Why do Finns hate Russians?
Penny Leach
by hatred towards Russians? You only ever get
negative statements about Russians from a Finn.
Is it perhaps a hundred years of myths and false
propaganda built around few incidents in history?
The Finns, in international media, tout themselves
to be "experts" on Russia in business and culture,
and were even able to convince e.g. American leaders
of this, who often used to stop by in Helsinki on
their way to Moscow. Isn't it in fact so that the
Finns do not understand Russians at all, and the
reason is that they are blinded by their all-encompassing
hatred, and are only able to see a black-and-white
image where everything east from Finland is pitch
black. Are they only a pitiful bunch of people guided
by primitive feelings, unable to break free from
their past, of which they have a very subjective
view that they are also unable to approach differently?
-Penny
HWM
Penny Leach <penny...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Why is it that most Finns seem to be consumed
> by hatred towards Russians?
Huh, all I see is Finns consumed by alcohol, or consuming it.
> You only ever get
> negative statements about Russians from a Finn.
So everyone else loves them you want to say, or Finns praise other
nations? If you haven't noticed, Finns rather say only negative
statements -period.
> Is it perhaps a hundred years of myths and false
> propaganda built around few incidents in history?
Say, you read _any_ history in school apart from cowpokes and injuns?
And the only propaganda you've heard is from McCarthy probably?
> The Finns, in international media, tout themselves
> to be "experts" on Russia in business and culture,
We did business there during the Cold War, honey and were a part of the
Empire a good hundred years, it is a bit more what y'all can say.
> and were even able to convince e.g. American leaders
> of this, who often used to stop by in Helsinki on
> their way to Moscow.
Say, you've ever been to Moscow? In the 'Good old days' or recently?
> Isn't it in fact so that the
> Finns do not understand Russians at all,
Well, no if they speak only Russian, I suppose you are fluent?
> and the
> reason is that they are blinded by their all-encompassing
> hatred, and are only able to see a black-and-white
> image where everything east from Finland is pitch
> black.
Siberia is quite white, and East is Red....
> Are they only a pitiful bunch of people guided
> by primitive feelings, unable to break free from
> their past, of which they have a very subjective
> view that they are also unable to approach differently?
Yes, we have a few Americans here...
BTW, have you by any chance _any_ idea what you are talking about?
Cheers, | De ore leonis libera me, Domine, et a |
HWM | cornibus unicornium humilitatem meam. |
hen...@iobox.fi & http://www.kuru.da.ru
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
lus...@rocketmail.com
> Why is it that most Finns seem to be consumed
> by hatred towards Russians? You only ever get
> negative statements about Russians from a Finn.
> Is it perhaps a hundred years of myths and false
> propaganda built around few incidents in history?
First you formulate a question which is based on an erroneous
presumption, and then you proceed to answer it yourself with an equally
foolish thesis.
Then again, I think you should be _well_ qualified to answer you
question...
Are those negative statements negative in relation to someone else´s
positive images or preconceptions, or in relation to Russians´s
positive or negative self-images?
> The Finns, in international media, tout themselves
> to be "experts" on Russia in business and culture,
> and were even able to convince e.g. American leaders
> of this, who often used to stop by in Helsinki on
> their way to Moscow.
Usually it is so that the Finns are the ones who are touted as
"experts", but, then, in a world of blind men the guy with one eye is
king...
> Isn't it in fact so that the Finns do not understand Russians at all,
Actually, _no-one_, not even the Russians themselves, understand
Russians. What little understanding the Finns have, is based on the odd
fact that they are, in some ways, a lot more like the Russians than,
well, the people who aren´t like the Russians.
> and the reason is that they are blinded by their all-encompassing
> hatred, and are only able to see a black-and-white
> image where everything east from Finland is pitch black.
Yes.
> Are they only a pitiful bunch of people guided
> by primitive feelings, unable to break free from
> their past, of which they have a very subjective
> view that they are also unable to approach differently?
Yes.
But you "forgot" the negative statements the Finns make about
themselves...
Lustig
Penny Leach
lus...@rocketmail.com wrote:
>
> In article <38BCEAA1...@hotmail.com>,
> Penny Leach <penny...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Why is it that most Finns seem to be consumed
> > by hatred towards Russians? You only ever get
> > negative statements about Russians from a Finn.
> > Is it perhaps a hundred years of myths and false
> > propaganda built around few incidents in history?
>
> First you formulate a question which is based on an erroneous
> presumption, and then you proceed to answer it yourself with an equally
> foolish thesis.
It's not a presumption... I said "seem to be", and to me
they certainly seem to be what I said. I said "most", and
although my sample is not very large, almost any Finn I've
asked confirms this. Also, if you sample the Finnish media
for a month you will get the same impression - in my opinion.
Why is it foolish?
> Then again, I think you should be _well_ qualified to answer you
> question...
Why is that?
>
> Are those negative statements negative in relation to someone else愀
> positive images or preconceptions, or in relation to Russians愀
> positive or negative self-images?
None, just negative as in lacking positive qualities, offering
nothing constructive, opposite in nature to anything generally
considered positive, refusal, attacking, disproving. You know,
like "Russians smell bad" rather than "Russian tourists bring
a lot of money to our economy". Ask anyone to pick the statement
they think would generally be considered negative. No need to
say that someone might actually like people who smell bad.
The topics that concern Russians that the Finnish media covers
are typically of this type: Russian drivers come to Finland and
drive drunk, Russians smuggle this or that into Finland, a Russian
truck carrying chemicals got into an accident [because the Russians
don't give a damn about safety], a Finnish tourist was robbed in
Russia, mafia blackmails Finnish companies in Russia, Russian
partisans killed so and so many people in Finland 60 years ago,
Russian tourists steal, Russians brought organized crime into
Finland. Although as such these events may have taken place,
there is hardly anything counterbalancing this overflow of negative
news. Whenever anything bad happens in Finland the main point
seems to be to find out if the Russians can be blamed somehow.
As in, there would not have been any danger if that chemical
truck were not Russian.
>
> > The Finns, in international media, tout themselves
> > to be "experts" on Russia in business and culture,
> > and were even able to convince e.g. American leaders
> > of this, who often used to stop by in Helsinki on
> > their way to Moscow.
>
> Usually it is so that the Finns are the ones who are touted as
> "experts", but, then, in a world of blind men the guy with one eye is
> king...
I don't agree. If I'm correct, it has ususally been the
Finns themselves who've been the first to mention their
being the "Gateway to the East". It's the "What does the
Elephant think about Finland" syndrome, perhaps, coined
by the old joke about each nationality having a book
about elephants.
>
> > Isn't it in fact so that the Finns do not understand Russians at all,
>
> Actually, _no-one_, not even the Russians themselves, understand
> Russians. What little understanding the Finns have, is based on the odd
> fact that they are, in some ways, a lot more like the Russians than,
> well, the people who aren愒 like the Russians.
So how are the Finns like the Russians?
In any case, the question about understanding should be to
try and understand why this hatred exists.
>
> > and the reason is that they are blinded by their all-encompassing
> > hatred, and are only able to see a black-and-white
> > image where everything east from Finland is pitch black.
>
> Yes.
>
> > Are they only a pitiful bunch of people guided
> > by primitive feelings, unable to break free from
> > their past, of which they have a very subjective
> > view that they are also unable to approach differently?
>
> Yes.
>
> But you "forgot" the negative statements the Finns make about
> themselves...
Like?
marku...@hotmail.com
> Why is it that most Finns seem to be consumed
> by hatred towards Russians?
* * *
You can call it hatred, I'd call it good sense of reality. That is, we
don't hate them (or very few people feel hatred towards them nowadays,
the war is so long behind) but we are very aware of the degree of their
trustworthiness. An old Finnish saying "ryssä on ryssä vaikka voissa
paistaisi" is true, has been true, and will be true. It doesn't mean
one should hate them. I know the saying is too complicated for you,
even if I translated it. You'd better to focus on Baywatch instead.
> You only ever get negative statements about Russians from a Finn.
> Is it perhaps a hundred years of myths and false
> propaganda built around few incidents in history?
* * *
What fucking "false propaganda"? If you had even some knowledge of the
history of Europe and in this case of the history of Finland, you
wouldn't express your stupidity in public.
My grandmother didn't need any "false propaganda" about Russians when
the dead body of her husband was brought from the battle field to her
in 1944.
> The Finns, in international media, tout themselves
> to be "experts" on Russia in business and culture,
> and were even able to convince e.g. American leaders
> of this, who often used to stop by in Helsinki on
> their way to Moscow. Isn't it in fact so that the
> Finns do not understand Russians at all,
* * *
It's you who don't understand history at all, because history means to
you the list of the names of the presidents of the United States of
America. And even that is too complicated.
> and the reason is that they are blinded by their all-encompassing
> hatred, and are only able to see a black-and-white
> image where everything east from Finland is pitch
> black. Are they only a pitiful bunch of people guided
> by primitive feelings,
- - -
* * *
No. The only pitiful person is you, an ignorant - American - if I may
guess?
m_f
hirvea_...@my-deja.com
> Why is it that most Finns seem to be consumed
> by hatred towards Russians? You only ever get
> negative statements about Russians from a Finn.
> Is it perhaps a hundred years of myths and false
> propaganda built around few incidents in history?
A few incidents in history :-). That is a good way to put it.
> The Finns, in international media, tout themselves
> to be "experts" on Russia in business and culture,
> and were even able to convince e.g. American leaders
> of this, who often used to stop by in Helsinki on
> their way to Moscow. Isn't it in fact so that the
> Finns do not understand Russians at all, and the
> reason is that they are blinded by their all-encompassing
> hatred, and are only able to see a black-and-white
> image where everything east from Finland is pitch
> black.
Then, it is not very black-and-white.
But to answer your question, it all has to do with vodka. You see,
finns and russians tried for the last centuries to outsmart one
another, and especially to outdrink one another.
Unfortunately, drink-wise, russians won easily.
This explain that plain hatred of the finns, the eternal boozers
loosers, who forget that, as far as cell-phone manufacturing is
concerned, they beat russians by a mile.
Perhaps two.
HM
marku...@hotmail.com
Penny Leach <penny...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> The topics that concern Russians that the Finnish media covers
> are typically of this type: Russian drivers come to Finland and
> drive drunk,
Many of them do.
> Russians smuggle this or that into Finland, a Russian
> truck carrying chemicals got into an accident [because the Russians
> don't give a damn about safety]
They don't give a damn about safety.
>, a Finnish tourist was robbed in
> Russia, mafia blackmails Finnish companies in Russia,
Totally true in everyday life there.
> Russian partisans killed so and so many people in Finland 60 years
ago,
They did. Killed civilians.
> Russian tourists steal,
They stole a lot in the past, don't know the situation now.
> Russians brought organized crime into
> Finland. Although as such these events may have taken place,
> there is hardly anything counterbalancing this overflow of negative
> news.
Would you kindly name some "good" news from that madhouse? Or should
our media start making up fairy tales or what. This is Finland, not
Soviet Union where truth had no worth and black was possible to convert
to white through well done propaganda.
> Whenever anything bad happens in Finland the main point
> seems to be to find out if the Russians can be blamed somehow.
Bullshit.
m_f
Hiski Haapoja
: Why is it that most Finns seem to be consumed
: by hatred towards Russians?
Where did you get such an impression? Finns in average don't hate
Russians any more than we hate Swedes, Estonians, Gypsies, Somalis
or anybody else that happens along. Various wars have caused us to
distrust Russia, and the current chaos causes us to distrust Russians.
: You only ever get
: negative statements about Russians from a Finn.
: Is it perhaps a hundred years of myths and false
: propaganda built around few incidents in history?
You are either a Russian trolling under a false name, or seriously
clueless. Try asking in s.c.jewish why the Jews have negative attitudes
towards Germans - is it a few incidents in history?
: The Finns, in international media, tout themselves
: to be "experts" on Russia in business and culture,
Which Finns, again? There seems to be a belief in the West that Finns
are experts of Russia, but no sane Finn believes such a thing. One look
in our TV and cinemas should tell anyone that we are experts of the
American, rather than Russian, culture.
: Finns do not understand Russians at all, and the
: reason is that they are blinded by their all-encompassing
: hatred, and are only able to see a black-and-white
: image where everything east from Finland is pitch
: black. Are they only a pitiful bunch of people guided
: by primitive feelings, unable to break free from
: their past, of which they have a very subjective
: view that they are also unable to approach differently?
Yes, a troll.
Hiski
Olli J. Ojanen
Penny Leach <penny...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:38BCEAA1...@hotmail.com...
> Why is it that most Finns seem to be consumed
> negative statements about Russians from a Finn.
> Is it perhaps a hundred years of myths and false
> propaganda built around few incidents in history?
Very much more than incidents!
Finns have not had practical possibilities to live in a relaxed atmosphere
nurturing solidarity with "Uncle Joe" or guaranteeing any communist and KGB
officer who can say "now I am a democrat".
o.j.o.
Hiski Haapoja
: for a month you will get the same impression - in my opinion.
: The topics that concern Russians that the Finnish media covers
: are typically of this type: Russian drivers come to Finland and
: truck carrying chemicals got into an accident [because the Russians
: Russia, mafia blackmails Finnish companies in Russia, Russian
: there is hardly anything counterbalancing this overflow of negative
: news.
You want recycling of the 1970s news reports about how everything
was perfect in the USSR? Yuck. In case you haven't noticed, free media
generally notices bad news better than good news. Africans, Indians and
Americans have complained that Finnish media gives too negative picture
about Africa/India/the USA. Which Finnish media do you follow anyway?
Alibi and Se-lehti?
: Whenever anything bad happens in Finland the main point
: seems to be to find out if the Russians can be blamed somehow.
I haven't seen any references to Russia in the cases of Sanna Sillanpää,
Jammu Siltavuori, Carl Öhman... You don't expect serious replies to
your nutty claims, do you?
Hiski
Eugene Holman
> lus...@rocketmail.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <38BCEAA1...@hotmail.com>,
> > Penny Leach <penny...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Why is it that most Finns seem to be consumed
> > > by hatred towards Russians? You only ever get
> > > negative statements about Russians from a Finn.
> > > Is it perhaps a hundred years of myths and false
> > > propaganda built around few incidents in history?
A "few" incidents in history? Finland served as the battleground and
provided much of the cannon-fodder for incessant wars between Sweden and
Russia, when Russia was expanding into territory previously controlled by
Sweden and occupied by Finns and closely related people, for more than
five centuries until it was absorbed into Russia in 1809, emerging sadder
and wiser in 1917, only to be sneak-attacked in 1939 by a country which
had already renamed the territory bordering on Finland the "Karelo-Finnish
Soviet Socialist Republic". The Finns, injuduciously as it turned out,
joined up with the Germans to regain the territory taken from them in this
sneak attack, only to lose still more and suffer a partial Soviet physical
and almost total political occupation, "Finlandization". Finns like to
boast that the country was the only one to fight on the Axis side not to
be occupied after the war, but that is not quite the truth: Porkkala 50
kilometers to the west of Helsinki was occupied bhy the USSR for more than
10 years after the war and functioned as an important naval base;
Finland's only ice-free harbor, Petsamo (now Petchenga), its nickel mine
at Nikkeli (now Nikel'), what at that time was its second largest and only
medieval city Viipuri (now Vyborg), the cities of Käkisalmi (now
Priozersk) and Sortavala (still known by that name) as well as the heart
of its industrial heartland in Karelia (see
http://www.karjalanliitto.fi/luovutet.htm) were and still are "occupied"
by the USSR, even if they were ethnically cleansed of their Finnish
inhabitants. Russia, which has admitted that the Soviet Union, whose legal
successor it it, fabricated the border incident which led to the
sneak-attack in 1939, has neither offered an apology nor even considered
the possibility of opening upon negotiations concerning the possible
return of even a square centimeter of this territory, this, despite its
having allowed Germany to have much of its pre-war territory back with
reunification.
These things happened more than half a century ago, and the USSR was not
the same as Russia, even though they are often equated. The Finns wound up
having to pay the USSR $300,000,000 in reparations for the pleasure of
having been sneak-attacked by the USSR, in addition to losing 10% of their
terriroty and having to resettle the 12.5% of its population that lost
their homes and everything they had when they were expelled from the
territory in question. The Finns had to watch helplessly as they saw what
the imposition of Soviet power meant for their brother nation, Estonia,
and its two small neighbors to the south, Latvia and Lithuania, and they
had to deal with numerous instances of Soviet interferennce in Finnish
domestic politics, including at least one half-serious attempt to pull off
a communist coup, in 1948, and numerous behind-the-scenes instances of
horse-trading and backstabbing with respect to who could participate in
Finnish governments, which political parties were to be shunned, no matter
how well they did at the polls, and what Finland could and could not do
and say about the international situation and Soviet human rights abuses.
The Soviets gained much good will for allowing Finland to function as a
Western democracy with a capitalist economy during the Cold War, but
revisionist scholars researching the period are beginning to discovere
that Finland was actually kept on a rather short leash by a cynical
combination of enlightened self-interest and Soviet interference in
Finnish domestic politics.
Thus, there are very good reasons for Finns to have a visceral desire to
keep Russians at arm's length. This despite the fact that Finns, like the
Russians, are legendary vodka drinkers, that Finnish culinary and
architectural culture, as well as folkore, particularly in the eastern
part of the country, have been strongly influenced by north-Russian
culture and, in many apects, are an organic extension of it, and that
Finns, more than many Western Europeans, are great fans of Russian
classical literature: reading the main works Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy, and
Chekhov, as well as the less well-known Goncharov, Gogol, and Kuprin,
remains a rite of passage for the still large number of young Finns who
want to be regarded as well-read. Sibelius' music shares many features
with that of his Russian contemporaries in nearby St. Petersburg,
Tchaikovsky and Glazunov, and this is appreciated by lovers of classical
music. Foods of Russian origin such as borscht (Finnish: borssi), fish
selyanka (Finnish: kalaseljanka), fruit pudding (Russian kisel' > Finnish
kiiselli), Russian-style bread (Pietarin limppu), paschka, and meat pirogs
(Finnish: lihapiirakka) are common enough to show up regularly on
institional and cafeteria menus, and for many people to prepare and eat at
home, so the Finns cannot be said to have excluded Russian influence from
their lives or everyday culture.
>
> >
> > Are those negative statements negative in relation to someone else´s
> > positive images or preconceptions, or in relation to Russians´s
> > positive or negative self-images?
>
> None, just negative as in lacking positive qualities, offering
> nothing constructive, opposite in nature to anything generally
> considered positive, refusal, attacking, disproving. You know,
> like "Russians smell bad" rather than "Russian tourists bring
> a lot of money to our economy". Ask anyone to pick the statement
> they think would generally be considered negative. No need to
> say that someone might actually like people who smell bad.
>
> The topics that concern Russians that the Finnish media covers
> are typically of this type: Russian drivers come to Finland and
> drive drunk,
This is a real problem. Law enforcement in Russia tends to be lax with
respect to this, and many Russian drivers are unpprepared for the much
stricture attitudes in the Nordic countries.
> Russians smuggle this or that into Finland,
Of course they do, and they would be fools not to give it the old "college
try". The standard of living gap between Russia and Finland is one of the
widest in the world, and people on both sides of the border try to make
some illegal economic profit from the situation. During the Soviet period
it was the Finns who were the great smugglers, keeing the Soviet
population of Vyborg, Leningrad, and places in between well supplied with
everything from nylon stockings to rock music cassettes, jeans, and
condoms.
> a Russian
> truck carrying chemicals got into an accident [because the Russians
> don't give a damn about safety],
No. It's more that their safety standards are lower, nor are they enforced
as rigorously. Many Russian cars try to enter Finland in winter with
summer tires or improperly functioning brakes, thus endangering all
travelers. We must not forget that Russia, despite everything, is
presently a third-world country. Many of the problems which Russians have
on the Russian-Finnish border are quite familiar at the Mexican-California
border for the same reason. Third and first-world economies do not
interface smoothly.
> a Finnish tourist was robbed in
> Russia, mafia blackmails Finnish companies in Russia,
Several Finnish tourists have been robbed, killed, and kidnapped in
Russia. The country is not yet a society ruled by law, and the kleptocracy
continues to play an important role in society.
> Russian
> partisans killed so and so many people in Finland 60 years ago,
That's also true, as is the fact that Finnish partisans were active on the
Soviet side of the front as well. Both sides have some skeletons in the
closet that they would rather not talk about as concerns this problem.
> Russian tourists steal,
Not like they used to. But Russian and Estonian tourists currently top the
figures for shoplifting, narcotics smuggling, prostitution, and nmerous
other consequences of increased transborder tourism. Once again, Finnish
tourists have gotten into trouble in Russia and Estonia for a variety of
offences as well, one particularly grotesque one being the uninhibited
manner in which drunken Finns, male and female, will urinate wherever they
feel the urge.
> Russians brought organized crime into
> Finland.
That is of course nonsense. Like the United States, Finland had a period
of prohibition duirng the 1920s and early 1930s which resulted in a
breakdown in respect for law enforcement and the establishment of various
forms of organized criminal organizations and networks. Russians have been
involved in the introduction of new modalities of organized crime. These
include the protection racket, which, according to the police, never
panned out despite some attempts on the part of Russian gangsters, and the
various kinds or criminality connected with high-profile (= streetwalking,
clandestine bordellos, and sex restaurants) prostitution, this being
pretty much the metier of Russians and Estonians in Finland
> Although as such these events may have taken place,
> there is hardly anything counterbalancing this overflow of negative
> news. Whenever anything bad happens in Finland the main point
> seems to be to find out if the Russians can be blamed somehow.
Actually, it's the Estonians that are being grilled now. The recently
released report by the Finnish police shows that Estonian citizens (who
can be Estonians, Russians, or other ethnicities) top the lists in
discovered instances of narcotic smuggling and some other crimes.
Russians, who are also high up on the list for narcotics related crimes,
fall into several groups which the police, but not the general public, are
aware of. Some are Russiand citizens, some are Baltic-resident Russians,
who can enter Finland visa-free, and some are Russizied Finns, so-called
paluumuuttajat: people from Ingria whose grandparents were Finns, but who
were forced to russify themselves during the period when when being of
Finnish ethnicity in the USSR, during and immediately after WW II, was
enough to draw a person a lengthy sentence in a labor camp.
> As in, there would not have been any danger if that chemical
> truck were not Russian.
>
>
The overwhelming majority of chemical trucks from third-world countries oj
Finnish roads with third-world standards of regulation enforcement are
from Russia. It's no secret and nothing to be upset about or apologetic
for. The Finnish authorities have published pamphlets in Russian which are
distributed at consulates explaining Finnish standards and the strictness
with which they are enforced, and the great majority of Russian drivers
understands and obeys these regalations, something which the Finnish
authorities have announced and commended, certainly more than was the case
when the border first opened and Russian drivers had never known any other
standard than that of the USSR.
> > > The Finns, in international media, tout themselves
> > > to be "experts" on Russia in business and culture,
> > > and were even able to convince e.g. American leaders
> > > of this, who often used to stop by in Helsinki on
> > > their way to Moscow.
> >
> > Usually it is so that the Finns are the ones who are touted as
> > "experts", but, then, in a world of blind men the guy with one eye is
> > king...
>
> I don't agree. If I'm correct, it has ususally been the
> Finns themselves who've been the first to mention their
> being the "Gateway to the East". It's the "What does the
> Elephant think about Finland" syndrome, perhaps, coined
> by the old joke about each nationality having a book
> about elephants.
Helsinki is a gateway to Russia - the trip from Helsinki to St. Petersburg
is only 45 min., by bus or train some six hours, although an hour or two
could easily by cut off. Certainly the Finns have more hands-on experience
than any other Western Europeans except, of course, the Balts, who, for
the time being, lack Finland's clout and influence. Helsinki has fantastic
research facilities for studying Russia - including the world's greatest
collection of Imperial Russian publications outside of Russia
(http://hul.helsinki.fi/hyk/kirjasto/slavica.html): during the 110 years
that Finland was a part of Russia, helsinki was a depository library, and
one copy of everything printed in the entire realm had to be sent there.
Since the communists destroyed many libraries in Russia after the
revolution, the Helsinki collection is a mecca for researchers from all
over the world, including Russia, interested in Russian culture, history,
and literature.
> > > Isn't it in fact so that the Finns do not understand Russians at all,
> >
> > Actually, _no-one_, not even the Russians themselves, understand
> > Russians. What little understanding the Finns have, is based on the odd
> > fact that they are, in some ways, a lot more like the Russians than,
> > well, the people who aren´t like the Russians.
>
> So how are the Finns like the Russians?
>
> In any case, the question about understanding should be to
> try and understand why this hatred exists.
I doubt whether the hatred felt by the generation of Finns that
experienced the war is typical of younger Finns. In the south-eastern part
of the country in particular Russian is almost as popular as English as a
foreign langauge among the young people. Here in Helsinki, too, Russian
tourists are welcomed and appreciated, unlike the situation immediately
after the border opened when they were short of cash and rather crude in
their behavior. Once again, you can best understand the Finnish-Russian
relationship if you think in terms of California and Mexico. There is one
class of Mexican visitors to california that definetly belongs to the
middle class, behaves according to norms which Americans have little
difficulty accepting, and uses the services and facilities which the
locality in question provides for visitors. There is another class of
Mexican visitors who Californians would regard as loud and noisy, and who
come more to figure out some way to profit financially from their trip to
California, both during the trip - perhaps by selling marijuana which they
have smuggled in or prosrtituting themselves - or afterwards, perhaps by
stealing something valuable with the hope of reselling it at a profit.
This is what you can expect when a relatively poor country interfaces with
a quite rich one - the Russian GDP is between $4,000 and $7,000, depending
on whose statistics you follow and how you rate the roll played by the
"black economy", while that of Finland is about $21,000. Until President
Putin was able to allocate money to begin to pay slaaries that were months
or even years overdue, attractive young Russian girls would come to
Helsinki regularly to sell sex, their trips, places, accommodations,
schedules, etc. being somehow tied up with various dubious companies in
both Russia and Finland, because that was the only way that their families
could survive. This business is still very much alive.
Finland has gone to particular efforts to attract EU money to the area of
Russia bordering on Finland. The entire border crossing checkpoint on both
sides of the border at Vaalimaa/Torfyanovka
(http://www.tieh.fi/evideo.htm) has been rebuilt with EU money, and the
Finns have been invloved in environmental protection, infrastructure
upgrading, and building restoration on the Russian side along the
Lappeenranta - Vyborg - St. Petersburg route, see e.g.
http://www.jkl.fi/aalto/viipuri/. This is motivated by both the desire to
eventually derive some economic benefit due to improved conditions as well
as to the desire of the Finns to protect what they still consider to be
part of their national heritage: the Soviets had allowed the Aalto
Alvar-designed library in Vyborg to rot and fall apart. See
http://www.karjalanliitto.fi/kar1485.htm for details (in English).
So, Finns don't hate Russians, even if their relation (as well as that of
the Russians to the Finns, by the way), is complex and encumbered by an
unfortunate amount of historical baggage. It has been said that 'sisu' is
to fight 44 wars against Russia, and lose every one.
Regards,
Eugnee Holman
L.Gordeev
On Wed, 1 Mar 2000, Eugene Holman wrote:
> A "few" incidents in history? Finland served as the battleground and
> provided much of the cannon-fodder for incessant wars between Sweden and
> Russia, when Russia was expanding into territory previously controlled by
> Sweden and occupied by Finns and closely related people, [snip]
Wait a moment, Blabber. It was the then main superpower Sweden trying to
expand into territories previously controlled by others (from Germans and
Poles to Russians) that caused the whole nordic unrest and was eventually
beaten by Russia which, in turn, (in full accordance with the Clausewitz
law) started the reverse expansion. Same about Napoleon and Hitler and ...
hmm ... wait a decade ...
L.G
Niklas Tötterman
<penny...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> In article <38BCEAA1...@hotmail.com>,
>> Penny Leach <penny...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Why is it that most Finns seem to be consumed
>> > by hatred towards Russians? You only ever get
>> > negative statements about Russians from a Finn.
You use the word "hate" as it would be a fact. Wrong word, really.
Scepticism and a certain degree of distrust might be nearer the truth.
>> > Is it perhaps a hundred years of myths and false
>> > propaganda built around few incidents in history?
What are the myths ?
What do you mean by false propaganda ?
And which incidents do you mean ?
The propaganda part is one I would be especially interested to know.
>The topics that concern Russians that the Finnish media covers
>are typically of this type: Russian drivers come to Finland and
>drive drunk, Russians smuggle this or that into Finland, a Russian
Ever been to a) Leppäsuo b) Mikado Nightclub ? Or taken a trip to
Tikkurila after Helsinki forbade public prostitution ? Do some mental
arithmetic, and you might come up with some conclusions of your own.
And in case you have no idea what I am speaking about, you are
propably not familiar enough with the local conditions to pass any
judgement.
>truck carrying chemicals got into an accident [because the Russians
If a truck that carries e.g some chlorine compound gets into an
accident it is usually reported in some newspaper. If it is Russian,
or Swedish or whatever, that information is usually also included.
btw. I remember only one specific instance during the last year when
a Russian chemical transport was involved in an accident (which
actually made it to the papers). So, these accidents are not reported
on an everyday basis.
>don't give a damn about safety], a Finnish tourist was robbed in
>Russia,
Usually it is also hinted that the robbed ones have been blindingly
drunk.
>Russian partisans killed so and so many people in Finland 60 years ago,
Most of who were civilians, but who suddenly became military when the
kills were reported. So - in your opinion - this should have been
hushed up because "it casts such a shadow on the Russians" ?
This was a nasty little episode, which had to be made public. If that
produces an ugly stain on the Russian war record, well,
_that's_too_bad_. You shouldn't kill women and children if you are
afraid of your rep.
>Russian tourists steal, Russians brought organized crime into
Russian tourists are not actually known for stealing. Not anymore, at
least. When the Russians started to come over, there were restrictions
on how many of them could enter a shop etc. (which was ridiculous).
Soon it was realised that they are actually quite good customers, who
buy quite a lot, and pay in cash (positive) - and the signs that said
"Only 2 Russians admitted at the same time" where soon changed to ones
that said "We serve you also in Russian".
>Finland. Although as such these events may have taken place,
>there is hardly anything counterbalancing this overflow of negative
>news. Whenever anything bad happens in Finland the main point
>seems to be to find out if the Russians can be blamed somehow.
Oh ? Give a couple of examples of where blame has been put on Russians
with the specific reason of blaming them for something. The things the
Russians in Finland are "known for" are :
- black marketeering of booze and cigarretes
- prostitution
- narcotics smuggling
- recless driving
But that's about it.
>As in, there would not have been any danger if that chemical
>truck were not Russian.
That the bad condition of the Russian trucks became known led to
inspections at the border stations. Which did improve on the situation
a lot. Now the Russian trucks are mostly in good condition, and you
don't need to fear them too much (positive).
>So how are the Finns like the Russians?
Melancholic and prone to drinking a lot of booze when it's available.
Also, very hospitable towards guests (positive). There are others, but
I think these are the most obvious ones.
>In any case, the question about understanding should be to
>try and understand why this hatred exists.
In the cases where _real_ hatred exists, it is usually based on
incidents that happened in WW2. Someones family got slaughtered,
someone elses father was KIA, another one had to leave his/her home
etc. All are conditions that would make you pretty upset.
But actual "hatred" doesn't IMO extend the large masses.
>> But you "forgot" the negative statements the Finns make about
>> themselves...
>
>Like?
For some examples, get your hands on the "60 minutes" episodes
that cover Finland (Tango Finlandia, and the other one that covers the
IT sector), or the "Lonely Planet" episode that covers the Baltic
Countries and Finland. The ones who offer the most criticism for Finns
and Finland are Finns themselves, really.
The relationship between Finns and Russians is undoubtly a complex one
- which is fairly typical for neighbouring countries with different
cultures. But your claim that there would be a common hate towards
Russia and Russians is simply not true.
--
Niklas Tötterman | http://www.sit.fi/~nico
Andrey....@get-lost-spammer.uni-ulm.de
> On Wed, 1 Mar 2000, Eugene Holman wrote:
>> A "few" incidents in history? Finland served as the battleground and
>> provided much of the cannon-fodder for incessant wars between Sweden and
>> Russia, when Russia was expanding into territory previously controlled by
>> Sweden and occupied by Finns and closely related people, [snip]
> Wait a moment, Blabber. It was the then main superpower Sweden trying to
> expand into territories previously controlled by others (from Germans and
> Poles to Russians) that caused the whole nordic unrest and was eventually
> beaten by Russia which, in turn, (in full accordance with the Clausewitz
> law) started the reverse expansion. Same about Napoleon and Hitler and ...
> hmm ... wait a decade ...
> L.G
Gee, Gordeev, did you get surprised by russophobe Holman? Apparently in
his world it was Russia attacking Sweeden, not vice versa. As well as it
were Russians who "militarized Koenigsberg". It seems to me I'll never
stop getting fun from russophobe Holman's knowledge of history.
--
Andrey Nikolaev Ulm university,
Department of Biophysics. Germany.
Email: Andrey.Nikolaev@!get-lost-spammer!.uni-ulm.de
Substitute physik instead of !*! .
Markku J. Saarelainen
Veli venäläinen perusti ravintolan Katajanokalle.
VIELÄ TAPAHTUU sellaistakin, että
Moskovan kauppahuone perustaa
ystävyyden hengessä Helsinkiin ravintolan.
"Venäläisessä" on tiedetty
täsmälleen, miltä ravintolan pitää
näyttää: pönäköitä tuoleja,
kukkamatto, kattokruunut, kullattuja
kehyksiä, umpipaneleita, jopa niin
että komea 99-vuotias Tulli- ja
pakkahuone hukkuu alle. Mutta atmosfääriä on. Ystävyyttä yli rajojen
Veli venäläinen perusti ravintolan Katajanokalle.
VIELÄ TAPAHTUU sellaistakin, että
Moskovan kauppahuone perustaa
ystävyyden hengessä Helsinkiin
ravintolan.
"Venäläisessä" on tiedetty
täsmälleen, miltä ravintolan pitää
näyttää: pönäköitä tuoleja,
kukkamatto, kattokruunut, kullattuja
kehyksiä, umpipaneleita, jopa niin
että komea 99-vuotias Tulli- ja
pakkahuone hukkuu alle. Mutta
atmosfääriä on.
Erik A. Mattila
Corey, when he was asked "Why do you wear tennis shoes?"
So his answer to this "Why do Finns hate Russians?" would go like this.
"This is a question that comes in two parts. Part 1, Why". That is a
question that has plagued philosophers and great thinkers since time
immemorial..." And he would go on with this treatise for ten minutes, or
until the audience completely forgot the original question.
He would abrutly stop, and say "And Part 2. Do Finns hate Russions?
No!" (or Yes).
But to be fair, Lustig, Ms. Penny really didn't answer the question with a
false premise. She just made some rather generic statements about the
virtues of ignorance and attached the the term "Finns" to it. You
implied, but did not out-right state, that you could easily substitute the
term "Yanks" and probably come up with a more accurate diatribe. "Isn't
it a fact that the Yanks do not understand the Ruskis at all..?"
But here's something you might enjoy. In the last decade most of the
really oppressive immigration legislation passed in California is asssumed
by Californians to be aimed primarily at Mexican Farm Workers. Most of
this involves measures of preventing emmigrants from 'milking the cow' of
social services such as employment insurance, welfare and so on, which is
perceived to be a great economic drain that the mighty taxpayer must
suffer. The truth of the matter is that the big abusers of the social
service system are not Mexicans at all, but the flood of immigrants who
have come to California from Russia and Eastern Europe since the fall of
the Berlin wall. This makes sense, if you think about it historically. A
population who were born and bred into systems of introverted bureaucratic
chaos - the simple laws of 'survival of the fittist' have created a people
who are the best 'milkers of the cow' anywhere and at all time. The poor
Mexicans don't have this evolutionary advantage.
So the rank and file Californian hates Mexicans and not Russians because
of color. The politicians who authored the legislation mentioned didn't
bother to mention the target population of the introduced bills, because
they could get much more milage out of Anti-Mexican sentiment than
Anti-Russian sentiment.
Please note that I'm not trying to disparage Russian or Eastern European
emigrants. When you get down to the level of trying to survive in the
California economy, it's a dog eat dog sort of thing. Anyone who speaks
American English with an accent is automatically classified as mentally
deficient, so any emigrant who does not have Yankese as a native tongue is
at a disadvantage in an imployment interview. I'm not exaggerating when I
say that many California believe that anyone who doesn't speak Yankese
fluently are retarded. But what do you expect from a population that is
essentiially mono-lingual. Mexican's get pretty pissed-off because Yanks
expect them to speak English in Mexico.
Erik Mattila
lus...@rocketmail.com wrote:
> In article <38BCEAA1...@hotmail.com>,
> Penny Leach <penny...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Why is it that most Finns seem to be consumed
> > by hatred towards Russians? You only ever get
> > negative statements about Russians from a Finn.
> > Is it perhaps a hundred years of myths and false
> > propaganda built around few incidents in history?
>
> First you formulate a question which is based on an erroneous
> presumption, and then you proceed to answer it yourself with an equally
> foolish thesis.
>
> Then again, I think you should be _well_ qualified to answer you
> question...
>
> Are those negative statements negative in relation to someone else´s
> positive images or preconceptions, or in relation to Russians´s
> positive or negative self-images?
>
> > The Finns, in international media, tout themselves
> > to be "experts" on Russia in business and culture,
> > and were even able to convince e.g. American leaders
> > of this, who often used to stop by in Helsinki on
> > their way to Moscow.
>
> Usually it is so that the Finns are the ones who are touted as
> "experts", but, then, in a world of blind men the guy with one eye is
> king...
>
> > Isn't it in fact so that the Finns do not understand Russians at all,
>
> Actually, _no-one_, not even the Russians themselves, understand
> Russians. What little understanding the Finns have, is based on the odd
> fact that they are, in some ways, a lot more like the Russians than,
> well, the people who aren´t like the Russians.
>
> > and the reason is that they are blinded by their all-encompassing
> > hatred, and are only able to see a black-and-white
> > image where everything east from Finland is pitch black.
>
> Yes.
>
> > Are they only a pitiful bunch of people guided
> > by primitive feelings, unable to break free from
> > their past, of which they have a very subjective
> > view that they are also unable to approach differently?
>
> Yes.
>
> But you "forgot" the negative statements the Finns make about
> themselves...
>
> Lustig
Edward Royce
<penny...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Why is it that most Finns seem to be consumed
>by hatred towards Russians? You only ever get
Well after you get invaded a couple dozen times that tends to put
someones back up definitely.
ed
--
Operating systems, like fine wine and women, only get better with age.
It's unfortunate that Windows ends up being more like your eternally
angry ex-wife with a bottle of Mad Dog 20/20.
Edward Royce
>In article <38BCEAA1...@hotmail.com>,
> Penny Leach <penny...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Why is it that most Finns seem to be consumed
>> by hatred towards Russians?
>
> * * *
>You can call it hatred, I'd call it good sense of reality. That is, we
>don't hate them (or very few people feel hatred towards them nowadays,
>the war is so long behind) but we are very aware of the degree of their
>trustworthiness. An old Finnish saying "ryssä on ryssä vaikka voissa
>paistaisi" is true, has been true, and will be true. It doesn't mean
>one should hate them. I know the saying is too complicated for you,
>even if I translated it. You'd better to focus on Baywatch instead.
Probably translates to "Russians are Russians no matter what".
>> You only ever get negative statements about Russians from a Finn.
>> Is it perhaps a hundred years of myths and false
>> propaganda built around few incidents in history?
>
> * * *
>What fucking "false propaganda"? If you had even some knowledge of the
>history of Europe and in this case of the history of Finland, you
>wouldn't express your stupidity in public.
>My grandmother didn't need any "false propaganda" about Russians when
>the dead body of her husband was brought from the battle field to her
>in 1944.
Yup. Russia spent a lot of time in Finland.
>> The Finns, in international media, tout themselves
>> to be "experts" on Russia in business and culture,
>> and were even able to convince e.g. American leaders
>> of this, who often used to stop by in Helsinki on
>> their way to Moscow. Isn't it in fact so that the
>> Finns do not understand Russians at all,
>
> * * *
>It's you who don't understand history at all, because history means to
>you the list of the names of the presidents of the United States of
>America. And even that is too complicated.
I didn't realize she was an American.
>> and the reason is that they are blinded by their all-encompassing
>> hatred, and are only able to see a black-and-white
>> image where everything east from Finland is pitch
>> black. Are they only a pitiful bunch of people guided
>> by primitive feelings,
>
> - - -
>
> * * *
>No. The only pitiful person is you, an ignorant - American - if I may
>guess?
Now you're generalizing. It would be like my saying that all Finns
hated Russians.
Malleus
Andrey....@get-lost-spammer.uni-ulm.de wrote:
.........
>It seems to me I'll never
> stop getting fun from russophobe Holman's knowledge of history.
>
> --
decade"). US mil.budget is 60 times Russian now, it will be 100 times
then.
--
We'll be back after these messages
Lord God
interested. I, for example, didn't know that the Finns will get drunk
and pee wherever. That is I knew they like to drink, but not the other
thing. Anyway, please post in English, coz I wanna know all that's going
on.
--------------------------------------------------
Markku J. Saarelainen
Lord God wrote:
> Markku, this is a low blow. I can't read that, but the thread is
> interested. I, for example, didn't know that the Finns will get drunk
> and pee wherever. That is I knew they like to drink, but not the other
Actually I post in any language I wish to post ... :) and I thought that
those things that you mentioned in your posting are done some people in
Ghana for example .. so isn't that interesting ..
Mats.W...@telia.com
Andrey....@get-lost-spammer.uni-ulm.de wrote:
>In soc.culture.russian L.Gordeev <iik...@mail.uni-tuebingen.de> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 1 Mar 2000, Eugene Holman wrote:
>
>>> A "few" incidents in history? Finland served as the battleground and
>>> provided much of the cannon-fodder for incessant wars between Sweden and
>>> Russia, when Russia was expanding into territory previously controlled by
>>> Sweden and occupied by Finns and closely related people, [snip]
>
>> Wait a moment, Blabber. It was the then main superpower Sweden trying to
>> expand into territories previously controlled by others (from Germans and
>> Poles to Russians) that caused the whole nordic unrest and was eventually
>> beaten by Russia which, in turn, (in full accordance with the Clausewitz
>> law) started the reverse expansion. Same about Napoleon and Hitler and ...
>> hmm ... wait a decade ...
>
>> L.G
>
> Gee, Gordeev, did you get surprised by russophobe Holman? Apparently in
>his world it was Russia attacking Sweeden, not vice versa. As well as it
>were Russians who "militarized Koenigsberg". It seems to me I'll never
>stop getting fun from russophobe Holman's knowledge of history.
>
Which of the many wars between Sweden/Finland and Russia are
you referring to ? If you are referring to the Russian campaign
1707-09 of Charles XII then you are of course correct. However,
that campaign was brought about by the combined
Danish/Russian/Poland-Saxony attack on Sweden/Finland in
1700 which initiated the Great Nordic War of 1700-21.
And that revanschist war was brought about by the successful
Swedish expansion in the Baltic area in the 1600's.
MW, Sthlm, SW
Erik A. Mattila
> X-No-Archive: Yes
> "Erik A. Mattila" wrote:
> > But here's something you might enjoy. In the last decade most of the
> > really oppressive immigration legislation passed in California is asssumed
> > by Californians to be aimed primarily at Mexican Farm Workers. Most of
> > this involves measures of preventing emmigrants from 'milking the cow' of
> > social services such as employment insurance, welfare and so on, which is
> > perceived to be a great economic drain that the mighty taxpayer must
> > suffer.
> The key word you fucking forgot: _illegal_ immigrants. And I'm not aware
> of any persecutions of Californian emigrants, they can leave freely, any
> time, and the same goes for legal immigrants.
I've never had to argue against the word of God, but I don't think I forgot
that word, I meekly submit before your devine omnipotence.
But your comment "I'm not aware of any persecutions" does support what I am
saying about social myopia. Should we have bilingual eduction in school
districts which are composed of 80% Spanish speakers? Should govenment
documents be bilingual, trilingual or whatever to accomodate non-English
speakers? Should green-card holders be cut off from social services even
though they contribute to the tax-base, just like citizens? You know,
'oppression' is always in the eye of the beholder. The oppressors always see
it as 'manifest destiny.'
Finally, are you implying that there are no Russian and Eastern European
'illegal' emigrants here in the Golden State?
Oh, by the way. As a Native American I agree with your last line. I would be
very happy to help you pack? (of course I'm just assuming that God is not an
Indian, as I am told).
Devoutly, Erik Mattila
lustig
<penny...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>It's not a presumption... I said "seem to be", and to me
>they certainly seem to be what I said.
Well, yes, it wasn´t a presumption - it was more like an axiom
thinly veiled by that "seem to be"...
>I said "most", and although my sample is not very large, almost
>any Finn I've asked confirms this.
Is it so that every Finn in your "sample" confirms that your
presumption about _the other_ Finns is correct? Or do you mean
that none of the Finns you´ve met has ever made any positive
statements about the Russians?
>Also, if you sample the Finnish media for a month you will get
>the same impression - in my opinion.
If you "sample" the Finnish media on any subject - Germany,
Clinton, Angola, you name it - you will get a certain impression.
>Why is it foolish?
1. Russia and Russians, and the Finns´ attitudes or knowledge
about them are perhaps slightly too large subjects to make such
sweeping statements about. 2. It´s based on a foolish assumption
about propaganda, myths and historical incidents (or lack of
them).
>> Then again, I think you should be _well_ qualified to answer
>> you question...
>Why is that?
Just a silly hunch I had...
>> Are those negative statements negative in relation to someone
>> else´s positive images or preconceptions, or in relation to
>> Russians´s positive or negative self-images?
>None, just negative as in lacking positive qualities, offering
>nothing constructive, opposite in nature to anything generally
>considered positive, refusal, attacking, disproving.
It could be your "sample" is skewed, it could be the Finns
you´ve met are keen to give a certain kind of evidence about
_other_ Finns. It could be they are responding to your opinions
about the Russians, and the shock of finding your preconceptions
challenged has skewed your view of the Finns.
>You know,like "Russians smell bad" rather than "Russian
>tourists bring a lot of money to our economy".
For one thing, "Kosmos" and certain other brands of Russian
cigarettes do stink! Though if you were as up to date on the
Finns and the Finnish media, you would know both that the papers
and the TV news have had a zillion stories about the healthy
flow of Russian tourists (who spend more dollars on average than
the Germans or the Americans, for instance), _and_ that the
average tourist no longer smokes "Kosmos"...
>Ask anyone to pick the statement they think would generally be
>considered negative. No need to say that someone might actually
>like people who smell bad.
Then again, anyone who ever wished to venture into Russia must
be prepared to encounter smells that a "Westerner" would
consider as bad. The only thing is to get over it, and meet the
country and the people as they are.
>The topics that concern Russians that the Finnish media covers
>are typically of this type: Russian drivers come to Finland and
>drive drunk
Not necessarily drunk, but they´ve had a statistically correct
reputation of driving too fast, making dangerous and illegal
overtaking maneuvers on cars that had dangerously worn tyres and
brakes. Well, the "pilots", professional who drive import cars
to Russia merely broke too many traffic regulations.
Again, if you knew what you were talking about, you´d know that,
thanks to information given in Russian by the Finns, and the
increased familiarity with Finnish traffic behaviour, the number
of accidents involving Russians has remarkable decreased - and
it´s been widely reported in the media...
>Russians smuggle this or that into Finland
Well, hasn´t it been the Estonians who have received the most of
this sort of news, and isn´t it simply that _all_ cases of large-
scale smuggling that come to light get the same amount of news?
It´s mainly geography that dictates it´s the Russians, and the
good are either smuggled into or via Finland (as a transit route
to Russia).
>a Russian truck carrying chemicals got into an accident
>[because the Russians don't give a damn about safety],
There have been a couple of case involving railway transports,
as well. But do you think we should hush hush incidents
involving dangerous chemicals and blatant neglect of safety
regulations? (Just because it wasn´t the NATO bombs?)
>a Finnish tourist was robbed in Russia
Especially, if it was someone famous, or if the victim got
killed. But you know, it´s a news that would concern a large
number of Finns who travel to Russia.
>mafia blackmails Finnish companies in Russia,
Well, you would have to put that in relation to what is written
about the Russian mafia by the media in other countries.
Besides, they are legitimate security companies these days.
>Russian partisans killed so and so many people in Finland 60
>years ago,
They did murder women and children. The perpetrators are known,
they´ve lied about their deeds and painted themselves as heroic
destroyers´ of enemy military objects, and they bask in false
glory. Should everyone in Finland remain silent about this so
that you wouldn´t be offended by our "negative statements"?
>Russian tourists steal
That has to put in the proper context in time. There was a very
real upsurge in shoplifting when the Soviet Union first opened,
which, for natural reasons, has ceased since.
>Russians brought organized crime into Finland.
They borught the very real risk of organized crime entering into
Finland. But, if you really followed Finnish media, the story
has always been that there is no Russian organized crime in
Finland, apart from nice guys bringing their families for a
holiday.
>Although as such these events may have taken place,
>there is hardly anything counterbalancing this overflow of
>negative news.
That is the essence of news reporting; when did you last read
something "positive" about Africa, Germany, or whatever? What
"positive" news would you balance it with?
>Whenever anything bad happens in Finland the main point
>seems to be to find out if the Russians can be blamed somehow.
No, it´s the Somalis. If not them, it´s the drug addicts. If not
them, it´s the people on the dole.
>As in, there would not have been any danger if that chemical
>truck were not Russian.
Unscrew your head, and put it back on again.
>I don't agree. If I'm correct, it has usually been the
>Finns themselves who've been the first to mention their
>being the "Gateway to the East".
It´s what the Finns are quoted as saying in articles written by
foreign journalists who already have the facts down pat.
But there´s a certain amount of truth in it: the Finns have,
unlike many other, been involved in business dealings with the
Russians for a long time, and certainly more intimately than
your average American MBA. And if you want to do business with
Russia, there is a certain, very real advantage of using Finland
(and Finnish facilities and logistics) as a "Gateway".
If you make more than that out of it, or it gives you belly
aches, it´s not the intended result.
>It's the "What does the Elephant think about Finland" syndrome,
>perhaps, coined by the old joke about each nationality having a
>book about elephants.
It´s also the "What the Blind Man Knows about the Finns"
syndrome.
>> Actually, _no-one_, not even the Russians themselves,
>> understand Russians. What little understanding the Finns
>> have, is based on the odd fact that they are, in some ways, a
>> lot more like the Russians than, well, the people who aren´t
>> like the Russians.
>So how are the Finns like the Russians?
To understand that, you´d have to be either a Finn or a Russian.
And if I really think about it, you really cannot be from west
of Lake Päijänne, either.
>In any case, the question about understanding should be to
>try and understand why this hatred exists.
The question would be also to question whether that hatred
really exists, and if it does, on what level does it exist? What
other sentiments or attitudes co-exist with it? What is that
hatred really like?
>> But you "forgot" the negative statements the Finns make about
>> themselves...
>Like?
Ask your "sample"...
Lustig
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
lustig
100...@commlink.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de>, "L.Gordeev"
<iik...@mail.uni-tuebingen.de> wrote:
>
>It was the then main superpower Sweden trying to expand into
>territories previously controlled by others (from Germans and
>Poles to Russians)
That is the big picture, but when you look at it from the point
of the Finns living in their Finnish areas, it was the Russians
who were the invaders. (For Karelians living to the east of
them, it looked different.)
Markku J. Saarelainen
Malleus wrote:
> In article <38bd6...@news.uni-ulm.de>,
> Andrey....@get-lost-spammer.uni-ulm.de wrote:
> .........
> >It seems to me I'll never
> > stop getting fun from russophobe Holman's knowledge of history.
> >
Edward Royce
<emat...@tomatoweb.com> wrote:
... snip
>So the rank and file Californian hates Mexicans and not Russians because
>of color. The politicians who authored the legislation mentioned didn't
>bother to mention the target population of the introduced bills, because
>they could get much more milage out of Anti-Mexican sentiment than
>Anti-Russian sentiment.
Where on earth did you dig this false premise up?
It's a fairly accepted fact that Mexico is a lot closer to California
than Russia. And allows somewhat easier methods of travel.
sheesh.
Erik A. Mattila
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
> Blah blah blah. How caustic! And all them fancy words... "social
> myopia"! Not bad. I bet all half-literates are vastly impressed by your
> incredible eloquence, Mr Karl Marx. Let's see what else you've got
> besides hurling of the huge curses.
I always happy to be polite and accomodating, Mr. God. How many syllables are you comfortable
with?
> > Should we have bilingual eduction in school
> > districts which are composed of 80% Spanish speakers?
> No. But we do. Altough I don't think we should. This is an English
> speaking country and this Spanish speaking welfare clientele came over
> here without invitation (for some unknown reason, as they clearly don't
> like it here.) If they don't understand, that's their fucking problem.
> Could learning English be a solution?
You may have noticed, Mr. God, that this newsgroup is participated in by an international
group who mostly write in English, although it is not their native language. Would you say to
someone who posts in Swedish, Danish, German or whatever "Dis is a English spekkin newsgroup,
Dude..." Did you ever wonder why Californian's only speak one language? Every ESL (that's
"English as a second language) resident of California ends up being bilingual, whether they
are Asian, European, Mexican or African. In our university system, a proficiency in a
'Foreign language' is required across all curriculuae. Universities do this because it is
common knowledge that bi-lingualism shows that a person is relative intelligent, which is a
requirement for college degrees. So there you have it. Dividing the California population
into these kinds of demographics show that on the one side there is an Eduated and Emigrant
segment which is reasonably intelligent, contrasted with a a lumpin proletariat which is no
(by virtue of mono-lingualism).
By the way, I doubt that Karl Marx would make this argument. He would opt for social
uniformity, as most totalitarians would. Much easier to control a population which thinks the
same thoughts and walks the same walks. Anyway, you should get your feeble insults better
organized, and at least make sure they have some historical and ideological relevance.
Now you may object to my long words here, but let me ask you this. Why do you say to
emigrants "You Must Speekin de English" and then say to me "All them fancy words." Do you not
see a contradiction here? A double standard.
> > Should govenment documents be bilingual, trilingual or whatever to accomodate non-English
> > speakers?
> No. The U.S. is an English speaking country. Go to Mexico and speak
> Spanish all you want. However, my phone bill is printed in Spanish right
> now. Why? At whose expense is it done?
But the US isn't an English speaking country, in any realistic sense. Everywhere you go you
can hear many languages spoken. There are about 500 Native American languages spoken alone.
Our University libraries are chock full of text in Danish, Chinese, Portuguese, Africaans, and
all the rest. English is the official language of Government. But realistically we have a
multi-lingual environment - except for a group of citizens who ONLY speak Engish (or a
corrupted form of English), and want to drag everyone down to their level of illiteracy so
they won't feel left out.
Your telephone company has elected to print your bill in two languages because it's customers
require this for the smooth operation of their billing system. You cost would be higher if
this was not the case, because then all the mix-ups that would occur by consummers who are not
proficient in English would translate into higher administrative costs which would be tacked
on to everyone's bill. Don't hit the gift-horse in the mouth.
> > Should green-card holders be cut off from social services
> They're not. But if you'd wanna be more specific about the "social
> services" they're cut off of, be my guest. I am very interested to know
> of this harrowing tale of gringo cruelty and abuse.
No, Mr. God. The burden of proof is on you, since you have initiated this challenge to the
words I addressed to Lustig. I'm just assuming that you are in California, since your
reactionary thinking so closely resembles the California übermenschen quasi-ideology that I am
so familiar with. That being said, you may also vote in this state. If my assumptions are
correct, then you would either be aware of the emmigration issues that have been before the
California eletorate in the past decade, or you are one of those voters who just makes the
same 'x's as you friends without understanding the issues.
> > You know, 'oppression' is always in the eye of the beholder. The oppressors always see
> > it as 'manifest destiny.'
> You bet. I agree with that. So, why don't you guys simply annex CA?
> Maybe you'll succeed, who knows. Make another Mexico out of it, why not?
Well, hate to inform you, but California was already Mexico, and not too long ago. You
haven't heard of the Mexican American war? The Treaty of Guadalupe Hildalgo? Assuming that
you're not a California Indian, your people came here for the same reason Mexicans, Chinese,
Irishmen and Okies have come here. There's no great mystery about that. An emigrant is an
emigrant, no matter which way you shake it, bake it, rock it or roll it.
> I'll tell you why not: because they dont' want any Mexico as they
> already came from Mexico. So what they want is to sit here, scratch
> their ass, and be paid for being around. Again, if it's so damn bad, why
> come here? Travel back to Mexico, it ain't far.
Not true. A group of Mexicans from Baja California del Sur and del Norte, around 1970, did
offer to buy Alta California for 3 Burros and 7 Chickes (Hens). They did this in response to
a failed offer by a group of businesssmen from Newport Beach who made a formal offer to the
Mexican Government to purchase Baja California for the purpose of tourist development.
> I'll tell you one thing:
> the era of "progressive" bullshit combined with open bloodsucking by
> "community leaders", "freedom fighters" and similar human garbage while
> importing massive constituency for themselves is over.
You wish. The opposite will be true. Emigrants and minorities will outnumber the lumpin
proletariat 'silent majority' and the new freedom fighters will be drawn from the new class,
which will be called 'white trash.' Heheehe. Hey, don't shoot the messenger.
> No one owes you
> anything, neither is anyone sufficiently stupid to pay attention to your
> endless phoney complaining. Where is the abuse? Now's the time to shit
> or get off the pot. Most of suffering humanity can only dream about
> being "abused" like you are.
Well, that's the virtue of tax paying, I guess. Everyone who works needn't feel that they're
getting away with anything. They earn their keep, and even politicians treat them with
respect. But who said I am abused? That's silly. I'm too smart to be abused by morons.
You're making false conclusions based on a faulty premise, just like the original poster did
about "Finns hating Russians."
> > Finally, are you implying that there are no Russian and Eastern European
> > 'illegal' emigrants here in the Golden State?
> Blah again.
'splain 'blah' please. It's over my head.
> I'm not "implying" shit.
But I didn't say that you are implying 'shit,' nor would I, unless you had mentioned feces in
your post. I said you were implying that there are no other's here without documents besides
Mexicans.
> I do not know if there are
> absolutely NO Russian illegals in the U.S.,
So you're saying that you don't know. What's the problem then. I'm only pointing out to you
that your argument (if it actually is an argument) weakens by implying something that you
don't know about.
> but I think it is pretty
> obvious that even if there are any, the numbers are nowhere near what
> goes on with Mexicans in CA.
Not to me. There are obviously more Mexicans in California than Russsians and Eastern
Europeans, but not necessrily undocumented workers. After all, just a hundred and fifty years
ago, California was in fact Mexico. So there is a large body of Mexicans here who were here
before any Unites States people got here. When California became part of the US, and the
agricultural industry was developed, the primary labor force used to develp this resource into
one of the world's most important economies was Mexican, both local Mexicans, who had become
U.S. Citizens, and immigrant labor from Mexico. This was uncontrolled for a long period, but
finally it grew into the Bracero program, where farmworkers were documented. Then there was a
large immigration of Mexicans into the US during WWII, since there were many jobs that needed
to be filled to support the war. And subsequently we have the more recent immigrations and
the amnesty program of the late eighties, which added to the permanent demography of
California. Throughout all this time there has been illegal immigration. But at any give
time the majority of people of Mexican ethnicity that you will see in California are in fact
legally documented temporary workers or United States Citizens. But as I said, Californian
lumpins only see color, thus many California Indians and Out of State US Indians are also
mistaken as "Mexicans" by the mypopic.
> At the same time, if there are any, I
> certainly don't think they should be paid for being here. Let's not play
> cheap tricks with formal logic. Stick to the issue; better yet, quit
> your phoney rabble-rousing, coz your reports are deliberate lies. No
> country except the U.S. would even have these discussions! Gee, these
> people are in the country ILLEGALLY. You "forgot" to mention that. Hmmm.
> I wonder why.
Idiocy will get you nowhere, Mr. God. Add to your myopia the concept of illegality. Of
course I've accounted for this. That's why I pointed out to you the issue of other illegal
residents of California, besides Mexicans, as being the cause of immigration legislation. Are
you brain damaged. A reading comprehension problem, perhaps?
> > Oh, by the way. As a Native American I agree with your last line.
> To be a Native Anything in this country is terrific as you qualify for a
> lot of handouts and other junk. However, at the same time, it is a shame
> you're not a homo with AIDS--then your "public assistance" options would
> be even more attractive. It's not too late though <g>! Just imagine, you
> could add to your rederic an anti-anti-gay and AIDS support facet.
> That'd be great, wouldn't it?
Interesting diversion. Are you also homophobic? Is it that Macho Mexican Men pose some sort
of threat to you?
> > I would be very happy to help you pack? (of course I'm just assuming that God is not an
> > Indian, as I am told).
> Help me pack? I missed that. Whatever, I guess.
Oh, I see. You can't grasp this simple irony. Everyone in the Americas besides it's
aboriginal inhabitants are immigrants. There's no great mystery about that. So when you say
that all immigrants should leave, I'm merely agreeing with you, and offering whatever
assistance I can to make sure you catch your steamer. Nothing complicated about that, even
you could understand it, I'm sure.
But one thing I would like to add. I am pleased that you have verified what I wrote to Lustig
- there couldn't be a better example of the moronic sub-intellect of many Californians than
what you have provided. The other side of the coin is that I've tried to defend California
culture from time to time on this Newsgroup, when is is viciously attacked by those arrogant
Norsemen at the top of the world. If I have made any headway at all, you have caused a great
set back. The next time someone from Finland or Norway or Denmark disparages Yankee culture,
I'll have to agree with them, since if I defend Yankdom, they will be able to hold your post
up in my face as evidence of vulgar and idiotic thinking (posed as the word of God, no less).
And I'll bet you imagine that you're some sort of a patriot. Well, if you love America stop
embarassing her.
Erik Mattila
Juho Mattila
Lord God wrote:
> No
> country except the U.S. would even have these discussions! Gee, these
> people are in the country ILLEGALLY. You "forgot" to mention that. Hmmm.
> I wonder why.
Law is nothing, when it comes to people moving about. Didn't the Germans illegally enter the
Roman Empire? What about the Spanish and the English into America?
Erik A. Mattila
> X-No-Archive: Yes
> "Erik A. Mattila" wrote:
> > You may have noticed, Mr. God, that this newsgroup is participated in by an international
> > group who mostly write in English, although it is not their native language. Would you say to
> > someone who posts in Swedish, Danish, German or whatever "Dis is a English spekkin newsgroup,
> > Dude..." Did you ever wonder why Californian's only speak one language? Every ESL (that's
> > "English as a second language) resident of California ends up being bilingual, whether they
> > are Asian, European, Mexican or African. In our university system, a proficiency in a
> [several tons of sociological-sounding obfuscatory diarrhea snipped]
> Erik,
> I'm not gonna wade through these oceans of crap. This is a simple
> matter: in your initial message you describe the supposedly awful
> injustices unleashed at the poor Californian immigrants. I only added
> one thing that you "forgot" to mention in your fiery reports: those
> people are _illegal_ immigrants. That is all that one needs in order to
> understand that you're a liar and the whole debate isn't worth anything.
> Bye bye.
Sorry, Sport, before you decide who is going to be perceived as a liar, you need to look in the
mirror.
1. I wrote this in my post: "In the last decade most of the really oppressive immigration
legislation passed in California..." You are now describing this as a 'firey report' and
"supposedly awful injustices unleashed at the poor Californian immigrants."
2. You say now "I only added one thing that you "forgot" to mention in your fiery reports: those
people are _illegal_ immigrants." This is untrue. You said four different things, not one,
offered as a challenge to what I wrote.
A. The key word you fucking forgot: _illegal_ immigrants.
B. And I'm not aware of any persecutions of Californian emigrants,
C. they can leave freely, any time,
D. and the same goes for legal immigrants.
So it appears that you are saying some 'untruths' here, yes?
Now simple logic would dictate that the language "oppresive immigration legislation" might refer to
immigrants who are documented and undocumented. So it is not true to say that I 'forgot
'illegal.' In the context of my writing, it is a moot point. The context was, after all, that
this legislation was aimed at other immigration issues beside Mexican immigration, yet it was
perceived by California voters as if it were aimed at Mexican immigation.
There is no reasonable way that you, or anyone else, could conclude that I was 'lying' by saying
this. I could be wrong, or course, and a challenge to this could be a pretty interesting
argument. You need to ask yourself the question why I would 'lie' about this. What is my gain or
motive? I wrote it to Lustig because I find it amusing.
But I realize that you are merely trying to get the last word since I completely blew you out of
the water with my, er. what did you call it, rederic? It's not really rhetoric at all, but more a
matter of decent argument and debate. So I don't mind you trying to save face, but please, not at
my expense. You've got to accept responsibility for your poor argument. By the way, I do enjoy a
good debate.
If you every are interested in improving your argument skills, I would advise you to think more
about language use and effect. An experienced debater knows, for example, that when the opponent
resorts to vindictive language, negative connotations, and formal logical fallacies, that the
opponent is compensating for lack of preparation and knowledge of the topic debated. Tactically it
is very weak and leaves you vulnerable - and guys like me home in for the kill. Anyway, I'd like
to claim victory on this one. But do I really feel this way, or am I just taunting you? Only the
Shadow knows...
Regards, Erik
Penny Leach
> presumption about _the other_ Finns is correct? Or do you mean
> that none of the Finns you´ve met has ever made any positive
> statements about the Russians?
If I ask a Finn, "What do you think about Russia?", he will go
into a three-hour monologue about what those bastards did to
Finland, what kind of criminals they are and have always been,
oh, and then there's this "fry him in butter" thing that they
always remember to mention, even the fact that Finns killed a lot
of other Finns in 1918 is entirely the Russians' fault, etc.
So, my "sample" actually more or less made my "presumption" as
you like to call it. The "sample" is more than one person, although
as I said, I understand it may not represent all of Finland.
And, as I did say in my original posting, "seems to be" means
it's certainly the impression I got, and I got it from Finns and
spending time in Finland. If it makes you feel better, feel free
to substitute "hate" with "prejudice", "strong dislike", "detest",
"abhor" or any word you prefer. I can still ask the question. And
surely, it can't be true that history is so single sided? Somebody
somewhere has been seriously mislead.
> If you "sample" the Finnish media on any subject - Germany,
> Clinton, Angola, you name it - you will get a certain impression.
Right. But with none of those topics it is as black-and-white as
this.
> >Why is it foolish?
>
> 1. Russia and Russians, and the Finns´ attitudes or knowledge
> about them are perhaps slightly too large subjects to make such
> sweeping statements about. 2. It´s based on a foolish assumption
> about propaganda, myths and historical incidents (or lack of
> them).
So, your argument is that it is foolish because it is foolish?
The topic is too large? And why is it not ok to say, "the impression
I have is that Finns hate Russians"? It is true.
> It could be your "sample" is skewed, it could be the Finns
> you´ve met are keen to give a certain kind of evidence about
> _other_ Finns. It could be they are responding to your opinions
> about the Russians, and the shock of finding your preconceptions
> challenged has skewed your view of the Finns.
No, no, as I said earlier, they are not making statements
about other Finns. They are not really even making statements
about themselves, not consciously. They are perfectly willing
to volunteer their views on this without me having to say
anything but the word "Russia".
Of course it is possible that I've associated myself with the
wrong kind of people. I should have asked you...
> Ask your "sample"...
To get a negative statement about Finland? The only one I ever
heard was about heavy taxation. Usually, unless I've asked them
about Russians, they just talk about how wonderful a country
Finland is, how this or that is so much better in Finland, How
excellent achievers all Finns are, what sports events they won
yesterday, how one Finn is worth ten of some other nationality,
Nokia this, Nokia that, oh, and they never, ever get tired of
asking me, "what do you think of Finland"?
Hiski Haapoja
: of other Finns in 1918 is entirely the Russians' fault, etc.
Not entirely, but the war wouldn't have been there without Lenin
repeatedly urging the Red guards to revolution (after he had failed
to inspire the Social Democratic party).
: spending time in Finland. If it makes you feel better, feel free
: to substitute "hate" with "prejudice", "strong dislike", "detest",
: "abhor" or any word you prefer. I can still ask the question. And
: surely, it can't be true that history is so single sided? Somebody
: somewhere has been seriously mislead.
Again I get the feeling that you are a Russian. Anybody whose doesn't
love Russia is "mislead" or worse. As an expert, you can surely list
the reasons why Finns should love, or like, Russians.
:> If you "sample" the Finnish media on any subject - Germany,
:> Clinton, Angola, you name it - you will get a certain impression.
: Right. But with none of those topics it is as black-and-white as
: this.
Black-and-white? Helsingin Sanomat, the leading newspaper, constantly
publishes articles on Russian culture of past and present. Which gutter
media do you follow?
Hiski
Markku J. Saarelainen
All this shit is garbage .. some people just trying to discuss unnecessary
issues ...
Kommareita turpaan ...
The Finn
> negative statements about Russians from a Finn.
Well, time to change it. Most Russians I know are a very
nice bunch indeed. Russian literature is great. I really
miss those Mosfilm movies. Russian language is damn hard,
but I still like it. Moscow is a beautiful town.
I don't think that most Finns hate Russians. But not many
Finns understand them. Journalists in general are very
ignorant about Russian culture. Just see those dudes who
appear in TV as "experts" on Russian politics.
* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful
lus...@rocketmail.com
Penny Leach <penny...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> If I ask a Finn, "What do you think about Russia?", he will go
> into a three-hour monologue about what those bastards did to
> Finland, what kind of criminals they are and have always been,
> oh, and then there's this "fry him in butter" thing that they
> always remember to mention, even the fact that Finns killed a lot
> of other Finns in 1918 is entirely the Russians' fault, etc.
What did you expect? A litany of their positive qualities? An extolling
description of their shirokaja natura? An account of our wonderful
experiences with various examples of Russian culture?
How did you approach this subject? Did you first mention your own views
or experiences? Did you consider the possibility it brought your
informants a certain frisson to shock you?
Did you question them on their opinions about other nationalities, or
groups of people? The French? The Germans? The people from certain
districts of Finland?
Anyway, the important thing is to understand that everything they said
is true, on one level, about Russia and the Russians, as much as these
statements may appal you - but they don´t stop us from seeing other
things, or having other sentiments as well.
It´s possible that you hadn´t passed beyond a certain threshold, or
reached a certain intimacy, so these sentiments were not considered as
worth sharing. It´s a Japanese thing, you know...
> If it makes you feel better, feel free to substitute "hate" with
> "prejudice", "strong dislike", "detest", "abhor" or any word you
> prefer.
I don´t mind words.
> I can still ask the question.
And you can continue to provided your own answers as well.
> And surely, it can't be true that history is so single sided?
The way history hits people is often quite single sided.
> Somebody somewhere has been seriously mislead.
It could well be you.
> > If you "sample" the Finnish media on any subject - Germany,
> > Clinton, Angola, you name it - you will get a certain impression.
> Right. But with none of those topics it is as black-and-white as
> this.
Re-adjust that head of yours in proper fashion. It´s so lopsided it´s
in danger of falling off.
> So, your argument is that it is foolish because it is foolish?
I don´t have an argument about this.
> The topic is too large?
It is. It´s a bit like a twelve-year-old girl visiting a barracks one
Sunday, and then telling everyone all about the soldier´s mind.
> And why is it not ok to say, "the impression I have is that Finns
> hate Russians"? It is true.
It´s true only in so far that may be your impression. It´s ok only as
long as you don´t pretend otherwise.
> No, no, as I said earlier, they are not making statements
> about other Finns. They are not really even making statements
> about themselves, not consciously. They are perfectly willing
> to volunteer their views on this without me having to say
> anything but the word "Russia".
It´s a bit like with those smells. You can either pretend you don´t
smell it, or you can refuse to say it aloud, but the real test whether
it´ll stop you from ever visiting Russia again.
> Of course it is possible that I've associated myself with the
> wrong kind of people. I should have asked you...
Nah, I´d given you the same old song, maybe a little longer, thinking
"this´ll serve her right!".
> To get a negative statement about Finland? The only one I ever
> heard was about heavy taxation. Usually, unless I've asked them
> about Russians, they just talk about how wonderful a country
> Finland is, how this or that is so much better in Finland, How
> excellent achievers all Finns are, what sports events they won
> yesterday, how one Finn is worth ten of some other nationality,
> Nokia this, Nokia that, oh, and they never, ever get tired of
> asking me, "what do you think of Finland"?
This either one thing: you haven´t been let beyond the doormat into a
Finnish home, figuratively speaking, people still tell you only the
kind of platitudes they feel they are expected to in the company of
certain kinds of foreigners - or this proves another thing: you _are_ a
Finn, no one else could run off that list so fluently...
Lustig
Niklas Tötterman
<penny...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "abhor" or any word you prefer. I can still ask the question. And
> surely, it can't be true that history is so single sided? Somebody
> somewhere has been seriously mislead.
I don't know how much you know about the common history of Finland and
Russia. But it seems to me that your knowledge is a bit too shallow,
and your attitude is somewhat biased.
Please give the specifics for these : a) Why can't it be true that
history is so single sided ? b) In what way has somebody been misled ?
History seldom balances itself, unless it is done synthetically. Which
actully was done not so long ago. At the same time, people were also
misled. Do you really want to go back to this denial of realities ?
> So, your argument is that it is foolish because it is foolish?
> The topic is too large? And why is it not ok to say, "the impression
> I have is that Finns hate Russians"? It is true.
What is your definition of hate ? IMO the term hate is in the extreme
end of the emotion scale, and should only be used where appropriate.
Which it is not in this context.
> excellent achievers all Finns are, what sports events they won
> yesterday, how one Finn is worth ten of some other nationality,
Ahem...if you have heard the 1:10 thingy from your "sample" then he
must've been pretty smashed as this thing is generally not mentioned (
the ratio is the kill ratio of the Winter War ). If you want to
discuss the Finnish emotions about the Russian you should to it after
the sauna when your samples are relatively sober. Not in a pub.
--
"Who is this general failure, and
why is he reading my disk ?"
Niklas Tötterman | http://www.sit.fi/~nico
Remove "nosuchanimalasspam" from my IN%
Dave Francis
saying that America has an official language. In reality we do, but legally
we do not. Until we do, we should have to go to ridiculous levels to
accomodate people. We need a law.
Dave
--
DavidJ...@USA.net (Email Address)
http://www.angelfire.com/tx2/candyman (Web Page)
503/905-6832 (Fax Number)
"Lord God" <holyC...@toto.privacy.nu> wrote in message
news:38BDD9A0...@toto.privacy.nu...
> X-No-Archive: Yes
> "Erik A. Mattila" wrote:
> > I've never had to argue against the word of God, but I don't think I
forgot
> > that word, I meekly submit before your devine omnipotence.
> > But your comment "I'm not aware of any persecutions" does support what I
am
> > saying about social myopia.
> Blah blah blah. How caustic! And all them fancy words... "social
> myopia"! Not bad. I bet all half-literates are vastly impressed by your
> incredible eloquence, Mr Karl Marx. Let's see what else you've got
> besides hurling of the huge curses.
>
> > Should we have bilingual eduction in school
> > districts which are composed of 80% Spanish speakers?
> No. But we do. Altough I don't think we should. This is an English
> speaking country and this Spanish speaking welfare clientele came over
> here without invitation (for some unknown reason, as they clearly don't
> like it here.) If they don't understand, that's their fucking problem.
> Could learning English be a solution?
>
> > Should govenment documents be bilingual, trilingual or whatever to
accomodate non-English
> > speakers?
> No. The U.S. is an English speaking country. Go to Mexico and speak
> Spanish all you want. However, my phone bill is printed in Spanish right
> now. Why? At whose expense is it done?
>
> > Should green-card holders be cut off from social services
> They're not. But if you'd wanna be more specific about the "social
> services" they're cut off of, be my guest. I am very interested to know
> of this harrowing tale of gringo cruelty and abuse.
>
> > You know, 'oppression' is always in the eye of the beholder. The
oppressors always see
> > it as 'manifest destiny.'
> You bet. I agree with that. So, why don't you guys simply annex CA?
> Maybe you'll succeed, who knows. Make another Mexico out of it, why not?
> I'll tell you why not: because they dont' want any Mexico as they
> already came from Mexico. So what they want is to sit here, scratch
> their ass, and be paid for being around. Again, if it's so damn bad, why
> come here? Travel back to Mexico, it ain't far. I'll tell you one thing:
> the era of "progressive" bullshit combined with open bloodsucking by
> "community leaders", "freedom fighters" and similar human garbage while
> importing massive constituency for themselves is over. No one owes you
> anything, neither is anyone sufficiently stupid to pay attention to your
> endless phoney complaining. Where is the abuse? Now's the time to shit
> or get off the pot. Most of suffering humanity can only dream about
> being "abused" like you are.
>
> > Finally, are you implying that there are no Russian and Eastern European
> > 'illegal' emigrants here in the Golden State?
> Blah again. I'm not "implying" shit. I do not know if there are
> absolutely NO Russian illegals in the U.S., but I think it is pretty
> obvious that even if there are any, the numbers are nowhere near what
> goes on with Mexicans in CA. At the same time, if there are any, I
> certainly don't think they should be paid for being here. Let's not play
> cheap tricks with formal logic. Stick to the issue; better yet, quit
> your phoney rabble-rousing, coz your reports are deliberate lies. No
> country except the U.S. would even have these discussions! Gee, these
> people are in the country ILLEGALLY. You "forgot" to mention that. Hmmm.
> I wonder why.
>
> > Oh, by the way. As a Native American I agree with your last line.
> To be a Native Anything in this country is terrific as you qualify for a
> lot of handouts and other junk. However, at the same time, it is a shame
> you're not a homo with AIDS--then your "public assistance" options would
> be even more attractive. It's not too late though <g>! Just imagine, you
> could add to your rederic an anti-anti-gay and AIDS support facet.
> That'd be great, wouldn't it?
>
> > I would be very happy to help you pack? (of course I'm just assuming
that God is not an
> > Indian, as I am told).
> Help me pack? I missed that. Whatever, I guess.
>
> >
> > Devoutly, Erik Mattila
Dave Francis
prints them in Spanish because they have come to the conclusion that they
have enough Spanish clientelle to justify it. You can NOT stop that. First
amendment and all.
Dave Francis
--
DavidJ...@USA.net (Email Address)
http://www.angelfire.com/tx2/candyman (Web Page)
503/905-6832 (Fax Number)
"Juho Mattila" <jm5...@uta.fi> wrote in message
news:38BE1AF4...@uta.fi...
>
>
> Lord God wrote:
>
> > No
> > country except the U.S. would even have these discussions! Gee, these
> > people are in the country ILLEGALLY. You "forgot" to mention that. Hmmm.
> > I wonder why.
>
Markku Huttu-Hiltunen
viestissä:89m3om$ojd$1...@tron.sci.fi...
> I think that the Finns may sometimes be very delighted with the Russians,
> too.
>
> As a winter sport, nothing beats sledding on a frozen Russian!!
Talking about sports, do you know what's the Russian Triathlon?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Take a walk to a public swimming pool, and come back with a bike!
(Sorry, just came from a bar...)
MHH
L.Gordeev
On Wed, 1 Mar 2000 Mats.W...@telia.com wrote:
> Which of the many wars between Sweden/Finland and Russia are
> you referring to ? If you are referring to the Russian campaign
> 1707-09 of Charles XII then you are of course correct.
No. I referred to the whole history of Swedish extra-nordic expansion that
has begun much earlier, in the times of German 30-year war. The Russian
campaign was but the hmm final episode ... by that time Sweden was being
regarded as THE european bully not only in Russia, but also in Germany,
Poland, France, Spain and, in general, in every Catholic state. As I
pointed out, there is an obvious analogy to the later Napoleon and Hitler
expansions.
> However,
> that campaign was brought about by the combined
> Danish/Russian/Poland-Saxony attack on Sweden/Finland in
> 1700 which initiated the Great Nordic War of 1700-21.
>
> And that revanschist war was brought about by the successful
> Swedish expansion in the Baltic area in the 1600's.
This is correct, althoug I'd rather call it the combined
Danish/Russian/Poland-Saxony COUNTER-attack ... see the point?
L.G
Juho Mattila
Penny Leach wrote:
> ... how one Finn is worth ten of some other nationality,
Hmmm...
Erik A. Mattila
> Dude, we need a law. We are a country of laws. What we need is a law
> saying that America has an official language. In reality we do, but legally
> we do not. Until we do, we should have to go to ridiculous levels to
> accomodate people. We need a law.
>
> Dave
I don't know who you're 'Duding" here, Dave, but there is quite a bit of
legislation on this issue. It's true that the U.S. Constitution is silent on
an "official Language" policy. However, in recent times Congress has more or
less made "English" the official language of the US Government by legislation.
In California, the 1st State Constitution of 1849 stated "All laws, decrees,
regulations, and provisions emanating from any of the three supreme powers of
this State, which from their nature require publication, shall be published in
English and Spanish." This was undersood as a treaty obligation, since Article
1X of the Treaty of Guadelupe Hildago guarantees all (former) Mexicans in the
territitoy full citizenship rights in the US, which would include the
'official' legitimacy of their native tongue. Incidently, Article of IX was
directly copied from the Louisanna Purchase treatey, where the rights of
Frenchmen in the ceded territory were protected by Napoleon's lawyers.
But this 'right' slowly diminished, principally because English was used to
break the land holdings of Mexicans in the state. See:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/JWCRAWFORD/anatomy.htm
"Californios. Under similar circumstances, Spanish speakers in California
experienced a very different fate. Initially this conquered group, which
represented a slight majority of the population, was treated with respect by
Anglo-American elites, many of whom had intermarried with Spanish speakers. The
1849 constitution recognized Spanish language rights, including a guarantee of
bilingual publication of state laws. By the following year, however, the
Californios' political status plummeted as the Gold Rush made them a 15 percent
minority. Experienced Spanish-speaking miners (especially from Sonora, Mexico)
soon became targets for the animosity of gringo fortune-seekers. The
legislature passed so-called "greaser laws" to harass and penalize
Spanish-speakers. Spanish-language schooling was discontinued in 1855
(Leibowitz 1969). Perhaps most damaging, the California Land Act of 1851
required all landowners to prove title to their holdings in English-language
courts. Over the next generation, the Spanish-speaking gentry lost title to
virtually all of the large haciendas (14 million acres) they had held at the
end of the Mexican-American War; 40 percent of these lands had to be sold to
pay the fees of English-speaking lawyers (Pitt 1966)."
But in California in 1878, the constitution was revised. There was not one
delegate there from a Spanish background, and the assembly was dominated by the
"Workingmen's Party" whose agendas were primarily anti-Chinese immigrants. A
number of measures were passed that were aimed at the Chinese, including the
revision of the 1849 bilingual law to read "English Only." See "Debates and
Proceedings of the Constitutional Convention of the State of California,
1878-1879 (Sacramento: 1880-1881), vol. 2, pp. 801-2.
It is interesting to note that at the time of the "English Only" provision, in
the State of Wisconsin the public documents were printed in the English,
German, and Norwegian languages. In Pennsylvania, in English and German, and
many other Western states published in more than one language, and no other
state had an "English Only" constitutional measure.
Around 1966 there was a Federal intervention, namely from the Department of
Education which mandated bi-lingual education nation wide under Title VIII.
The power that the Department of Education wielded was the ability to
disqualify school districts from federal funds, which they depended on, for
violation of any of the civil rights codes of the US Federal government. The
legal philosophy behind this mandate was recognition that the right to
meaningful educational was a civil right, and non-English speaking citizens
must be provided means to achieve education, evne if it required bi-lingual
transition resources in the schools.
This is why bi-lingual programs continue in California, even after the passage
of the California Constitutional amendent passed by the California electorate
in 1986. If you read the amendment, below, it only says that California will
make no laws which deminish English Only, but does not say that California
School Districts must defy Federal laws.
5.CALIFORNIA (1986)
Constitution
73% vote in referendum
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SEC. 6. (a) Purpose.
English is the common language of the people of the United States of America
and the State of California. This section is intended to preserve, protect and
strengthen the English language, and not to supersede any of the rights
guaranteed to the people by this Constitution.
(b) English as the Official Language of California. English is the official
language of the State of California.
(c) Enforcement.
The Legislature shall enforce this section by appropriate legislation. The
Legislature and officials of the State of California shall take all steps
necessary to insure that the role of English as the common language of the
State of California is preserved and enhanced. The Legislature shall make no
law which diminishes or ignores the role of English as the common language of
the State of California.
(d) Personal Right of Action and Jurisdiction of Courts.
Any person who is a resident of or doing business in the State of California
shall have standing to sue the State of California to enforce this section, and
the Courts of record of the State of California shall have jurisdiction to hear
cases brought to enforce this section. The Legislature may provide reasonable
and appropriate limitations on the time and manner of suits brought under this
section.
In spite of this amendment to the Constitution, many California agencies and
departments continue to publish documents in other languages, because the whole
function of a government document is to communicate. The Department of Motor
Vehicles, for example, must communicate its procedures and instructions
effectively for the system to work, and this requires them to publish their
documents in Spanish and Chinese. The "English Only" advocates claim that this
is costing 'taxpayers' (many of who are speakers of Spanish and Chines)
billions of dollars. This is rediculous. Government programs must function,
and the directors of these programs, who are given the responsibility of
managing tight budgets effectively, have determined, based on scientific study,
that bilingual publication is cost effective, since it elimates the
inefficiency that would follow by large segments of society not understanding
the documents.
Erik Mattila
>
>
> --
>
> DavidJ...@USA.net (Email Address)
>
> http://www.angelfire.com/tx2/candyman (Web Page)
>
> 503/905-6832 (Fax Number)
>
> > your phoney rabble-rousing, coz your reports are deliberate lies. No
> > country except the U.S. would even have these discussions! Gee, these
> > people are in the country ILLEGALLY. You "forgot" to mention that. Hmmm.
> > I wonder why.
> >
Captain
Penny Leach wrote:
> If I ask a Finn, "What do you think about Russia?", he will go
> into a three-hour monologue
Penny, you don't obviously know Finns at all. A Finn making a 3 hour
monologue would be the new Finland's record! In real life, if you ask a
Finn what does he think about Russia, he'd say "they've really meassed
it big time". If you get a Finn speaking about Russia over 5 minutes,
you're a magician!
> about what those bastards did to
> Finland,
A lot of Finns cannot forgive Russia attacking Finland -39, and then
taking Karelia in the peace. That's only natural. Those over 400,000
people lost their home, and everything they got, and started from
scratch. My father is one of them... What would you think if somebody
took your home...and killed your relatives in the process?
But if you ask a Finn what does he think about Russians, the first thing
that comes to his mind is the chaos of the country. We see almost daily
people in pretty desperate situation there. War is over 50 years back.
Most Finns today don't have any recollection of it. It's fading, and I
would say pity and concern are more in surface now. Nevertheless...
Finns regard "being fair" is the most important character in a person...
and Russian attack against small and neutral Finland is seen most unfair
and barbaric act. And most Finns also symphatize with Chechnians who
today suffer Russian imperialism.
> what kind of criminals they are and have always been,
> oh, and then there's this "fry him in butter" thing that they
> always remember to mention, even the fact that Finns killed a lot
> of other Finns in 1918 is entirely the Russians' fault, etc.
That's a load of crap! Certainly not a common view! Sure, Russia is
partly quilty there (not letting Finland more freedom to decide it's own
affairs (valtalaki) and inspiring the red Finns and the Russian troops
to overthrow the rebels), but the Civil War/Independence War was the
result of division among the Finnish people. Most people know that some
Russians fought (or gave material aid) side by side with the reds, and
that Germans fought on the whites' side. But everyone knows well enough,
that there was a strong class hatred back there. Brother against
brother. I have never heard someone blaiming entirely Russians of it!!
It was an ugly war, and even uglier was what happened after the war.
> So, my "sample" actually more or less made my "presumption" as
> you like to call it. The "sample" is more than one person, although
> as I said, I understand it may not represent all of Finland.
Certainly not. Actually you're totally wrong. Finns hating Russians is a
small minority... mostly bitter Karelians and their offsprings or those
who hate every communist and socialist.
However, Russia is our least liked neighbour. That is, due a long bloody
history, and the fear of organized crime, drugs and such invading in
here. Also, many Finns dislike the very rich Russian tourists while they
consider them mafia thugs. Hard to find a Finn though, who would
collectively hate all Russians. I don't know any.... and my father was
born in Viipuri.
Oh, and then there are those, who worry that Russians will some day,
again, find a reason to invade Finland. My mother for example, was very
worried when she heard the new doctrine of Russia concerning the use of
nuclear weapons. She started to cry when she told how worried she was
about the future of her grandchildren (whom she loves dearly). So, yes,
there are people who worry and fear Russia.
> And, as I did say in my original posting, "seems to be" means
> it's certainly the impression I got, and I got it from Finns and
> spending time in Finland.
I'm a Finn of 34 years of age, and I don't share that view at all. I
think I have to ask, what do YOU think of Russia?
> And
> surely, it can't be true that history is so single sided? Somebody
> somewhere has been seriously mislead.
> > If you "sample" the Finnish media on any subject - Germany,
> > Clinton, Angola, you name it - you will get a certain impression.
>
> Right. But with none of those topics it is as black-and-white as
> this.
Well, it IS pretty single sided. When a small kid and several times
bigger bully sit side by side, you think it's the kid that teases the
bully?
Yes, there were (and still are) Finns who dreamed of Greater Finland (in
what country there aren't those?) but due the fact Russia is so vastly
bigger, it was them that managed to practise the policy.
> Of course it is possible that I've associated myself with the
> wrong kind of people. I should have asked you...
Well, you asked, and I think you've got a few replies. Have you
reconsidered?
> > Ask your "sample"...
>
> To get a negative statement about Finland? The only one I ever
> heard was about heavy taxation. Usually, unless I've asked them
> about Russians, they just talk about how wonderful a country
> Finland is, how this or that is so much better in Finland, How
> excellent achievers all Finns are, what sports events they won
> yesterday, how one Finn is worth ten of some other nationality,
> Nokia this, Nokia that, oh, and they never, ever get tired of
> asking me, "what do you think of Finland"?
Never heard complains about justice system being through and out rotten
(rich getting MORE justice), the terrible state of health care (queues
are huge), alcohol/cars/gasoline being outrageously expensive,
politicians and business excutives corrupt and untrustworthy, our
icehochey team not being able to make goals, olympic athlets being just
complete tourists? Oh my! You REALLY don't know Finns. Nothing is ever
well!
And...are other nations different on getting high on good sport results?
I myself cannot stand American arrogance.
-------------
Mika
Jouko Kalevi Pettersson
>One look in our TV and cinemas should tell anyone that we are experts
>of the American, rather than Russian, culture.
When those pro-American TV-watchers meet an American, they start to
behave in a certain way. I think that Penny has met those Finns.
--
Jouko Pettersson Internet: Jouko.Pe...@Helsinki.FI
The Finn
> without Lenin repeatedly urging the Red guards to
> revolution (after he had failed to inspire the Social
> Democratic party).
Save us from those kind of remarks, Hiski. Get some basic
knowledge about history before you make such
simplifications.
Captain
The Finn wrote:
>
> > Not entirely, but the war wouldn't have been there
> > without Lenin repeatedly urging the Red guards to
> > revolution (after he had failed to inspire the Social
> > Democratic party).
>
> Save us from those kind of remarks, Hiski. Get some basic
> knowledge about history before you make such
> simplifications.
What's wrong there? According to what I've read, Hiski is right.
------------
Mika
Olli J. Ojanen
The Finn <jj58679...@uta.fi.invalid> wrote in message
news:0b5bd254...@usw-ex0110-075.remarq.com...
> Save us from those kind of remarks, Hiski. Get some basic
> knowledge about history before you make such
> simplifications.
The order to begin the red uprising was sent from St Petersburg to Helsinki.
o.j.o.
Igor V Litvinyuk
: The Finn <jj58679...@uta.fi.invalid> wrote in message
: news:0b5bd254...@usw-ex0110-075.remarq.com...
Yeah, sure, and the order to fight the English was sent to Joan of Arc
straight from heaven by God Almighty himself. She still had to fight
them on her own though.
I.
lustig
i...@interchange.ubc.ca (Igor V Litvinyuk) wrote:
>: The order to begin the red uprising was sent from St
>: Petersburg to Helsinki.
>Yeah, sure, and the order to fight the English was sent to Joan
>of Arc straight from heaven by God Almighty himself. She still
>had to fight them on her own though.
True, but she didn´t receive a trainful of weapons to facilitate
that fight, either...
Then again, the revolutionary faction within the Social Democrat
Party could have chosen to turn a deaf ear to the Bolshevik
exhortations to take to arms in Finland as well, and no amount
of instigation would have helped, if there hadn´t been a
"revolutionary situation" (read: an absence or breakdown of
authority, law and order) in Finland.
The actual Russian participation in the war was limited and
should be seen in a larger context than Finland alone.
Olli J. Ojanen
lustig <lustigN...@rocketmail.com.invalid> wrote in message >
> The actual Russian participation in the war was limited and
> should be seen in a larger context than Finland alone.
>
Russia and Germany made peace or at least armistice, that is why Russian
revolutionary troops took passive role.
o.j.o.
The Finn
> Petersburg to Helsinki.
I don't care if it was sent from St.Elmo's. Finnish Civil
War had plenty of internal reasons.
Emnity between Reds and Whites dated back to the general
strike of 1905. Plus, dissolution of parliament by Kerenski
in 1917 was another reason.
Hey, if you really need to blame Russians for our Civil War,
Kerensky would be much better choice than Lenin.
All through fall 1917, both reds and whites were arming
themselves to the teeth. Considering that there was no
legitimate supreme authority at the time (no, senate
doesn't count), a civil war was bound to break out.
Whether Lenin sent an order for a revolution or a rude
postcard, it was not the foremost incentive.
HWM
The Finn <jj58679...@uta.fi.invalid> wrote:
> Hey, if you really need to blame Russians for our Civil War,
> Kerensky would be much better choice than Lenin.
It took me a long time before I understood who Kerenski was, though I
had heard 'his song'....
;;Ai jai Keerenski, turha ompi toivosi, Suomi on jo vappaa maa, ryssäin
vallasta;;
Cheers, | De ore leonis libera me, Domine, et a |
HWM | cornibus unicornium humilitatem meam. |
hen...@iobox.fi & http://www.kuru.da.ru
Hiski Haapoja
:> Not entirely, but the war wouldn't have been there
:> without Lenin repeatedly urging the Red guards to
:> revolution (after he had failed to inspire the Social
:> Democratic party).
: Save us from those kind of remarks, Hiski. Get some basic
: knowledge about history before you make such
: simplifications.
Hang yourself soon, o anonymous coward. Not that I'd expect a brain
or modesty from anyone who calls him/her/itself "_the_ Finn".
A few weeks ago I participated in a seminary about the war. A
lecturer went in great detail through of how Lenin several times
tried to incite the Social Democratic Party (then the only leftist
party in Finland) to declare the revolution, and how the Social
Democrats didn't achieve the decision. Some agreed with Lenin, others
stressed parliamentarism, still others wanted to wait and see. Frustrated,
Lenin turned to the Red Guards, the mostly young self-appointed armed hand
of the workers, who did raise to rebellion - with Russian weapons, and
with the sporadic help of Russian troops.
After the war was over and the white parliament again met in Helsinki,
the Social Democratic leaders who had opposed illegal means turned up
to everyone's surprise and announced that they still considered themselves
the legitimate representatives of a legal party. (Which took some courage,
because they risked being shot immediately.) This explained one thing I had
always wondered: how it was possible for the SDP to keep operating after the
war, and re-emerge as by far the largest party as soon as the 1919 election?
Remember that everyone who was suspected of supporting the rebels was denied
a vote in that election.
Hiski
Hiski Haapoja
: themselves to the teeth. Considering that there was no
: legitimate supreme authority at the time (no, senate
: doesn't count), a civil war was bound to break out.
This is an extremely stupid comment, and for some reason very typically
Finnish: saying after the fact "it had to go that way, there was no
alternatives". It is also frequent in the present tense, especially from
our leaders: "our policy is the only possible one".
Why is tunnel vision so common in Finland?
Hiski
The Finn
No thanks.
> Not that I'd expect a brain or modesty from anyone who
> calls him/her/itself "_the_ Finn".
Sorry about that, I'll change it to _a_ Finn. Just a
callsign I use on another group and I didn't bother changing
my account, because I don't really follow this DG. Anyhow,
allow me to introduce myself: Jussi Olavi Jalonen, from
Tampere. MA. Satisfied?
> A few weeks ago I participated in a seminary...
Sure, sure, that's all very fine. But if you insist that
these external factors were the most important, it IS
simplifying the question.
> Frustrated, Lenin turned to the Red Guards,
who were pretty much revolutionary by themselves. Most of
those folks who participated in Red Guards were very much
bent on armed uprising. This was especially true about the
Red Guards of Helsinki, led by Adolf Taimi. These Guards
were extremists, with elements that might even be called
"anarchist". With or without Lenin, this spells revolution.
Whether or not the SDP had parliamentary elements, is not
very important. Suffice to say that SDP had revolutionary
elements and these were the ones that had weapons and hence,
stronger.
Before you accuse me again of tunnel vision, I would like to
point out that I don't think that Civil War was necessary or
inevitable. However, the point of divergence would have to
be in 1905 or at least in early 1917, around the dissolution
of parliament. When we are talking about late 1917, no way
out.
Well, there might have been. But that would have to be some
major act of God.
> - with Russian weapons, and with the sporadic help of
> Russian troops.
There were plenty of loose Russian weapons around the
country back then. Bolshevik help was a cold comfort to
the People's Delegation. Also, Finnish Reds actually
manufactured weapons by *themselves*.
> After the war was over and the white parliament again
> met in Helsinki, the Social Democratic leaders who had
> opposed illegal means turned up to everyone's surprise
> and announced that they still considered themselves
> the legitimate representatives of a legal party.
Very true. Since then, left flank of the politics was split.
And this was the beginning of social democrat-communist
emnity...which was again a homegrown phenomenon, not caused
by Stalin's orders to fight against "social fascism".
> This explained one thing I had always wondered: how it was
> possible for the SDP to keep operating after the war, and
> re-emerge as by far the largest party as soon as the 1919
> election?
I'm glad you finally found it out.
> Remember that everyone who was suspected of supporting
> the rebels was denied a vote in that election.
I have and I will.
The Finn
Well, it isn't my responsibility. Anyhow, I'd like to
recommend two excellent studies: "Kansa liikkeessä" (People
on the move) by Risto Alapuro and "Kun Yhteiskunta Hajosi"
(When Society Fell Apart) by Pertti Haapala. Good books,
offering a new insight on the year 1918.
As for myself, I consider the subject closed. Carry on, if
you wish.
310068...@t-online.de
>
> Siberia is quite white, and East is Red....
In what sense is the East Red? By the way, do you have a slightest idea of
what you are talking about? Or you are just so... bullshitting?
Best regards,
Eugen Kallenberg
>
>
> > Are they only a pitiful bunch of people guided
> > by primitive feelings, unable to break free from
> > their past, of which they have a very subjective
> > view that they are also unable to approach differently?
>
> Yes, we have a few Americans here...
>
> BTW, have you by any chance _any_ idea what you are talking about?
HWM
Amigocabal
Penny Leach <penny...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Why is it that most Finns seem to be consumed
> by hatred towards Russians?
It is not only the Finns, do you know a single neighboring nation of
Russia which is consumed by the love and loyalty to Russia. Just name
one nation which sympathises with Russia, even!
Chechnia belongs to Chechens, Russia belongs to Tatars!
firefly
Show us one single country who like the US!!!!!
Only the puppet one whom the US goevernemnt both with the big.....USD.
Amigocabal <amigo...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8as869$mcu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Hiski Haapoja
: Show us one single country who like the US!!!!!
Most of the common people in the world, particularly the youth, blindly
adore the USA. In Finland, any critical remark about the USA used to
make most people think you were a Communist. Or any positive comment
about Russia, or studying Russian in school. (Those who studied German
were always asked if they were Nazis.) The labels aren't quite as quick
anymore, due to the decline of Communists in both Finland and Russia.
Hiski
markus_fin
Hiski Haapoja kirjoitti viestissä <8b4sfu$re0$9...@tron.sci.fi>...
* * *
The situation in the late 60's and in the 70's was totally the opposite!
It was "must" to be on one's knees in front of the almighty Soviet Union
, and saying something positive about the USA meant that you had been an
"imperialist" or "anti-Soviet" ( remember: "neuvostovastainen" , the
then common crucifier-word. Today e.g. "racist" has a similar
function). Hiski, you usually make good and informative notes about
issues, but this posting of yours seems a bit strange to me. Of course
you're right in that nowadays there are plenty of ridiculous
americanisms in Finnish business life and everywhere.
m_f
Markku Grönroos
Hiski Haapoja <ki...@simpukka.sci.fi> kirjoitti
viestissä:8b4sfu$re0$9...@tron.sci.fi...
> In soc.culture.nordic firefly <hvi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> : Show us one single country who like the US!!!!!
>
> Most of the common people in the world, particularly the youth, blindly
> adore the USA. In Finland, any critical remark about the USA used to
> make most people think you were a Communist. Or any positive comment
Pöh! On the contrary! Not too many years back the Finlandisierung-policy was
active, running with full speed. It was quite common when criticizing the
USSR somehow that at least one listener replied artificially and definitely
off track by pronouncing some social problems occuring in the USA. Nowadays
it seems fashionable to find communist tendencies nearly everywhere. In
either case there is nothing you should take seriously.
> about Russia, or studying Russian in school. (Those who studied German
> were always asked if they were Nazis.) The labels aren't quite as quick
Just as a poor joke. I remember when I gave my "vote" in an election for the
"council of school" about at the age of 12. I was repeatedly advised not to
vote for a socialist candidate. I hardly had any rational knowledge over
"socialism". Well, whatever.... For Americans calling people as communists
has had about the same functionality as suggesting Swedes being faggots
here in Finland. It is just name calling not politics.
firefly
drug use and for the non dicipline society.
markus_fin <marku...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8b65o3$s2m$1...@tron.sci.fi...
>
> Hiski Haapoja kirjoitti viestissä <8b4sfu$re0$9...@tron.sci.fi>...
> >In soc.culture.nordic firefly <hvi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >: Show us one single country who like the US!!!!!
> >
> >Most of the common people in the world, particularly the youth, blindly
> >adore the USA. In Finland, any critical remark about the USA used to
> >make most people think you were a Communist. Or any positive comment
> >about Russia, or studying Russian in school. (Those who studied German
> >were always asked if they were Nazis.) The labels aren't quite as quick
lukey
"firefly" <hvi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
=======================
"Endeavor to persevere"
=======================
Hiski Haapoja
:>Most of the common people in the world, particularly the youth, blindly
:>adore the USA. In Finland, any critical remark about the USA used to
:>make most people think you were a Communist. Or any positive comment
: The situation in the late 60's and in the 70's was totally the opposite!
: It was "must" to be on one's knees in front of the almighty Soviet Union
: , and saying something positive about the USA meant that you had been an
: "imperialist" or "anti-Soviet" ( remember: "neuvostovastainen" , the
: then common crucifier-word. Today e.g. "racist" has a similar
: function). Hiski, you usually make good and informative notes about
: issues, but this posting of yours seems a bit strange to me. Of course
I was thinking about the Reaganite 80s, and private life. Which was the
total opposite of the public scene - speeches and the media - where
friendship with the USSR was above all else. I have heard that there were
loons who defended the USSR even in normal life, but due to my relative
youth (born in '68) I have met only one - a young teacher who believed
that Finland started the Winter War! For most people, even in the 70s,
Finno-Soviet friendship was just a comedy, in which they played their
part because it was more lucrative than honesty.
Hiski
Igor V Litvinyuk
: I was thinking about the Reaganite 80s, and private life. Which was the
: total opposite of the public scene - speeches and the media - where
: friendship with the USSR was above all else. I have heard that there were
: loons who defended the USSR even in normal life, but due to my relative
: youth (born in '68) I have met only one - a young teacher who believed
: that Finland started the Winter War! For most people, even in the 70s,
: Finno-Soviet friendship was just a comedy, in which they played their
: part because it was more lucrative than honesty.
Very funny. Not unlike the current relationship of Greece to US, where
officially they are the best of friends and allies, while privately
everybody hates Yankees' guts. That's "liberal democracy" for you,
so full of hypocrisy and duplicity one has to puke. And they had
the gall to critisize the USSR for being opressive and domineering.
At least when Soviets told about their "friendship and brotherhood"
with the Finns, that was exactly how most ordinary people felt.
I.
HWM
> At least when Soviets told about their "friendship and brotherhood"
> with the Finns, that was exactly how most ordinary people felt.
Before or after 1944 ?
--
Leonid
Igor V Litvinyuk wrote:
" At least when Soviets told about their "friendship and brotherhood"
with the Finns, that was exactly how most ordinary people felt."
Quite right! Friendship and brotherhood are the key words. Whenever you hear
commies utter those words, have no doubts - they're about to attack you:)
I like you, communist swine, Litvinyuk, I really do. You are one great
substitute for two great newspapers - Pravda and Voelkischer Beobachter:)
P.S. How's life for son and grandson of communist apparatchiks in the Wild
West? Must be tough, huh?:)
Igor V Litvinyuk
: Igor V Litvinyuk wrote:
: > At least when Soviets told about their "friendship and brotherhood"
: > with the Finns, that was exactly how most ordinary people felt.
: Before or after 1944 ?
I can only speak for what I saw myself, and that was way after 1944.
I am not aware of any "friendship and brotherhood" declarations from
the Soviet leadership before 1944, are you?
I.
staten
news:N3OA4.8404$mf.6...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net
> Cabal
>
> Show us one single country who like the US!!!!!
Show us at least one single country who may like commies, maoists,
pro-soviet maniacs and their buttkissers like you. The only countries like
Cuba or North Korea might be very happy to have them , but to their
misfortune these bastards not only don't want to live in the "model
societies" of their preaching but in contrast , they all live in places that
they hate and want to destroy. Isn't it a great paradox of our time?
lustig
>: just a comedy, in which they played their part because it was
>: more lucrative than honesty.
Mainly, and especially, the liturgical official forms of that
Finno-Soviet friendship were a comedy. What else could they be
since they were based on a definition of history dictated by the
Soviet Union, and the falsifications couldn´t be pointed out in
any dialogue between the two countries (and had to be carefully
handled in any sort of context - such as schoolbooks - that were
considered "official")?
>At least when Soviets told about their "friendship and
>brotherhood" with the Finns, that was exactly how most ordinary
>people felt.
Yes, but what did it mean? Ordinary people had very limited
contact with the Finns - they could just as well have felt
friendship with the Martians!
Don´t you think it´s possible that most ordinary people in
Finland had every reason to hate Stalin and his Soviet Union,
and every reason not to revel in artificial forms of friendship
the terms of which were defined by a totalitarian bully?
And that didn´t necessarily entail that the Finns were "less
friendly" towards their neighbours on a real level than the
Soviets? That one could abhor many things in the Soviet Union,
and yet not be a "White Bandit":-)?
Olli J. Ojanen
Hiski Haapoja <ki...@simpukka.sci.fi> wrote in message
news:8b81fc$kjm$1...@tron.sci.fi...
> >
> I was thinking about the Reaganite 80s, and private life. Which was the
> total opposite of the public scene - speeches and the media - where
> friendship with the USSR was above all else. I have heard that there were
> loons who defended the USSR even in normal life, but due to my relative
> youth (born in '68) I have met only one - a young teacher who believed
> Finno-Soviet friendship was just a comedy, in which they played their
> part because it was more lucrative than honesty.
>
It was anything but comedy. Soviet Union was very real. There were strong
forces in Finland who tried to move finland into the Soviet camp.
President Kekkonen worked for good relations between countries with
different political system. But Finnish socialists tried to get rid of that
difference.
Former PM Kalevi Sorsa has nowadays confessed that real dangerous years for
Finland were the 70`s. Mr Soprsa has very much to regret, although
socialists didn´t win enough then.
Hiski´s comment may be one part of the big white-and-blue-washing on Finnish
socialists. They try to forget the 70´s, because they are nowadays leading
Finland, but without openly socialist programmes.
o.j.o.
Hiski Haapoja
: At least when Soviets told about their "friendship and brotherhood"
: with the Finns, that was exactly how most ordinary people felt.
Why would ordinary Soviet people feel friendship and brotherhood with
Finns? The only reason I could think of were the consumer goods. Finnish
products appear as status symbols in Soviet era films - "Kavkazskaja
plennitsa" (1967) was one, unless my memory fails me. And it's set on
the Caucasus!
Hiski
Hiski Haapoja
: the Soviet leadership before 1944, are you?
"It has come the time to unite the Finnish people with its close
relative, the Karelian people..." (1939).
Hiski
Hiski Haapoja
:> that Finland started the Winter War! For most people, even in the 70s,
:> Finno-Soviet friendship was just a comedy, in which they played their
:> part because it was more lucrative than honesty.
: It was anything but comedy. Soviet Union was very real.
Whenever my relatives or their friends - mostly Karelian evacuees -
were talking about present-day Soviet Union or Finno-Soviet friendship,
the tone was cheerfully sarcastic. These people had no illusions about
the USSR, which had stolen their homes, but they still thought the system
too absurd to be taken seriously.
: There were strong
: forces in Finland who tried to move finland into the Soviet camp.
: President Kekkonen worked for good relations between countries with
: different political system. But Finnish socialists tried to get rid of that
: difference.
Bah! President Kekkonen was the main threat to Finnish democracy.
He undermined it by abruptly dissolving the Parliament - twice! - and
acquiring 4 years of further presidency without an election. His revisions
of history went further than those of the Soviet Union, complete with
Finnish indepencence as Lenin's gift and Finnish guilt to any problems
ever. Anyone who disagreed with his policy or his habitual overstepping
of his boundaries he called insane and a threat to national security.
: Former PM Kalevi Sorsa has nowadays confessed that real dangerous years for
: Finland were the 70`s. Mr Soprsa has very much to regret, although
: socialists didn´t win enough then.
Besides Kekkonen, the danger was having incompetents like Sorsa and
Karjalainen and opportunists like Väyrynen in charge. Where did Sorsa
say this, BTW? I mostly ignore the old buffoon, but I thought he said
the opposite: that the claims of a real danger in the early 1970s
are preposterous.
: Hiski´s comment may be one part of the big white-and-blue-washing on Finnish
: socialists. They try to forget the 70´s, because they are nowadays leading
: Finland, but without openly socialist programmes.
I'm not easily insulted, but this comment makes clear that you are
another Jarmo Ryyti: a twisted middle-aged asshole living in the past.
Get medical treatment before you begin to rave about Socialists
bugging your apartment.
Hiski
marku...@hotmail.com
> : Igor V Litvinyuk wrote:
>
> : > At least when Soviets told about their "friendship and
brotherhood"
> : > with the Finns, that was exactly how most ordinary people felt.
>
>
> I can only speak for what I saw myself, and that was way after 1944.
> the Soviet leadership before 1944, are you?
* * *
The collapsing of the Soviet Union caused that the "friendship and
co-operation and good relations between Finland and the USSR" jargon in
every turn stopped. It made people puke because everybody knew that the
Soviet Union was the dictator of the text. Now we can use those words in
their real meaning, not just as an obligatory mantra in every official
speech. The normal friendship between neighbouring countries is possible
and real only if it's based on equality between the two, not on some
dictated treaty like the YYA-sopimus. There are no Soviet Union or
YYA-sopimus any more and I think now we can say that we have working,
good relations between Finland and Russia. If you want to use
"friendship" or "brotherhood", feel free, but I think they are too big
words when the issue is relations between countries.
m_f
HWM
> I can only speak for what I saw myself, and that was way after 1944.
> I am not aware of any "friendship and brotherhood" declarations from
> the Soviet leadership before 1944, are you?
Give or take...
"Why you, Cajanders, wrecked the negotiations? You should be aligned
with the people of Finland, who really wants friendship with the Soviet
people. Who are you aligned with, whose will are you obeying and whose
instructions are you carrying out?"
Molotov, front page of the Pravda 26.11.1939
"Soldiers! Turn your weapons against the destroyers of your home stoves!
Go over to the People's Government led by OTTO KUUSINEN. This
governments brings peace to the country! It has concluded a treaty of
mutual assistance and friendship between the Soviet Union and the
Democratic Republic of Finland. This treaty secures the independence of
Finland, it secures a peaceful life and flourishment of the
Finnish people, it relieves you from the horrors and destruction of the
war."
Propaganda leafelet 1939
There are other documents, such as the non-aggression pact of 1932. I am
not sure how the stuff translates so go see for yourself; most of these
are in Russian too.
http://www.pp.clinet.fi/~pkr01/historia/history.html
Igor V Litvinyuk
: Show us at least one single country who may like commies, maoists,
: pro-soviet maniacs and their buttkissers like you. The only countries like
: Cuba or North Korea might be very happy to have them , but to their
: misfortune these bastards not only don't want to live in the "model
: societies" of their preaching but in contrast , they all live in places that
: they hate and want to destroy. Isn't it a great paradox of our time?
Wow, "great paradox of our time". I think I have a solution to that -
they think it would be easier to destroy it from inside. Now, where
do I get my Nobel Prize?
I.
Igor V Litvinyuk
: In soc.culture.nordic Igor V Litvinyuk <i...@interchange.ubc.ca> wrote:
: : At least when Soviets told about their "friendship and brotherhood"
: : with the Finns, that was exactly how most ordinary people felt.
: Why would ordinary Soviet people feel friendship and brotherhood with
: Finns?
A better question is why woudn't they. They were told that Finns liked
and respected them. A natural human reaction would be to like and
respect them back. I guess, ordinary Russians were victims of official
propaganda and Finnish duplicity, which deprived them of enjoying as
much hatred and distaste towards the Finns, as they evoked in them.
Now with all that freedom and democracy we all have every opportunity
to catch up.
I.
lustig
i...@interchange.ubc.ca (Igor V Litvinyuk) wrote:
>I guess, ordinary Russians were victims of official
>propaganda and Finnish duplicity, which deprived them of
>enjoying as much hatred and distaste towards the Finns, as they
>evoked in them.
This is either an attempt at irony, or a textbook case of an
ordinary Russian revealing his true feelings about Finns:-)
staten
news:8bb2ep$q7i$4...@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca...> staten (sta...@peclink.net)
I don't think they have come nearer to their vicious idea - if they couldn
't destroy it during their heydays, it's unlikely they can accomplish it
now. The only thing remains available to foul air around them and they
entirely devoted themselves to this business.
Igor V Litvinyuk
: In article <8bb30t$q7i$5...@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca>,
: i...@interchange.ubc.ca (Igor V Litvinyuk) wrote:
: >I guess, ordinary Russians were victims of official
: >propaganda and Finnish duplicity, which deprived them of
: >enjoying as much hatred and distaste towards the Finns, as they
: >evoked in them.
: This is either an attempt at irony, or a textbook case of an
: ordinary Russian revealing his true feelings about Finns:-)
A good one, even assuming that ordinary Russians might have
some feelings they'd rather not reveal, those definitely
would not be "about Finns". Just too prove the case, I'm gonna
reveal my own true feelings about Finns right now -
I love them all. Except, of course, the russophobic assholes
like Lustig. Those I don't even like.
I.
lustig
i...@interchange.ubc.ca (Igor V Litvinyuk) wrote:
>A good one, even assuming that ordinary Russians might have
>some feelings they'd rather not reveal, those definitely
>would not be "about Finns".
An average Finn thinks about Russians 2.3 times in a day - "Ivan
vintovka bolshoi taiga Tatyana bumaga harashoo" - whereas an
average Russian thinks about Finland only when he or she is
questioned about them for an opinion poll.
>Just to prove the case, I'm gonna reveal my own true feelings
>about Finns right now - I love them all. Except, of course, the
>russophobic assholes like Lustig. Those I don't even like.
Honey, you can call me an asshole as much as you like, but only
my friends are allowed to call me a russophobic.
Hiski Haapoja
: : Why would ordinary Soviet people feel friendship and brotherhood with
: : Finns?
: A better question is why woudn't they. They were told that Finns liked
: and respected them.
Astonishing. If ordinary Russians believed this, they'd believe anything.
Communists (some 20 % of the Finns until the 1980s) liked the USSR for
the obvious reasons. The other 80 % of the Finnish population had no
reason whatsoever to like Russia - the nation that had invaded them in
1939, and was still busy telling Finns who they should have in the
government, how they should deal with the West etc. As for respect: the
USSR treated its own citizens as prisoners, who weren't allowed to travel
abroad freely, have foreign contacts (all that paranoia about spies),
choose their leaders or establish rival parties for the CPSU. Soviet
consumer products were laughably bad, and most Soviet films horribly
boring and primitive. The military might and the space program commanded
some respect, but these are small things compared with the above. For
most Finns the USSR was a huge, vicious monster next door. Since it wasn't
going to just vanish - so we thought ;) - the rational thing to do was to
talk nicely, to keep the beast in a good mood.
Hiski
Olli J. Ojanen
... snips...
For
> most Finns the USSR was a huge, vicious monster next door. Since it wasn't
> going to just vanish - so we thought ;) - the rational thing to do was to
> talk nicely, to keep the beast in a good mood.
>
>
Socialist leaders in state´s broadcasting monopoly corporation were very
keen Soviet propagandists, too.
Also socialist trade union leaders tried to imitate Soviet "trade unions"
as much as possible.
Maybe most voters of SDP (the socialist party) were agaisnt that kind of
policy, but SDP`s leaders were very pro-Soviet, and pro-Stasi, too, as we
have learnt from Stasi archives.
olli j. ojanen
Hiski Haapoja
: as much as possible.
How? AFAIK strikes were banned in the USSR, and the trade unions were
loyal tools of the government.
: Maybe most voters of SDP (the socialist party) were agaisnt that kind of
: policy, but SDP`s leaders were very pro-Soviet, and pro-Stasi, too, as we
: have learnt from Stasi archives.
Less so than the leaders of the Centre party.
Hiski
Igor V Litvinyuk
: Astonishing. If ordinary Russians believed this, they'd
believe anything.
: Communists (some 20 % of the Finns until the 1980s) liked
the USSR for
: the obvious reasons. The other 80 % of the Finnish
population had no
: reason whatsoever to like Russia - the nation that had
invaded them in
: 1939, and was still busy telling Finns who they should
have in the
: government, how they should deal with the West etc. As
for respect: the
: USSR treated its own citizens as prisoners, who weren't
allowed to travel
: abroad freely, have foreign contacts (all that paranoia
about spies),
: choose their leaders or establish rival parties for the
CPSU. Soviet
: consumer products were laughably bad, and most Soviet
films horribly
: boring and primitive. The military might and the space
program commanded
: some respect, but these are small things compared with
the above. For
: most Finns the USSR was a huge, vicious monster next door.
Since it wasn't
: going to just vanish - so we thought ;) - the rational thing
to do was to
: talk nicely, to keep the beast in a good mood.
Add Hiski Haapoja to the list of russophobic assholes that I don't care
for. Monster-shmonster my ass. Narrowminded bigot is narrowminded bigot,
no matter how you slice it. Happy hating, Hiski.
I.
Olli J. Ojanen
In soc.culture.nordic Olli J. Ojanen <oll...@ojanen.net> wrote:
> : Also socialist trade union leaders tried to imitate Soviet "trade
unions"
> : as much as possible.
>
> How? AFAIK strikes were banned in the USSR, and the trade unions were
> loyal tools of the government.
>
chosen beforehand, themes of speeches were chosen beforhand etc. The outer
look was magnificent, and arrangements cost millions. But rank and file were
without any possibilities to express their opinions. There was saying that
votes are not so important in trade union elections, vote counting is
important...
> : Maybe most voters of SDP (the socialist party) were agaisnt that kind of
> : policy, but SDP`s leaders were very pro-Soviet, and pro-Stasi, too, as
we
> : have learnt from Stasi archives.
>
> Less so than the leaders of the Centre party.
According to Stasi archives, not.
As to some prominent Center party leaders, they had official state
positions, they could not work without contacts with Soviet, DDR or other
communist leaders and organizations. And, first of all. They did not try to
get Finland into SEV or did not try to build socialist Finland.
o.j.o.
> Hiski
>
Markku Huttu-Hiltunen
Igor V Litvinyuk <i...@interchange.ubc.ca> kirjoitti
viestissä:8bgbbn$dtb$3...@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca...
I don't think Hiski is "a russofobic". That's just an honest reply to your
strange view according to which Finns in general would love Russia. If you
take that "to your list of russophobics", then you'd have to include about
90% of Finns - and 90% of the rest of the world, for that matter - to your
pathetic "list".
There are some people who love *the Russian culture" ie. literature, music,
ballet, etc., but that's another thing, more like a hobby, like loving good
wine.
I recall my Canadian friend asking me (without a foxtail under he's pit),
what good quality things does Russia export. I had a hard time figuring out
an answer to that question, and finally replied "some excellent horses, but
that's about it. The rest stinks". Here the old saying "there's no smoke
without a fire" would turn into "there's no smell of shit without a shit".
Wake up, Igor.
MHH
Igor V Litvinyuk
: I don't think Hiski is "a russofobic". That's just an honest reply to your
: strange view according to which Finns in general would love Russia. If you
: take that "to your list of russophobics", then you'd have to include about
: 90% of Finns - and 90% of the rest of the world, for that matter - to your
: pathetic "list".
: There are some people who love *the Russian culture" ie. literature, music,
: ballet, etc., but that's another thing, more like a hobby, like loving good
: wine.
: I recall my Canadian friend asking me (without a foxtail under he's pit),
: what good quality things does Russia export. I had a hard time figuring out
: an answer to that question, and finally replied "some excellent horses, but
: that's about it. The rest stinks". Here the old saying "there's no smoke
: without a fire" would turn into "there's no smell of shit without a shit".
: Wake up, Igor.
If the purpose of this rant was to get on the list too, you got it,
Markku. Considering the large number of applicants, I am now gonna
stop sending written confirmations of acceptance. All the russophobic
assholes out there, consider yourselves listed. Now go ride them horses,
you should find some in your local supermarket. To the rest of Finns,
I love you all.
I.
Janne Rinne
> Markku. Considering the large number of applicants, I am now gonna
> stop sending written confirmations of acceptance. All the russophobic
> assholes out there, consider yourselves listed. Now go ride them horses,
> you should find some in your local supermarket. To the rest of Finns,
> I love you all.
Strange ways you Russians show love.
Janne
Igor V Litvinyuk
: > If the purpose of this rant was to get on the list too, you got it,
Oh, what the hell. You convinced me. I'm gonna hate you all from now
on. Far less trouble and feels so much better. Don't count on me for
love now, go get your share at a local gay bar instead. I'm outta
here. What a bunch of wankers.
I.
Markku Huttu-Hiltunen
Janne Rinne <ri...@ucar.edu> kirjoitti
viestissä:8bgksq$bl7$1...@ncar.ucar.edu...
> > If the purpose of this rant was to get on the list too, you got it,
> > Markku. Considering the large number of applicants, I am now gonna
> > stop sending written confirmations of acceptance. All the russophobic
> > assholes out there, consider yourselves listed. Now go ride them horses,
> > you should find some in your local supermarket. To the rest of Finns,
> > I love you all.
>
> Strange ways you Russians show love.
Well, Igor is very strange.
MHH
Markku Grönroos
Hiski Haapoja <ki...@simpukka.sci.fi> kirjoitti
viestissä:8ba86j$hop$1...@tron.sci.fi...
>
> Bah! President Kekkonen was the main threat to Finnish democracy.
> He undermined it by abruptly dissolving the Parliament - twice! - and
> acquiring 4 years of further presidency without an election. His revisions
And what did the Parliament? 5/6 majority was required (clearly an election)
to pass the required law.
> of history went further than those of the Soviet Union, complete with
> Finnish indepencence as Lenin's gift and Finnish guilt to any problems
> ever. Anyone who disagreed with his policy or his habitual overstepping
> of his boundaries he called insane and a threat to national security.
>
After all, the political apparatus let this happen.
Markku Grönroos
Hiski Haapoja <ki...@simpukka.sci.fi> kirjoitti
viestissä:8b81fc$kjm$1...@tron.sci.fi...
> In soc.culture.nordic markus_fin <marku...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> :>Most of the common people in the world, particularly the youth, blindly
> :>adore the USA. In Finland, any critical remark about the USA used to
> :>make most people think you were a Communist. Or any positive comment
>
> : The situation in the late 60's and in the 70's was totally the opposite!
> : It was "must" to be on one's knees in front of the almighty Soviet Union
> : , and saying something positive about the USA meant that you had been an
> : "imperialist" or "anti-Soviet" ( remember: "neuvostovastainen" , the
> : then common crucifier-word. Today e.g. "racist" has a similar
> : function). Hiski, you usually make good and informative notes about
> : issues, but this posting of yours seems a bit strange to me. Of course
>
> I was thinking about the Reaganite 80s, and private life. Which was the
> total opposite of the public scene - speeches and the media - where
> friendship with the USSR was above all else. I have heard that there were
> loons who defended the USSR even in normal life, but due to my relative
They were quite numerious in Finland. Perhaps the best known group to defend
the Bolshevik way of life was the "Taistolaiset", who were pretty close to
Bolshevism. Other Communists also did support Russian Bolshevism even if
they were more critical and didn't approve all aspects of life in Russia.
These commies were called the "Enemmistoläiset". The common alliance of the
"SKDL" managed to suck in about 10-15% of all the votes in parliamentary
elections. So, I am quite convinced that you really have heard about some
loons.....
It is true that the "Enemmistöläiset" were rather close the "Euro
communists", who were a major force in France and Italy: they were
parliamentary communists and hence totally different from those Bedouines
hosting the Kremlin. Moreover, among the Bönde Party it was pretty common in
informal discussions to support the Bolshevik ideas. Even in the ranks of
folks, who were not too charged with political bullshit, there were lots of
people who supported commies, I have seen this by my own eyes. And it wasn't
rare. Usually these people were extremely ignorant on Russia and the
Bolsheviks. The Finnish authority (and above all the Russian authority)
wanted to keep it that way. Much of true knowledge on Russia was available
in Finland, so I find it obvious that most Finns didn't give a shit on "the
USSR". Very healthy attitude I must say.
> youth (born in '68) I have met only one - a young teacher who believed
> that Finland started the Winter War! For most people, even in the 70s,
This is all different. I also take it so that such a belief must have been
exteremely rare in Finland. On the other hand it was pretty common to put
blame on the Finnish shoulders too. So, it was claimed that Finland somehow
provoked Russia. Well, one such a provocation is easy to see by every one:
the Finnish authority didn't agree with the Bolsheviks on the ultimatum to
hand over Finnish territory (and resource on it) to the Small Bricks. Well,
the Finnish people demonstated to all the world, not least to the Russians
that the latter cannot even fight at war... The Finnish military involvement
during 1920's in the Russian Karelia was often referred to as such a spark.
This was all nonsense of course.
pran...@noeispammia.cc.hut.fi
-- snipped Hiski's good answer ---
: Add Hiski Haapoja to the list of russophobic assholes that I don't care
: for. Monster-shmonster my ass. Narrowminded bigot is narrowminded bigot,
: no matter how you slice it. Happy hating, Hiski.
Why do you send a message if you are not willing to listen to answers?
My answer to your question is simply the history. Russia has shown that
it is an imperialistic country, since the beginning of the 18th century.
Latest example is Chechneya (both wars). Living next to an occasionally
angry bear makes you fearful from time to time, and it is easy to hate
what you fear. Think about a children's playground and a couple of kids:
one of the kids is smaller one and the other, big and nasty child,
intimidates all the time. Nowadays the small kid is only happy that
the big kid has got a fever and is at home, intimitading a younger
brother...
As to russians as a people (not political entity); I have nothing
against them. Several years ago we had some visitors from my (then)
home town's friendship town (Vladimir, I think it was), and they
were quite nice people. Other russians I have met have all been
normal people: some are nice, some are annoying etc...
ps. Did I make to the list?
pps. Have to hope that big and nasty kid has got fever for a long
time, as it doesn't seem likely that he is going to develop proper
manners any time soon...
---
Pekka
markus_fin
Igor V Litvinyuk kirjoitti viestissä
<8bgbbn$dtb$3...@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca>...
>Add Hiski Haapoja to the list of russophobic assholes that I don't care
>for. Monster-shmonster my ass. Narrowminded bigot is narrowminded
bigot,
>no matter how you slice it. Happy hating, Hiski.
* * *
I don't think he hates. But if you look at the history, maybe you
understand that there is certain grounds for opinions that you consider
as russophobic.
m_f
Igor V Litvinyuk
: * * *
: I don't think he hates. But if you look at the history, maybe you
: understand that there is certain grounds for opinions that you consider
: as russophobic.
One can always find "ground" for any opinion he wants, particularly
looking "at the history". I bet Nazis had plenty of "ground" for
their "opinion" that the jews were the cause of all trouble. Bigots
are particularly adroit at looking for grounds to hate. Those tireless
students of history just have to make one puke with their "scholar-
ship". What a bunch of lowlifes.
I.