Ulkomaiset kommentoijat aina pihalla, miksi?

Kielipoliittista keskustelua yleisellä tasolla
Viesti
Julkaisija
Sees
Viestit: 2029
Liittynyt: 10.06.2009 05:43

Ulkomaiset kommentoijat aina pihalla, miksi?

#1 Lukematon viesti Kirjoittaja Sees » 20.10.2011 07:11

Luin HBL:stä Maria Wettenstrandin kirjoituksen, jossa hän ihmettelee, mikä siinä on niin kauheaa, jos maassa puhutaan kahta eri kieltä:

http://hbl.fi/i-dag/2011-10-19/vad-ar-sa-provocerande

Ihmettelen, miten nopeasti ulkomaiset kommentoijat saadaan pitämään suomenkielisiä pahikkoina, jotka eivät antaisi muiden puhua ruotsia tai mitään muutakaan kieltä kuin suomea.

Mielestäni neuvojilla on vastuunsa. MW:n käy pian kuin Harrisonin, jollei hänelle ystävällisesti kerrota suomenkielisten näkökulmaa. Sitä on moni jo tuonkin kirjoituksen kommenttiosastolla yrittänyt. Menisiköhän perille vai onko jotenkin väistämätöntä, että suomenkielisistä muodostuu pelkkä karikatyyri näissä keskusteluissa?

Eero Nevalainen
Viestit: 1378
Liittynyt: 17.11.2008 23:14
Paikkakunta: Nurmijärvi
Viesti:

Re: Ulkomaiset kommentoijat aina pihalla, miksi?

#2 Lukematon viesti Kirjoittaja Eero Nevalainen » 23.10.2011 13:54

Jos löydän hänen meilinsä, pistän postia vielä tänään. Olen ehkä parhaimmillani näissä asioissa.

Eero Nevalainen
Viestit: 1378
Liittynyt: 17.11.2008 23:14
Paikkakunta: Nurmijärvi
Viesti:

Re: Ulkomaiset kommentoijat aina pihalla, miksi?

#3 Lukematon viesti Kirjoittaja Eero Nevalainen » 23.10.2011 20:29

Hän on kyllä jättänyt jo valtiopäiväpaikkansa Ruotsissa, mutta en löytänyt parempaa meiliä. Ehdottakaa parempi jos löydätte.

Dear Mrs. Wetterstrand,

I am a life-long debater of Finnish language policy. Over the course of over 15 years of active participation in the discussion, I have heard all the arguments, and over time, the issue has become quite dear to me; I can't think of any other subject where there is so much imposed ideological dogmatism, Swedish (should we say Nordic?) language-nationalism and outright systematic intellectual dishonesty when trying to prove -- and force -- everyone's bilingual language identification against all reality. It is almost as if the Swedish language is a kind of state religion, criticism of which is taboo. This is frankly disturbing to a critically thinking rationalist with a strong individualist bent who is, without question, Finnish-speaking and who has never felt any kind of a special affinity toward Sweden or Swedish.

So, certainly your column in HBL piqued my interest. I have no doubt you have received a very warm welcome for your views in the Fenno-Swedish community; after all, the idea in those quarters is that ideological agreement with them is tantamount to all the imaginable high ideals of humanity. It does not matter if your reasoning is any good; as long as you repeat certain key phrases or just otherwise declare that Swedishness and the Swedish language are the Finns' gateway to civilization, you'll get hailed as the next Nobel Peace Prize recipient. It's all about having the "correct attitude", see. If you don't agree, you simply have an attitude problem, which needs fixing.

I'm glad you do recognize the systematic assimilation of Finns in Sweden, and that you seem to understand the ideas of "culture and identity" that underlie these kinds of discussions. Just go to Åland and those people are militant about being protected from the corrupting influence of Finnish, and this seems to be completely acceptable to them. However, your attitude towards the criticism towards the official bilinguality line is not equally comprehensible to me. It seems to be you are engaged in the classic stonewalling of "non-understanding" combined with the intentional confusion of minority's rights vs. everyone else's obligations. If you honestly can't see it that there is a genuinely Finnish-speaking side to the discussion, I am not sure you are qualified to even speak on the matter -- most Swedes would consider it a violation of their fundamental rights if, say, their university education became restricted by a Finnish test so that they would be deemed "civilized enough" in the "Nordic" context, or so that they could protect our Finnish-speakers' "rights" better.

You are riding on the spectre of the True Finns -- who have at least given a voice to the contrarians in Finnish politics -- in your column, claiming that, apparently, criticism of Finland's language policy is somehow "old-fashioned" and prejudiced; it is however the truth that the majority of the Finnish population has never been particularly supportive of, say, compulsory Swedish. The results have not been impressive. The funny part is that it's always just seen as the fault of us Finnish-speakers -- if only we could be somehow *helped* to be more acceptable to the Swedes and to overcome the official requirements, linguistically! If only we did not "keep them from using their mother tongue!".

This intentional confusion of minority's rights and the minority's right to dictate everyone's language identification is disturbing, if not only because things seem to be moving in the direction where Finns who do not go along get demonized for somehow actually attacking the minority by their mere existence. I find this kind of a situation to be completely unacceptable, as it seems to turn my language rights into a tool of the Nordists. No wonder they are, in the Nordic context, trying to actually make it a "right" for me to speak Swedish to Swedes... this is incredibly backwards at least within the rules of my ethical system!

I hate to have to always spell things out in detail in cases like this -- it is frustrating and I don't wonder at all if some people lose their temper having to point out simple things over and over again to people who are just unwilling to listen or think. Prof. Harrison got his fair share for a similar reason, not quite respecting how much Finnish really *is* the language of the Finnish-speakers.

But, here I go again, for the millionth time -- let me clarify for you on the points you do not seem to get, for whatever reason. You are being provocative in your "conclusion" in not understanding "what is so provocative about people speaking different languages in a country", because you confuse whatever is being done to the majority and why in order to mold them into being language-politically more appropriate regarding some specific language, with the acceptance of people speaking multiple languages in a country in general. It is the distinction between allowing people to do what they do, and even supporting them; and imposing a subset of the people's ideals on everyone else in order to actually shape the population as a whole into a desired direction.

In essence, your claim is nothing but a naïve, convenient strawman. I am liberal enough not to care if there are different languages being spoken in my country. I at least read about five languages myself -- but those are preferably of my own choice, thank you very much. I also agree with you that it is not an issue to support the Swedish-speakers enough so that we can manage the genuinely needed Swedish-speaking services, and to allow them to maintain and advance their language. This certainly is not difficult enough to justify the heavy-handed, all-encompassing mechanisms in place in Finland that supposedly "protect services in Swedish".

It is when "minority protection" becomes an attempt to impose the specific language-identity-ideology on everyone else, when questioning this becomes impossible because of systematic unwillingness to engage in anything approximating rational discourse, and when I have to listen to near-racist talk about myself lacking pretty much all important human qualities if I don't go along with the idea of just having to "improve people's attitudes" by making them Swedish-speakers in the cradle, is when it becomes an issue.

I hope this answers the question posed in your column.


Best regards,

Eero Nevalainen, M.Sc.

Eero Nevalainen
Viestit: 1378
Liittynyt: 17.11.2008 23:14
Paikkakunta: Nurmijärvi
Viesti:

Re: Ulkomaiset kommentoijat aina pihalla, miksi?

#4 Lukematon viesti Kirjoittaja Eero Nevalainen » 24.10.2011 04:06

Bah, tuli kirjoitettua sceptre kun piti toki hain spectre. ;) Tuli mielenkiintoinen riding on-ilmaus :D

Sees
Viestit: 2029
Liittynyt: 10.06.2009 05:43

Re: Ulkomaiset kommentoijat aina pihalla, miksi?

#5 Lukematon viesti Kirjoittaja Sees » 24.10.2011 08:22

Loistavaa tekstiä EN! Nyt odotan mielenkiinnolla, vastaako MW Sinulle.

Sees
Viestit: 2029
Liittynyt: 10.06.2009 05:43

Re: Ulkomaiset kommentoijat aina pihalla, miksi?

#6 Lukematon viesti Kirjoittaja Sees » 31.10.2011 09:11

Ilmeisesti MW ei vastannut, vai kuinka?

Eero Nevalainen
Viestit: 1378
Liittynyt: 17.11.2008 23:14
Paikkakunta: Nurmijärvi
Viesti:

Re: Ulkomaiset kommentoijat aina pihalla, miksi?

#7 Lukematon viesti Kirjoittaja Eero Nevalainen » 31.10.2011 16:17

Ei. Ajattelin laittaa Ville Niinistölle postia seuraavaksi ja viitata vaimonsa kolumniin...

Vastaa Viestiin