vapaakielivalinta.fi

Subj: On your unfortunate articles for Magma


Dear Prof. Harrison,

I am a long-term participant in the Finnish language-political
discourse. In my about 15 years of doing that, my opposition has
taught me much about how to deal with constant and active intellectual
dishonesty, psychological manipulation, outright contempt of the group
of people I represent and colourful name-calling (being horribly
"uncivilized" and "intolerant" is the most common term of abuse). I
wonder if you are able to guess on which side of the debate I am? It
certainly is a morbidly fascinating past-time because of the absurdity
of their world-view. Just today, an SFP MP compared her party to
Nelson Mandela. I wonder why they didn't pull Jesus into the picture,
while they were at it?

Considering your articles for Magma, I do realize that you're probably
mostly informed by Fenno-Swedes when it comes to the Finnish language
policy situation, and that can certainly produce a remarkaly biased
view, as their skills of turning themselves into oppressed martyrs
when they do not get their way are beyond compare. They will certainly
tell you that the country is full of Nazis who want to get rid of all
minorities. You also probably are unable to actually get access the
other side's arguments, as you apparently do not understand Finnish.
This is the only way to explain your position, or otherwise you're
just being an ideologue. I do understand that the adulation you will
get from the Fenno-Swedes for your opinions probably massages your ego

What that has been going on in Finland in recent years is -- at last
-- an *open* questioning of the interpretations and meaning of the
very dogmatic bilinguality -- which is, as you probably realize on
some level, not any kind of a reality for the vast majority of the
population, and has never been. Believe it or not, but for us Swedish
is as good as a foreign language. That this has happened has been a
source of great joy to me; we finally can discuss this pretty much
like we'd do in any other western democracy. The enforced-consensus
legacy of the Cold War dies hard, but it seems like just simple
declarations from above that don't make any sense no longer work on
the population.

The counter-reaction to this shift in the debate to more visible
criticism towards the widely and popularly discredited political
slogans of the compulsory-Swedish lobby has been a remarkable volley
of insinuation of "return to the 30s" and how the evil Finnish
extremist cavemen will destroy Nordic civilization that is just being
forcefully "gifted" to us... this is where you become remarkably
annoying in the eyes of a lot of people over here, and it's why you're
getting the rather outspoken e-mails. A minority can't hide endlessly
behind the minority position when demanding a certain kind of
politics. The actual content of the said politics has to be open to
discussion, in particular when it seeks to impose the minority's
subjective identity on everyone else.

Considering that I have always respected my own rights as much as
those of others (which makes me pretty liberal in the *classical
sense*) and have very little patience for self-righteousness, it
sometimes makes me wonder if people like you just simply can't at all
see things from our perspective... do we not have *any* legitimacy in
your eyes as people who are allowed to, for example, feel about
languages the way they do, without being told that we are just simply
"wrong" to exist as we are, and that actions need to be taken by the
government so that our existence would not offend Scandinavian
sensibilities?

The whole point in this issue is that we really are a legitimate
"other side" in the conversation of what can be demanded of people in
terms of language policy. That we would not be subjected to actions to
make us more appropriate according to Nordist ideology, is not the
same thing as to persecute those who do wish to live by that ideology
and Scandinavian nationalism. This is, to me, fundamental morality.
You can't twist it the other way around.

To even refuse us a hearing as a party when our things are being
decided for us, or to deny us the freedom to choose, comes very close
to a human rights violation. Of course, the excuse is that as we do
not constitute an ethnic group, normal human rights norms do not need
apply. Isn't semantics fun?

I guess this counts as one more Nazist hate-mail you've been
receiving; after all, contrary opinions to your ideology aways do. At
least you have something more to complain about on Magma's site to
stir applause in certain limited quarters on this side of the sea.
Just please remember that having a modicum of understanding of what
you're commenting on goes a long way in being received more favourably
by all participants of a debate.


Yours,

Eero Nevalainen

Dear Eero Nevalainen,

Of course I respect your position, but I do not understand why you direct your hard words at me. I have merely written two columns, the first based on what I personally heard and saw during a short stay in Vasa, the second one based on hateful and threatening e-mails that made me afraid and horrified. That is all.

I am not a member of a political party. I do not pose a threat to you. I do not even live in Finland. I only exercise my right to free speech, and I confine myself to two short columns. My main concern, in my last column, is that several persons have sent me abusive and threatening letters, employing words that appear to have been borrowed from Völkischer Beobachter. I resent that, regardless of who sends them and regardless of what the issue happens to be.

Sincerely yours

Dick Harrison
Professor of history
Lund University

Eero Nevalainen kirjoitti:Mielenkiintoista. Kaveri oikeasti saattaa olla jotenkin ideologisesti hyväksikäytetty.

Dear Eero Nevalainen,

Of course I respect your position, but I do not understand why you direct your hard words at me. I have merely written two columns, the first based on what I personally heard and saw during a short stay in Vasa, the second one based on hateful and threatening e-mails that made me afraid and horrified. That is all.

I am not a member of a political party. I do not pose a threat to you. I do not even live in Finland. I only exercise my right to free speech, and I confine myself to two short columns. My main concern, in my last column, is that several persons have sent me abusive and threatening letters, employing words that appear to have been borrowed from Völkischer Beobachter. I resent that, regardless of who sends them and regardless of what the issue happens to be.

Sincerely yours

Dick Harrison
Professor of history
Lund University

Vastasin hänelle vielä hieman sovinnollisemmin, mutta enpä taida julkaista kirjeenvaihtoa sen kummemin jatkossa.

Sees kirjoitti:Rakentavasta kirjeenvaihdostanne huolimatta Harrison jatkaa samalla linjalla HBL:ssä.

http://www.hbl.fi/text/utrikes/2011/4/12/d61925.php

Enpä tiedä, mitä ajatella.

Suomalainen kirjoitti: Voisiko jossain vaiheessa herätä ajattelemaan

Sees kirjoitti:

Suomalainen kirjoitti: Voisiko jossain vaiheessa herätä ajattelemaan

Ajatteleminen on aina hyvästä. Nimittely ja leimaaminen harvemmin. Harrisonin jos kenen luulisi tietävän tämän.

Me tiedämme nyt Harrisonin saaneen myös asiallista palautetta. Hän on siis itse vastuussa siitä, että on antanut provosoitumisen hiljentää analyyttisemmän ja tasapuolisemman ajattelun. Provosoituminen vaikuttaa usein niin, mutta on se silti noloa.