" dogma with regard to Finland. It is no more scientific than the Hungarian or Turkish flavour of "we-have-always-been-here" nationalism. It is basically equally bizarre, considering the strong Sami substrate all the way down to southern Finland and Karelia which Aikio has been documenting. On the other hand, Germanic loanwords have apparently entered both Finnish and Sami in a continuous, incessant stream: Not only are there the Modern, Middle and Old Swedish borrowings, but also numerous borrowings which clearly predate the 13th and 14th centuries – Old Norse, Proto-Norse, Early Germanic, Proto-Germanic and quite possibly even pre-Proto-Germanic borrowings, all of which have been extensively researched. (Pre-Christian borrowings into Finnic would necessarily have happened outside Finland – presumably in Ingria, or perhaps Estonia.) In fact, the Germanic lexical (and quite possibly even structural) influence on Finnish and the Finnic languages in general – even Proto-Finnic – is so obvious and striking that any attempt to explain it away by casual trans-maritime contacts is pretty desperate. Germanic speakers must have had some form of colonial presence at the eastern coasts of the Baltic, otherwise the degree and intensity of the contact with Finnic and Sami would be completely mysterious. Whether the interpretation of the archaeological evidence yields ambiguous or inconclusive results is of no interest in such a case; the strength of the linguistic evidence forces the conclusion. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- Finnic certainly has words of Germanic origin that predate the Old Norse sound changes of the ~8th century (kaunis, rengas, kuningas, ruhtinas, etc.). Whether Finnic has any Germanic material from much earlier than that is debatable, as far as I can currently see. There is a large number of etymologically-obscure Finnic words for which an early- or Proto-Germanic etymology has been *proposed* -- joukko, usko, rak(entaa), hakea, asia, murha, kelvata, etc. -- but these proposals have semantic and/or phonetic difficulties that have not been (to my knowledge) convincingly resolved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavril09 (talk • contribs) 13:00, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
- With all due respect, your personal incredulity is completely irrelevant here. The existence of Proto-Germanic loans in Finnic is generally accepted. Given that some of these early loans must be reconstructed for Proto-Finnic and even show the effects of really early sound-changes such as *š > *h, they must be old, older than the Proto-Norse period at least. Also, some of them retain archaic traits on the Germanic side as well; kansa instead of **hansa, kulta instead of **kolta, or rengas instead of **ringas is pretty telling. Moreover, some of the Germanic loanwords in Saami show the effects of the "Great Saami Vowel Shift" and must therefore be very old, too. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 03:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
- The only borderline-convincing example of Finnic *h corresponding to Germanic *s that I have seen is hylje "seal", perhaps also hauta "grave" and (further down on the scale of convincingness) hakea "fetch, seek". These examples are sparse enough that they need not have been acquired directly from Germanic to begin with, i.e. the *s > *h change may have been mediated by another language.
- The *h/x : *k correspondence (as in F. kana : English hen; I am unsure whether kansa is Germanic) does not prove great antiquity, as far as I know: apart from Finnic itself, is there any evidence for when the *x > *h sound shift occurred in Germanic?
- As for "rengas : ring": to my knowledge, there are no other certain examples of Finnic words reflecting early Germanic *-enC-/*-inC-, so the e-vowel in rengas could reflect a change particular to this word, or particular to the Germanic dialect from which it was acquired. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavril09 (talk • contribs) 04:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
- With all due respect, your personal incredulity is completely irrelevant here. The existence of Proto-Germanic loans in Finnic is generally accepted. Given that some of these early loans must be reconstructed for Proto-Finnic and even show the effects of really early sound-changes such as *š > *h, they must be old, older than the Proto-Norse period at least. Also, some of them retain archaic traits on the Germanic side as well; kansa instead of **hansa, kulta instead of **kolta, or rengas instead of **ringas is pretty telling. Moreover, some of the Germanic loanwords in Saami show the effects of the "Great Saami Vowel Shift" and must therefore be very old, too. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 03:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
- Finnic certainly has words of Germanic origin that predate the Old Norse sound changes of the ~8th century (kaunis, rengas, kuningas, ruhtinas, etc.). Whether Finnic has any Germanic material from much earlier than that is debatable, as far as I can currently see. There is a large number of etymologically-obscure Finnic words for which an early- or Proto-Germanic etymology has been *proposed* -- joukko, usko, rak(entaa), hakea, asia, murha, kelvata, etc. -- but these proposals have semantic and/or phonetic difficulties that have not been (to my knowledge) convincingly resolved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavril09 (talk • contribs) 13:00, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
- By the way, Podomi is also right to point out that some traditional Swedish dialects in Finland are quite divergent (almost as divergent as Gutnish), and could possibly have been present in Finland before the Old Swedish period – though this is by no means a necessary conclusion, as a feature such as lack of monophthongisation is found in the far north of Sweden, too (some of those dialects could as well have been present there since the Viking Age), and even in some remote areas in Svealand apparently. I have to emphasise that (at least part) of Podomi's arguments are sound, whatever his motivations may be – those vigorously opposing the idea of Swedish-Germanic continuity in Finland going back farther than the Old Swedish period (which I cannot find any fault with as such – just proving or disproving it is the hard part) aren't exactly necessarily free from (possibly nationalistically inspired) bias, either. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- With my competence in Ancient Germanic studies and my knowledge of Uralic (especially Finnic and Sami) studies, I feel compelled to weigh in, and concur with Podomi's criticism. There has been a trend in archaeology now for several decades to over-emphasise ethnolinguistic continuity, although archaeology (even with supplementary genetic evidence) can impossibly rule out small-scale migrations and ethnolinguistic change mediated by elite networks (obviously, especially in prehistoric Northern Europe, population densities have always been extremely low and there is even less chance of finding evidence pointing to breaks of continuity, especially migrations, than elsewhere), and even historical migrations and battles often leave no clearly detectable trace in the archaeological and genetic record. Therefore pronunciations of millennia-old continuity should never be trusted – they are totally at odds with historical and ethnological experience from around the world. Although archaeologists are aware that cultures and languages are not the same, they keep interfering with linguistics and try to challenge conclusions based on historical-linguistic research. Their confidence is quite unwarranted. I completely fail to understand why archaeologists are not more careful and do not stick to collecting their pots and tools, and naming their archaeological cultures and horizons without trying to imply anything about the prehistorical ethnolinguistic landscape. Especially considering cases such as Finland where there has been such a readiness – even in academic circles – to ascribe continuity to Finnic but not to Germanic in the 20th century (completely counter to the 19th century consensus which accepted that the Finnish language is the result of a relatively recent migration to Finland, i. e. only after the start of the Christian era), archaeologists should not be surprised when linguists begin to suspect that archaeologists succumb to nationalistic interests (or anticipate such pressure, even if not consciously subservient to it) – yes, including the nationalistic interests of indigenous (well, "indigenous" only relative to European colonisation) ethnic groups such as Native Americans, Australians and whatnot, an especially insidious form of so-called political correctness. However, nationalism is no better if indulged in by "victim peoples". Everyone is an immigrant; even Ethiopians are unlikely to have stayed put in the same place for ten thousands or even millions of years. I am dismayed that even Johanna Laakso in her FAQ uncritically accepts the "Finnish continuity" dogma with regard to Finland. It is no more scientific than the Hungarian or Turkish flavour of "we-have-always-been-here" nationalism. It is basically equally bizarre, considering the strong Sami substrate all the way down to southern Finland and Karelia which Aikio has been documenting. On the other hand, Germanic loanwords have apparently entered both Finnish and Sami in a continuous, incessant stream: Not only are there the Modern, Middle and Old Swedish borrowings, but also numerous borrowings which clearly predate the 13th and 14th centuries – Old Norse, Proto-Norse, Early Germanic, Proto-Germanic and quite possibly even pre-Proto-Germanic borrowings, all of which have been extensively researched. (Pre-Christian borrowings into Finnic would necessarily have happened outside Finland – presumably in Ingria, or perhaps Estonia.) In fact, the Germanic lexical (and quite possibly even structural) influence on Finnish and the Finnic languages in general – even Proto-Finnic – is so obvious and striking that any attempt to explain it away by casual trans-maritime contacts is pretty desperate. Germanic speakers must have had some form of colonial presence at the eastern coasts of the Baltic, otherwise the degree and intensity of the contact with Finnic and Sami would be completely mysterious. Whether the interpretation of the archaeological evidence yields ambiguous or inconclusive results is of no interest in such a case; the strength of the linguistic evidence forces the conclusion. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the support Florian Blaschke. Now that I look at this debate after three years, I wish I haven't expressed myself as un-diplomatically as I did. I recognize that I had an important point, but I think the whole debate between me and the other editors extended far beyond what was necessary. I don't have any agenda, other than that I feel sympathy for struggling national minorities around the world. I want to make this article informative and readable like everyone else --Podomi (talk) 14:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Finnish-speaking ruling class?
Following message was used to legitimate unreferenced editing.
"(Finnish was in part used by the higher section of society in the middle ages as the ruling class was small and not markedly separated from the wealthier peasants and the rest of the population".
Does someone has any academic sources which could substantiate this claim. I know that this has been widely held idea during the era natioalistic history writing in Finland which had its peak from 20's to 1980's. What we know for a fact is that aristocracy in "Finland"/Österland came initially from Mainland Sweden (Haggren, 2005), it has no doubt assimilated foreigners as all ruling classes in Europe. Many of the aristocratic and priest families in Österland arose later from the Swedish-speaking parts of the country and were no doubt ethno-linguistically Swedes. I am aware thar such ethnic distinction is not often if ever made in modern Finland but denoting someone as "Finnish descend" may mislead the foreign audience, because they the term is often used as synonym for "Finnish-speaking". However, I have serious doubt Finnish was ever used as language of higher social niveu prior to Forsman (Yrjö-Koskinen) at the latter half of the 1800's.I have source about Helsingfors which claims that few Finnish speakers in the town in the beginning of the 1800's were ashamed to publicly speak Finnish. I find the argument of Finnish speaking medieval "Rälssi" as highly controversial in wikipedia and probably reflects more of a myth than reality. Are the any Swedish sources which would back this claim?Podomi (talk) 13:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, as I thought the idea of Finnish-speaking nobility, Frälse, was a myth which the ultranationalist Finnish historians came up with. They continued their fairytale and addresses that there were supposedly some pre-historic Finnish state based on written rule of law.
- Here's couple of sources about the origins, of Finnish Frälse,
- Eric Anthoni, Finlands medeltida frälse och 1500-talsadel, 1970.
- Kari Tarkiainen, Sveriges Österland, från forntiden till Gustav vasa, 2008
- Tarkiainen writes:
- "Frågan om det fanns några ursprungliga finska frälsemän och adelssläkter är mycket intressant....få om ens några finska storbönder tycks av godsstructuren att döma ha stigit till adelsståndet".
- There may have been some individual cases where the family has originated from Finnish-speaking paternal linegae, such as Kurck, Stjärnkors (Mielivalta) ja Finche. Out of these Kurch family arised supposedly from a union of the Finnish male and lady of Åland island background (The daugheter of Jakob Andriasson). There's no certainty what has been the mother tongue of the offshoots of these families.
- "Utöver dessa tre ätter finns det en del finska släktnamn bland frälsemannen, såsom Karppalainen och Kirves, men det är inte möjligt att dra några slutsatser om dessa släkters ursprung. Möjligen kan det helt enkelt röra sig om finskspråkiga tilllnamn som bars av svenska eller utifrån kommande släkter. Det bevisligen finska inslaget i Finlands frälsestånd är alltså utoomordentligt knappt".
- and now, the ethnicity of the medieval Frälse. According to Tarkiainen it was 2/3 Swedish and 1/3 German, the latter group later assimilated to the Swedish.
- "Frälseståndets ursprung var till två tredjedel svenskt, till en tredjedel tyskt. Någon social rörelse som skulle ha fört kristnade finnar uppåt till dessa poster fanns inte, då jordegendomen inte var ett vilkor för en ledande ställning inom förvaltning, rättskipning och skatteadministration".
- "Fornfinnarna har inte lämnat efter sig något känt rättsarv att tala om. Tron att landets ursprungliga invånare en gång skulle ha suttit på de så kallade domarringarnas stenar och diskuterat rättsliga frågor är ren fantasi".
- Tarkiainen discusses the possibility that some ennobled aristocrats may had been born to Finnish male lineage, however making enunciation such as "they adopted Swedish" is misleading. F.e the ennobled son to the family of Kurch which is thought to have been descended from a Finnish-speaking paternal lineage is also thought to have been born to a mother from Åland island (Tarkiainen, 2008). Thus he has never adopted Swedish but spoken it as his mother tongue. And as Tarkiainen mentions, not even Finnish name can used to verify that the ancestors were of Finnish-speaking extraction, they may simple been foreigners who kept rule in Finnish-speaking area's and changed name in order to bond better with the nativesPodomi (talk) 06:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- And you keep referring to a single source. Much more nuanced view has been presented by PhD. Lena Huldén, who admit that we just don't know how it was: maybe was a significant and originally Finnish-speaking elite during the Middle Ages, maybe not. The possibility remains and needs to be acknowledged. On the other hand, it is not very essential infomation in this article, so let's keep it brief.--130.234.68.224 (talk) 13:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Tarkiainen discusses the possibility that some ennobled aristocrats may had been born to Finnish male lineage, however making enunciation such as "they adopted Swedish" is misleading. F.e the ennobled son to the family of Kurch which is thought to have been descended from a Finnish-speaking paternal lineage is also thought to have been born to a mother from Åland island (Tarkiainen, 2008). Thus he has never adopted Swedish but spoken it as his mother tongue. And as Tarkiainen mentions, not even Finnish name can used to verify that the ancestors were of Finnish-speaking extraction, they may simple been foreigners who kept rule in Finnish-speaking area's and changed name in order to bond better with the nativesPodomi (talk) 06:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
- No, I am not referring to one source, but indirectly to several as Tarkiainen refers to himself and Eric Gothoni. I have never heard about Lena Huldens sources, please introduce to the article. According to a basic rules of calculus, a whole cannot have two "significants". The sources tell us clearly that significant portion of the aristocracy arrived from Sweden and Germany, are suggesting that there is some mythical second "significant" body of aristocracy? We do a favour to all of ourselves by sticking to the science and not to speculations. "We don't know" is one lame of an excuse. And, do we have to have a mention about Juslenius in the text? Has there ever been a Finnish nationalist who has ever accepted the distinct cultural identity of Finland-Swedes, no.Podomi (talk) 13:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- Oh please...I'll try to be patient, but is hard with you. Yes, we simply do not know how many originally Finnish-speaking frälse families existed. Maybe there was a significant group, maybe not. If we stick to science, we must acknowledge that there are limits to our knowledge. It is much more speculative to claim that there cannot have more than two ennobled Finnish-speakers during the medieval period. Juslenius is mentioned, because he was a Swedish-speaker and provides a good example of the fact that language distinctions did not matter as much during the 18th century as during the 19th century. But I grant to you that it was reductionistic to describe the emergence of östsvensk identity only as a counter-reaction to the Finnish identity. Of course, it reflected also the wider influence of Nationalism, which made people to imagine that they have an existential need to construct ethnic identities based on shared language and myths of common descent. I emended the section you protested against.--130.232.202.241 (talk) 12:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- No, I am not referring to one source, but indirectly to several as Tarkiainen refers to himself and Eric Gothoni. I have never heard about Lena Huldens sources, please introduce to the article. According to a basic rules of calculus, a whole cannot have two "significants". The sources tell us clearly that significant portion of the aristocracy arrived from Sweden and Germany, are suggesting that there is some mythical second "significant" body of aristocracy? We do a favour to all of ourselves by sticking to the science and not to speculations. "We don't know" is one lame of an excuse. And, do we have to have a mention about Juslenius in the text? Has there ever been a Finnish nationalist who has ever accepted the distinct cultural identity of Finland-Swedes, no.Podomi (talk) 13:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- Tarkiainen (2008), including Gothoni, explains all the "Finnish" frälse families, Tarkiainen gives quite astute analysis of all the Kurchs, Karppalainen, Mielivalta, etc. However, this "significant" body is actually about five families, and not even their male lineages can be verified as Finnish. I removed your text, since it doesn't add any new to article. Tarkiainen, 2008, "Sveriges Österland".
- "Utöver dessa tre ätter finns det en del finska släktnamn bland frälsemannen, såsom Karppalainen och Kirves, men det är inte möjligt att dra några slutsatser om dessa släkters ursprung. Möjligen kan det helt enkelt röra sig om finskspråkiga tilllnamn som bars av svenska eller utifrån kommande släkter. Det bevisligen finska inslaget i Finlands frälsestånd är alltså utoomordentligt knappt".
- Should we translate the above quote directly to article, it very recent source and based on recent scholarship? Do you understand what the last sentence tells? Anyway, I have never seen a source which claims that Freudenthal coined the concept of "East-Swedes", this sounds more like August Sohlmans works. It's ridiculous to add sources from Juslenius, we do not question the common ethnic identity of Carelians and Tavastians either, who all the sudden found themselves as "Finns", so why would we do the exception with Finland-Swedes, who according to Unesco are an ethnic minority and according to Counsil of Europe, a national minority. Language is perhaps stronger force than you conceive it to be.
- "Frälseståndets ursprung var till två tredjedel svenskt, till en tredjedel tyskt. Någon social rörelse som skulle ha fört kristnade finnar uppåt till dessa poster fanns inte, då jordegendomen inte var ett vilkor för en ledande ställning inom förvaltning, rättskipning och skatteadministration".Podomi (talk) 16:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- User 82.181.239.182 has recently added very dubious comments with very non-scientific touch, It's particularly important to back claims with controversial tinge with adequate references.Podomi (talk) 12:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
- we do not question the common ethnic identity of Carelians and Tavastians either, who all the sudden found themselves as "Finns", so why would we do the exception with Finland-Swedes, who according to Unesco are an ethnic minority and according to Counsil of Europe, a national minority. ???? Of course we do question the common ethnic icentity of Carelians and Tavastians! Only a complete moron would suggest that they had a Finnish identity Finnish before theconcept of Finnish identity existed. And the same goes for the Swedish-speakers. There cannot be ethnic identity without self-identification. That's self-evidently clear.--130.234.68.248 (talk) 17:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- User 82.181.239.182 has recently added very dubious comments with very non-scientific touch, It's particularly important to back claims with controversial tinge with adequate references.Podomi (talk) 12:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Ethnic distinction in the former Eastern half of Sweden
I did some "research" in the issue and founded that already Mikael Agricola in the 16th century, the father of written Finnish language, described Finland's coast as being dwelled by "Swedes and Gotlanders who frequently visit Sweden to trade and fetch supplies". Daniel Juslenius, an author whose views are being aggressively pushed in the article, view on ethnicity was strictly based on geography, the idea that all residents of Finland were labelled widely as "Finns" probably gained dominance, however it's not the only view. Agricola's works represent the very first pieces of Finnish literature. Moreover, Juslenius view is already refelected in the title of the article which is "Swedish-speaking FINNS", instead of the traditional form of Finland-Swedes.Podomi (talk) 09:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Pictured Finland-Swedes
Obviously there are different views on which Finland-Swedes should be pictured. Perhaps we can discus it here instead. How many should there be? 8 or 12? Right now we have these people: Carl Gustav Mannerheim, Adolf Erik Nordenskiöld, Jean Sibelius, Tove Jansson, Linus Torvalds, Linda Brava. Which ones can we add?. Some additional suggestions that we currently have pictures of: Johan Ludvig Runeberg, Zachris Topelius Karl-August Fagerholm, Jörn Donner, Pehr Evind Svinhufvud, Bo Carpelan etc. Närking (talk) 20:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
- Runeberg and Topelius lived before the concept of finlandssvensk even existed, so they're obviously out of question.--130.234.68.223 (talk) 10:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- And, before this article is renamed back to "Finland-Swedes" we do not have to worry about concepts in regards to "finlandssvensk".
- BTW the change of the title of the article from the original title, Finland-Swedes, was highly motivated by the fact that the state-sponsored lobby-group Swedish Folkting used the name "Swedish-speaking Finns". However, they have received quite much feedback from and it appears that for now on they stick with the english derivative of the constitutional concept of "Swedish-speaking population of Finland". I suggest we should reflect on that and change the article to the more neutral form. The wikiarticle about the German minority of Belgium is "German-speaking community of Belgium". The new Folkting version is quite similar.
- I am afraid there's a large group of Finland-Swedes who see the term "Swedish-speaking Finn" as a sympton of majority chauvinism. (We do not have an article about "Sami-speaking Finns" nor "Hebrew-speaking Palestinians" either). Again, there's a large group who is ok with the term. I suggest we take the most neutral option and follow the lead of Swedish Folkting of Finland.Podomi (talk) 15:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- There is no hurry in Wikipedia. Let's wait and see what formula Folktinget will adopt. Their English website is at the moment under construction. In addition, I'd like to note that Folktinget is not just a "state-sponsored lobby group". It is, by law, the representative of the Swedish-speakers and its members are elected democratically. --MPorciusCato (talk) 17:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- There's no hurry in Wikipedia according to whom? Anyway, it's good that you pointed out the legal status of Folkting and its ties with the legistlator. Which one should we stick to in Wikipedia? To an organization with ties to the administration of the state or the NGOs representing the given ethnicity? Svenska kulturfonden, the largest private foundation in Finland uses the term "Swedish-speaking population of Finland" in their website. Finlandssvensk samling, another NGO, uses the traditional form in regards to the Swedish-speaking ethnic group in Finland, "Finland-Swedes". Folktings site is under construction but they'd still managed to put "Swedish-speaking population of Finland" in the english section of their site.
- In a way the "Swedish-speaking population of Finland" is quite representative, since the exact form is used in the constitution of Finland in regards to "Finland-Swedes/Swedish-speaking Finns" (den svenskspråkiga befolkningen).
- I say we proceed with similar determination than "we" did previously when this site was turned into "Finland-Swedes" to a "Swedish-speaking Finns". The readers of wikipedia deserve neutrality, what they do not deserve is terminology of an article that is either controversial or could be perceived even offensive to the cultural integrity of the given ethnicity in question. And since the Swedish-speaking group does not have a settled english translation we could use just the Swedish form, "finlandssvenskar", above the picture galleries and other info-boxes. Obviously this choice would be carefully explained in the article as it done quite well already now.Podomi (talk) 17:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- One vote for using the term "Finland-Swedes". J.K Nakkila (talk) 19:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, the consensus is that atleast something must be done with the current title. I also support Finland-Swedes, so does anyone has idea how the title-changing procedure works. We could put "Swedish-speaking population of Finland" asap without having to do much editing with the article itself. After that we could think about going back to the original "Finland-Swedes".
- I must also conclude that the term "Finland-Swede" is much more beneficial from the stand-point of the cultural integrity and preservance of the minority itself. "Swedish-speaking Finns" is majority-view term which reflects assimilative patterns of the minority and, to an extent, majority chauvinism. Too much of assimilative tendencies and loss of ethnic identity are certainly something we do not want to see in regards to traditional, national minorities of Europe and certainly not incase if it's faciliatated by the majority. The term which is used by the minority is an important identity carrying aspect, and the term "Finland-Swedes" reflects more the Swedish wording 'finlandssvenskar'. 'Swedish-speaking Finn' can be even offensive to some members of the minority and reflects assimilation, pressures from the majority against the open display of minority identity and ultimately loss of an ethnic identity.Podomi (talk) 10:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- So, it's been a while. I think we should move the title to the constitutional form "Swedish-speaking population of Finland", this would be more consistent with Wikipedias's neutrality priciple.Podomi (talk) 08:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- I would support such move. Närking (talk) 18:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- No, browse the archive and see why we reached consencus on Swedish-speaking Finns here. "Finland-Swedes" is an erroneous translation from Swedish, such simplistic term exchanges can't just be done. Even Folktinget uses Swedish-speaking Finns [1]. --Pudeo' 02:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
- So, it's been a while. I think we should move the title to the constitutional form "Swedish-speaking population of Finland", this would be more consistent with Wikipedias's neutrality priciple.Podomi (talk) 08:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- That's a false statement I think. Finland-Swedes, the original title of the article, is consistent with the general naming principles of minorities, see f.ex Estonian Swedes and Volga Germans. I don't see why Finland-Swedes would be an erranous translation. However, I am happy with the current title "Swedish-speaking population of Finland".Podomi (talk) 14:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- I was only talking about the English grammatical side. Those are not "Estonia-Swedes". That's just false English. So you disagree with Folktinget with their use of "Swedish-speaking Finns"? By the way, one should always do a Wikipedia:Requested moves before doing any potentially debatable article name moves. --Pudeo' 15:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- So the symbol "-" in Finland-Swedes makes it erranous? It's hard to track your logic in regards to grammatics since you do not provide any sources nor argument in defence of your claims. Do you agree that the current title is better than "Finland-Swedes" and/or "Swedish-speaking Finns"? See my "title change" underneath. Folktinget uses "Swedish-speaking population of Finland" in their recent publication. Moreover, this is not just about Folktinget, this is about all the lines which point out that "Swedish-speaking population" is more appropriate and neutral title for this article as opposed to "Swedish-speaking Finn", the latter being in violation in the context of wikipedia's naming practise for national minorities in Europe. I don't see any downside with adopting the form used in Finnish constitution "Swedish-speaking population of Finland" (den svenskspråkiga befolkningen), it may not reflect accurately the Swedish expression finlandssvenskar, but then again, neither does "Swedish-speaking finn" reflect finlandssvenskar. "Swedish-speaking population of Finland" gives us a nice umbrella term and reflect the important issue: there's a population/befolkning in Finland who speaks Swedish, this was the biggest caveat with "Swedish-speaking Finns", since no such connotation was being conveyd with this translation, an english-speaker may confuse it to majority Finns who have mastered Swedish. Morever "Swedish-speaking population of Finland" as a term is not completely in vacuum in terms of wikipedia's naming practise towards national minorities ( see f.ex German-speaking community of Belgium) as opposed to the term "Swedish-speaking Finns" which is really sui generis, despite the fact that the situation of Swedish-speaking population of Finland is not sui generis by any means.Podomi (talk) 08:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- I was only talking about the English grammatical side. Those are not "Estonia-Swedes". That's just false English. So you disagree with Folktinget with their use of "Swedish-speaking Finns"? By the way, one should always do a Wikipedia:Requested moves before doing any potentially debatable article name moves. --Pudeo' 15:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- That's a false statement I think. Finland-Swedes, the original title of the article, is consistent with the general naming principles of minorities, see f.ex Estonian Swedes and Volga Germans. I don't see why Finland-Swedes would be an erranous translation. However, I am happy with the current title "Swedish-speaking population of Finland".Podomi (talk) 14:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
New paragraph
Since this article is under the category of ethnic groups, I added a chapter about the culture/folklore of Finland-Swedes. This chapter also have few words in regards to the literature legacy of Finland-Swedish, something that Finland-Swedes are famous for. Much of the stuff in regards to the literature was inspired by the Oxford Guide to literature.Podomi (talk) 11:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't know where to report this error but the reference link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish-speaking_Finns#cite_note-5 is unfortunately not working. I'm sorry for not knowing where to post this
188.126.76.66 (talk) 00:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that contrary to many Wikisites in regards to national, historical minorities, there was very little information about the political history of Finland-Swedes. So, I put up a chapter highlighting some of the issue which has been most relevent for the Swedish nationality movement within the near history.For sources I used mostly Kenneth McRaes Conflict and Compromise in Multi-lingual societies, case Finland, Tore Modeens article in regards to cultural rights of the Swedish ethnic-group in Finland and the history of the linguistic regime in Finland (Tore Modeen, Europa Ethnica, 1999), some ideas were also generated from the writings of Finland-Swedish ethnologist, Bo Lönnqvist.Podomi (talk) 16:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- Talking about culture/folklore and political history and the repeated notions of ethnical or national distinctiveness of this minority from the majority, would it perhaps be of interest to this article that the PISA results of the Swedish-speaking youth of Finland are repeatedly significantly lower than those of the majority? [[2]] Clarifer (talk) 15:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)