the place of Swedish in Finland.

[foca]

there you go!! so if the Russification had gone on it would not have been " the end of the world" for you if Finns had lost their national identity ("gradually, not because they were forced to give it up") ? that is what the Estonian government is trying to do to the Russian speaking minority ( with various degree of success though) . and I think that swedes in Finland would think quite otherwise on that point........

Wouldn't the thing that Estonian government does be the other half of the swing of the pendulum? The other half being what Moscow did during the Soviet era to the Estonian speaking minority. You reap what you sow or some such.

So in this day and time we should speak in biblical terms? if the Soviet Union suppressed the Estonians , should they do the same? by the way there were Estonian schools in Estonian SSR, of which existence of Estonian language is the living proof. so how the Esonian government is better than the Soviet in that respect. I think it is worse.
And when the things turn around and there is some space for the pendulum to swing should the future Moscow take the revenge? Perhaps instead of giving the pendulum more momentum , we should make it seize to sway?

[foca]

Whose focal point do you mean? My focal point when you brought up this example was language -- the Rusins' language was different from Russian, and they did not attempt to identify it as Russian either.

it was a focal point for Rusins obviously. and most of them (there two mainstream movements there) did try to identify their language precisely with Russian, even by "fixing" the grammar. the whole point of the Rusins (and Irish, for that matter) example is that a nationalistic minded state may drastically change the language situation.

I think it's problematic to call this the Estonian way, for more than one reason. For example, Finland did not achieve independence from Sweden in 1917, and the size/military power of Sweden versus Finland, while not equal, is/was considerably closer than that of Russia compared to Estonia today.

after the epic fail of Russification in Finland, Russian regime fell back to the Swedish administrative "master race". Independence of Finland brought the Swedish hegemony (cultural and educational, if not political) to the end not the Russian one . Thus situation is very similar to the Estonian. After that there were two ways to resolve the minority language situation, I called them the Estonian way and the Finnish one. I vote for the Finnish....

Whatever you may think about the present-day situation in Estonia, the motivational factors in 1991 Estonia and the factors in 1917 Finland were quite different (as they would be in present-day Finland).

And what would be those such so different motivational factors ?

Estonia doesn't prohibit Russian-language education, it just doesn't (to my knowledge) fund it publically.

Russian speaking people pay taxes in Estonia as much as Estonians , they have the right to have their children educated in their own language for the taxes that they pay. don't you think so?

Also, I wasn't just thinking of Russian-language TV, but also radio, newspapers and so on. You said earlier that there are a number of Russian-language radio stations within Estonia, and by doing a little searching I found a number of Russian-language Estonian newspapers as well (Den' za Dnyom, for example).

of course there are newspapers and Russian language internet media in Estonia. the problem is that when a person does not receive basic education in mother tongue his/ hers ability to use the language greatly diminish. I once me a 28 year old Russian Estonian (he speaks Estonian too) on a ferry from Tallinn. he handled conversation quite well, but openly acknowledged that he can not comprehend a serious written material in Russian. he tried to read Dostoevskiy but realized that it is beyond his language ability to do so. Russian TV gives him no problems though...

Why is the disappearance of Swedish more probable than its maintenance, if the proposed language policy is enacted?

can you prove otherwise, by the way? it is not that absolutely everything has a ready scientific prove. That is when examples and parallels are provided and examined , it is called a "case study".all given examples prove that minority language without state supervision and help tends to die, especially if the state outright opposes it ( not the Finnish case, of course).

I kindly asked you to prove otherwise, instead you just stated that proposed case studies do not prove the stated point. I provided well researched examples that relate to the problem, examples well covered in open sources for you to familiarize yourself with. there are certain ways how social studies are performed. Your approach to this discussion is akin to that kindergarten boy , who has no facts to present but wishes to prove his point with empty "I do not wants" ..

And I'm not yet convinced that Russian in Estonia or the other Baltic states is a case of impending language death.

I never said that Russian would die out there, it is deteriorating, and people start loosing their national identity. As I said above, the residents of Estonia (all of them) should have the right to have their children taught in their native language. Same goes to Swedish people in Finland and Finnish people in Sweden.

And I don't understand why Swedish speakers in Finland (far from all of them, I suspect) attach the degree of value they do to the present language situation in Finland. If certain people consider it so important that Swedish should have paramount status as a national language, they need travel no further than the large, modern nation on the other side of the Gulf of Bothnia, where this is already the case.

did you hear it Swedish speaking Finns ? gather your stuff , forget the land where you and your forefathers were born, and off you go to Sweden.....

[foca]

to Onko ..

I understand your sentiment, I just do not agree with it........

[Noral]

I think it's problematic to call this the Estonian way, for more than one reason. For example, Finland did not achieve independence from Sweden in 1917, and the size/military power of Sweden versus Finland, while not equal, is/was considerably closer than that of Russia compared to Estonia today.

after the epic fail of Russification in Finland, Russian regime fell back to the Swedish administrative "master race". Independence of Finland brought the Swedish hegemony (cultural and educational, if not political) to the end not the Russian one . Thus situation is very similar to the Estonian.

The fact that Finland had many Swedish speakers in administrative positions under Tsarist rule doesn't change the fact that these Swedish speakers were all subject to Russian authority. Russia, not Sweden, was the state from which Finland gained its independence, and this independence did not consist in Finnish-speakers overthrowing or replacing Swedish-speakers.

Whatever you may think about the present-day situation in Estonia, the motivational factors in 1991 Estonia and the factors in 1917 Finland were quite different (as they would be in present-day Finland).

And what would be those such so different motivational factors ?

For example, concerns about potential for conflict between ethnic Estonians and the ethnic Russians in Estonia who had moved there, or whose families had moved there, during Soviet times (I'm using "who had moved there" restrictively -- I realize that there were also older communities of ethnic Russians in Estonia). They had been part of a Russian-controlled state until the moment of Estonia's independence, and another Russian-controlled state of comparable size and power had just sprung up in the USSR's wake.

I don't know if these concerns were justified (and even if they were, they need not have been handled the way the Estonian government handled them), but regardless, there were no concerns of this kind and degree in 1917 Finland, and there wouldn't be today.

Estonia doesn't prohibit Russian-language education, it just doesn't (to my knowledge) fund it publically.

Russian speaking people pay taxes in Estonia as much as Estonians , they have the right to have their children educated in their own language for the taxes that they pay. don't you think so?

I honestly don't know. The fact that I pay taxes to a government doesn't mean that I can make them spend my taxes exactly as I specify.

Also, I feel more concerned about whether my taxes are being used to fund (e.g.) a war, than about whether they are being spent to fund education in my heritage language.

Also, I wasn't just thinking of Russian-language TV, but also radio, newspapers and so on. You said earlier that there are a number of Russian-language radio stations within Estonia, and by doing a little searching I found a number of Russian-language Estonian newspapers as well (Den' za Dnyom, for example).

of course there are newspapers and Russian language internet media in Estonia. the problem is that when a person does not receive basic education in mother tongue his/ hers ability to use the language greatly diminish. I once me a 28 year old Russian Estonian (he speaks Estonian too) on a ferry from Tallinn. he handled conversation quite well, but openly acknowledged that he can not comprehend a serious written material in Russian.

Well, then there is at least one person in Estonia whose ability to read Russian is inferior to his ability to speak and understand it. There are probably quite a few children of recent Russian immigrants to the United States about whom the same can be said.

I kindly asked you to prove otherwise, instead you just stated that proposed case studies do not prove the stated point.

I can't prove it. But it's not going to be easy to convince me that cases of language strife from pre-modern times or the 19th-century, or from politically and economically precarious post-Soviet times, provide a clear answer otherwise.

I provided well researched examples that relate to the problem, examples well covered in open sources for you to familiarize yourself with. there are certain ways how social studies are performed. Your approach to this discussion is akin to that kindergarten boy , who has no facts to present but wishes to prove his point with empty "I do not wants" ..

Where have I said "I do not want" or equivalent on this thread?

And I'm not yet convinced that Russian in Estonia or the other Baltic states is a case of impending language death.

I never said that Russian would die out there, it is deteriorating, and people start loosing their national identity.

I was responding to your sentence "all given examples prove that minority language without state supervision and help tends to die". And I'm not convinced that Russian in Estonia or the other Baltic states is deteriorating to some point that is no better than language death. That said, it's still not clear to me what you consider the unacceptable "tipping point" of deterioration.

And I don't understand why Swedish speakers in Finland (far from all of them, I suspect) attach the degree of value they do to the present language situation in Finland. If certain people consider it so important that Swedish should have paramount status as a national language, they need travel no further than the large, modern nation on the other side of the Gulf of Bothnia, where this is already the case.

did you hear it Swedish speaking Finns ? gather your stuff , forget the land where you and your forefathers were born, and off you go to Sweden.....

Anyone reading this can judge for himself whether that was an accurate paraphrase of what I said.

[CH]

And I don't understand why Swedish speakers in Finland (far from all of them, I suspect) attach the degree of value they do to the present language situation in Finland. If certain people consider it so important that Swedish should have paramount status as a national language, they need travel no further than the large, modern nation on the other side of the Gulf of Bothnia, where this is already the case.

did you hear it Swedish speaking Finns ? gather your stuff , forget the land where you and your forefathers were born, and off you go to Sweden.....

Anyone reading this can judge for himself whether that was an accurate paraphrase of what I said.

That's pretty much how I read it. And you are not the first one to suggest for us to swim west... there has been plenty of you, even really nice ones who have offered to supply a floatation device or even a rowing boat!

And why wouldn't we think it's important that Swedish stays as a national language? How it is then implemented is another matter. I would rather go the other way and extend national languages in Finland to also include the Sami languages and Romani. I don't see it as being tied to how many speaks some language, but what the historical and cultural ties are to the country.

[foca]

The fact that Finland had many Swedish speakers in administrative positions under Tsarist rule doesn't change the fact that these Swedish speakers were all subject to Russian authority. Russia, not Sweden, was the state from which Finland gained its independence, and this independence did not consist in Finnish-speakers overthrowing or replacing Swedish-speakers.

To a great extent , having parted with The Russian Empire, the young Finnish state parted with Swedish cultural hegemony (supported at the last stage of the Russian rule). the rule itself was barely visible in Finland (apart from navy and military bases, which were mostly closed-off affairs) , but Swedish language hegemony was there in the open. so my argument stands: in 1917 Finland became independent from the Russian rule and from backed up Swedish language administrative system.

For example, concerns about potential for conflict between ethnic Estonians and the ethnic Russians in Estonia who had moved there, or whose families had moved there, during Soviet times . They had been part of a Russian-controlled state until the moment of Estonia's independence, and another Russian-controlled state of comparable size and power had just sprung up in the USSR's wake.

I don't know if these concerns were justified (and even if they were, they need not have been handled the way the Estonian government handled them), but regardless, there were no concerns of this kind and degree in 1917 Finland, and there wouldn't be today.

as a matter of fact there were concerns of a conflict between ethnic Finns and Swedes , for example, the Åland affair, when during the civil war in Finland Swedish sent naval expeditory force to Ålands. I can assure you that in case the Reds had won the civil war, åLands would have been in Sweden. There were demonstrations of Swedish speaking residents as well, all the way till 1930. there can be named more concerns within Finland-Sweden case compared to the Estonian -Russian case. For example, Finnish independence brought civil war in a mostly rural country , that had lost biggest portion of the market for its staple produce after the Revolution in Russia . Now consider the existence of quite modern and industrial Sweden that had evaded WWI bordering Finland. Another argument - In Estonian case the newly born Estonian state was greatly supported by EU (and NATO) , while Russia was having numerous problems in 1990-2000 ( including coup, civil war and government- parliament strife) that it had no real possibilities to raise its voice against nationalistic governments in Baltic states. It all proves that Estonian government felt much more relaxed in 1990 than Finish in 1917.

I honestly don't know. The fact that I pay taxes to a government doesn't mean that I can make them spend my taxes exactly as I specify.

certainly having paid taxes , you can vote for the government that spends them. Russian people in Estonia were relived from the voting rights ( as most of them did not receive the Estonian citizenship) , so they can not influence the way their taxes are spent.

Well, then there is at least one person in Estonia whose ability to read Russian is inferior to his ability to speak and understand it. There are probably quite a few children of recent Russian immigrants to the United States about whom the same can be said.

Unfortunately it is becoming a rule not a separate case. As for emigrants - they (or their parents) chose to move to the US and they do represent 30 percent of the population there. A lot of Russian speaking people in Estonia were born there or moved there in the Soviet times within governmentally sponsored programs (as for example many Estonian moved to Vladivostok when the Pacific fishing fleet was bring built).

I kindly asked you to prove otherwise, instead you just stated that proposed case studies do not prove the stated point.

I can't prove it. But it's not going to be easy to convince me that cases of language strife from pre-modern times or the 19th-century, or from politically and economically precarious post-Soviet times, provide a clear answer otherwise.

there are no clear answers and no two 100 percent similar situations. there are tendencies and social laws within which the humankind lives. what happened in 19th and 20 th. century will most probably be happening in 21 , provided , of course, that one takes into consideration technical progress. I can give you literally dozens other examples (look at the polish case in Lithuania, or Yugoslav situation ) that prove the tendency that I support in the Swedish language situation in Finland . we are talking about human nature and national aspirations here...

I provided well researched examples that relate to the problem, examples well covered in open sources for you to familiarize yourself with. there are certain ways how social studies are performed. Your approach to this discussion is akin to that kindergarten boy , who has no facts to present but wishes to prove his point with empty "I do not wants" ..

Where have I said "I do not want" or equivalent on this thread?

This is not a literary comparison ....

I was responding to your sentence "all given examples prove that minority language without state supervision and help tends to die". And I'm not convinced that Russian in Estonia or the other Baltic states is deteriorating to some point that is no better than language death. That said, it's still not clear to me what you consider the unacceptable "tipping point" of deterioration.

I reflected on the Ruthnian and Irish cases. And of course I am sure that Russian will survive in Estonia , at least until all Russian speaking people will die or emigrate to the UK ... As for the tipping point - I do don't really know where it is , and it is probably in different place for any given situation..

And I don't understand why Swedish speakers in Finland (far from all of them, I suspect) attach the degree of value they do to the present language situation in Finland. If certain people consider it so important that Swedish should have paramount status as a national language, they need travel no further than the large, modern nation on the other side of the Gulf of Bothnia, where this is already the case.

did you hear it Swedish speaking Finns ? gather your stuff , forget the land where you and your forefathers were born, and off you go to Sweden.....[/quote]

Anyone reading this can judge for himself whether that was an accurate paraphrase of what I said.[/quote]

Certainly.....Vox populi vox Dei...

[Noral]

And I don't understand why Swedish speakers in Finland (far from all of them, I suspect) attach the degree of value they do to the present language situation in Finland. If certain people consider it so important that Swedish should have paramount status as a national language, they need travel no further than the large, modern nation on the other side of the Gulf of Bothnia, where this is already the case.

did you hear it Swedish speaking Finns ? gather your stuff , forget the land where you and your forefathers were born, and off you go to Sweden.....

Anyone reading this can judge for himself whether that was an accurate paraphrase of what I said.

That's pretty much how I read it. And you are not the first one to suggest for us to swim west... there has been plenty of you, even really nice ones who have offered to supply a floatation device or even a rowing boat!

I "suggested for you to swim west" if and only if the status of Swedish as national language takes precedence for you over all other aspects of living in Finland (including the regional survival of Swedish, the availability of Finnish-to-Swedish translation when needed, etc.).

And why wouldn't we think it's important that Swedish stays as a national language? How it is then implemented is another matter. I would rather go the other way and extend national languages in Finland to also include the Sami languages and Romani. I don't see it as being tied to how many speaks some language, but what the historical and cultural ties are to the country.

Just to be clear, do you think people in Finland should be able to choose the second language they study, or should they have to study the five other national languages you proposed before studying anything else? (Five = Finnish + Swedish + Romani + North Sami + Inari Sami + Skolt Sami, minus one's native language.)

[foca]

And why wouldn't we think it's important that Swedish stays as a national language? How it is then implemented is another matter. I would rather go the other way and extend national languages in Finland to also include the Sami languages and Romani. I don't see it as being tied to how many speaks some language, but what the historical and cultural ties are to the country.

I do not know about Sami or Romani, but Swedish played a major role in Finnish history, including the Finnish revival (done mostly by bilingual swedes). no one should forget that and try to take it away from Finnish Swedish people.

[Noral]

To a great extent , having parted with The Russian Empire, the young Finnish state parted with Swedish cultural hegemony (supported at the last stage of the Russian rule). the rule itself was barely visible in Finland (apart from navy and military bases, which were mostly closed-off affairs) , but Swedish language hegemony was there in the open.

Even if the Swedish language had this hegemonic position, it wasn't a case where the power structure could be equated with Swedish speakers.

as a matter of fact there were concerns of a conflict between ethnic Finns and Swedes , for example, the Åland affair, when during the civil war in Finland Swedish sent naval expeditory force to Ålands. I can assure you that in case the Reds had won the civil war, åLands would have been in Sweden. There were demonstrations of Swedish speaking residents as well, all the way till 1930.

Different at least in degree from Estonia-Russia, I would say.

there can be named more concerns within Finland-Sweden case compared to the Estonian -Russian case. For example, Finnish independence brought civil war in a mostly rural country , that had lost biggest portion of the market for its staple produce after the Revolution in Russia . Now consider the existence of quite modern and industrial Sweden that had evaded WWI bordering Finland.

Are you talking about one country potentially invading the other, pressure towards immigration, or another type of conflict?

Another argument - In Estonian case the newly born Estonian state was greatly supported by EU (and NATO) , while Russia was having numerous problems in 1990-2000 ( including coup, civil war and government- parliament strife) that it had no real possibilities to raise its voice against nationalistic governments in Baltic states.

No real possibilities throughout the 1990s to raise its voice against the comparatively tiny Baltic countries? I'm sorry, but this is another point I'm not easily going to be convinced of.

I honestly don't know. The fact that I pay taxes to a government doesn't mean that I can make them spend my taxes exactly as I specify.

certainly having paid taxes , you can vote for the government that spends them. Russian people in Estonia were relived from the voting rights ( as most of them did not receive the Estonian citizenship)

My understanding is that -- whatever one may think about the fairness of this process -- those who have passed a test involving (among other things) Estonian fluency have been granted citizenship since then, and the number of non-citizen Russians in Estonia is getting smaller and smaller.

Unfortunately it is becoming a rule not a separate case.

Is the staff of the many Russian-language newspapers in Estonia decreasing?

As for emigrants - they (or their parents) chose to move to the US and they do represent 30 percent of the population there. A lot of Russian speaking people in Estonia were born there or moved there in the Soviet times within governmentally sponsored programs (as for example many Estonian moved to Vladivostok when the Pacific fishing fleet was bring built).

I'm not sure I understand. You're not implying that the children of immigrants in the USA should suffer the consequences of their parents' choices to move there (i.e., no expectation of public funding for their parents' language), but that the children of people who chose to move to Estonia during Soviet times shouldn't have to undergo the same consequences?

I kindly asked you to prove otherwise, instead you just stated that proposed case studies do not prove the stated point.

I can't prove it. But it's not going to be easy to convince me that cases of language strife from pre-modern times or the 19th-century, or from politically and economically precarious post-Soviet times, provide a clear answer otherwise.

there are no clear answers and no two 100 percent similar situations. there are tendencies and social laws within which the humankind lives. what happened in 19th and 20 th. century will most probably be happening in 21 , provided , of course, that one takes into consideration technical progress.

Taking technical and other progress into consideration (such that one can confidently draw parallels between the 19th and 21st century, etc.) doesn't seem like such a simple task. But I can agree to disagree about this for now.

I can give you literally dozens other examples (look at the polish case in Lithuania, or Yugoslav situation ) that prove the tendency that I support in the Swedish language situation in Finland . we are talking about human nature and national aspirations here...

The status of French in Canada (a modern, economically and politically stable country like Finland) is the closest parallel I've been able to find thus far to the status of Swedish in Finland, but Francophones are nearly 1/4th the population there, and French is only a mandatory topic of study in the eastern provinces.

[foca]

Even if the Swedish language had this hegemonic position, it wasn't a case where the power structure could be equated with Swedish speakers.

Oh , yes it definitely was. no language exists without people who speak it. it was a hegemony of Swedish people who spoke Their own language and wanted to be adressed in their own language. The very first thing that the Russia did was to confirm the privileges of the Swedish land lords and gentry. there was no entry into local politics without Swedish. Any native Finns who wanted to achieve anything had to do it mostly through Swedish controlled power structures. it is just foolish to argue against that. the only opening for native Finnish speakers was trade...

as a matter of fact there were concerns of a conflict between ethnic Finns and Swedes , for example, the Åland affair, when during the civil war in Finland Swedish sent naval expeditory force to Ålands. I can assure you that in case the Reds had won the civil war, åLands would have been in Sweden. There were demonstrations of Swedish speaking residents as well, all the way till 1930.

Different at least in degree from Estonia-Russia, I would say.

argue about the degrees , it does not change the thing itself. I would say if it was not for Swedish officers and Swedish populated areas around Bothnic coast , the Reds had a good chance to win.

there can be named more concerns within Finland-Sweden case compared to the Estonian -Russian case. For example, Finnish independence brought civil war in a mostly rural country , that had lost biggest portion of the market for its staple produce after the Revolution in Russia . Now consider the existence of quite modern and industrial Sweden that had evaded WWI bordering Finland.

Are you talking about one country potentially invading the other, pressure towards immigration, or another type of conflict?

you asked me about concerns , I gave you the answer. the subjective mode is not applicable to history. But the swedes in essence did invade ( in Ålands )

Another argument - In Estonian case the newly born Estonian state was greatly supported by EU (and NATO) , while Russia was having numerous problems in 1990-2000 ( including coup, civil war and government- parliament strife) that it had no real possibilities to raise its voice against nationalistic governments in Baltic states.

No real possibilities throughout the 1990s to raise its voice against the comparatively tiny Baltic countries? I'm sorry, but this is another point I'm not easily going to be convinced of.

You obviously talk about something that you know absolutely nothing of. I lived in Russia in 1990. in 1991 the government discussed possibility of starvation in St. Petersburg (i have seen the stenograph copy of the meeting minutes). inflation went on an on wiping savings , all state enterprises closed down or paid no salaries for months, criminality openly owned the streets. a coup ensued in 1991 and then a war between the parliament and the government in 1993. some regions tore themselves of the country and a war raged in Caucasus. Russian speakers were abandoned in the central Asian newly independent countries , were they were treated like scum, from 100 to 140 thousand Russian speaking people simply disappeared in break away Chechen republic . who the hell though of Estonia then? what do you know about all that? read up a little before putting your incompetence on display.

I honestly don't know. The fact that I pay taxes to a government doesn't mean that I can make them spend my taxes exactly as I specify.

certainly having paid taxes , you can vote for the government that spends them. Russian people in Estonia were relived from the voting rights ( as most of them did not receive the Estonian citizenship)

My understanding is that -- whatever one may think about the fairness of this process -- those who have passed a test involving (among other things) Estonian fluency have been granted citizenship since then, and the number of non-citizen Russians in Estonia is getting smaller and smaller.

yes you understanding is quite right , but the question is : why do they have to pass any tests that a nationalistic goverment imposed on them ? Russians there did not vote for the language laws - they were effectively segregated on national bases and the language laws were passed without their involvement. Russians have the right to have their language as an official one in the country there they were born and comprise at least 40 percent of the population.

Unfortunately it is becoming a rule not a separate case.

Is the staff of the many Russian-language newspapers in Estonia decreasing?

I have no idea of the staff fluctuations there. but language quality in the newspapers has visibly been decreasing..

I'm not sure I understand. You're not implying that the children of immigrants in the USA should suffer the consequences of their parents' choices to move there (i.e., no expectation of public funding for their parents' language), but that the children of people who chose to move to Estonia during Soviet times shouldn't have to undergo the same consequences?

Should they comprise 30 or 40 percent of population of the USA, they perhaps shall not " suffer the consequences of their parents' choices to move there" , and they might demand that other people learn their language as well as any other .

The status of French in Canada (a modern, economically and politically stable country like Finland) is the closest parallel I've been able to find thus far to the status of Swedish in Finland, but Francophones are nearly 1/4th the population there, and French is only a mandatory topic of study in the eastern provinces.

I can give you all so many differences in the situation in Canada compared to Finland, starting from the fact that Canada is a newly colonized country where French colonies and English colonies existed separately for quite considerable time. if it was not for the French Revolution and the Louisiana purchase they would have been two different nations now. the language act was actually away to prevent breakaway of French speaking territories. There is an obligation to conduct all federal state affairs in both official languages in Canada and schooling is provided in both languages. and , yes, poor children in predominantly English speaking areas have to learn French at school....

but why going that far ? Check Belgium , to start with....At least it is a country which exists in the same legal environment as Estonia, Finland , Sweden and (to some extent) Russia. I am sure you will find many surprising things there...

[Noral]

Even if the Swedish language had this hegemonic position, it wasn't a case where the power structure could be equated with Swedish speakers.

Oh , yes it definitely was. no language exists without people who speak it. it was a hegemony of Swedish people who spoke Their own language and wanted to be adressed in their own language. The very first thing that the Russia did was to confirm the privileges of the Swedish land lords and gentry. there was no entry into local politics without Swedish. Any native Finns who wanted to achieve anything had to do it mostly through Swedish controlled power structures. it is just foolish to argue against that. the only opening for native Finnish speakers was trade...

Finnish independence didn't consist in Finnish speakers overthrowing Swedish speakers, or Swedish speaking elites being replaced with Finnish-speaking ones: there were native Swedish speakers on both sides. That's what I meant when I said that the power structure could not have been equated with Swedish speakers as a whole, even if it overlapped to some extent with the dominance of the Swedish language.

there can be named more concerns within Finland-Sweden case compared to the Estonian -Russian case. For example, Finnish independence brought civil war in a mostly rural country , that had lost biggest portion of the market for its staple produce after the Revolution in Russia . Now consider the existence of quite modern and industrial Sweden that had evaded WWI bordering Finland.

Are you talking about one country potentially invading the other, pressure towards immigration, or another type of conflict?

you asked me about concerns , I gave you the answer. the subjective mode is not applicable to history. But the swedes in essence did invade ( in Ålands )

OK, in that case, they invaded a very peripheral region of Finland, which had a history separate history from the rest of the country (in terms of how and when Sweden and Russia had fought over it).

No real possibilities throughout the 1990s to raise its voice against the comparatively tiny Baltic countries? I'm sorry, but this is another point I'm not easily going to be convinced of.

You obviously talk about something that you know absolutely nothing of. I lived in Russia in 1990. in 1991 the government discussed possibility of starvation in St. Petersburg (i have seen the stenograph copy of the meeting minutes). inflation went on an on wiping savings , all state enterprises closed down or paid no salaries for months, criminality openly owned the streets. a coup ensued in 1991 and then a war between the parliament and the government in 1993. some regions tore themselves of the country and a war raged in Caucasus. Russian speakers were abandoned in the central Asian newly independent countries , were they were treated like scum, from 100 to 140 thousand Russian speaking people simply disappeared in break away Chechen republic . who the hell though of Estonia then?

Even if the Russian state had no serious plans to put pressure on Estonia at any point during the 1990s (which is possible), I don't know how Estonian leadership could have been sure of this, and completely dismissed this possibility from their decision making process.

yes you understanding is quite right , but the question is : why do they have to pass any tests that a nationalistic goverment imposed on them ? Russians there did not vote for the language laws - they were effectively segregated on national bases and the language laws were passed without their involvement. Russians have the right to have their language as an official one in the country there they were born and comprise at least 40 percent of the population.

Outside questions of citizenship, and the need to provide services for monolingual Russian speakers, I have to admit that I don't share your concern for preserving a small pocket of a language that is already the majority language in the largest nation on earth. By contrast, Estonian is spoken nowhere other than Estonia, which is small even compared to the other Baltic countries. Where are you getting the number 40% from, by the way?

I'm not sure I understand. You're not implying that the children of immigrants in the USA should suffer the consequences of their parents' choices to move there (i.e., no expectation of public funding for their parents' language), but that the children of people who chose to move to Estonia during Soviet times shouldn't have to undergo the same consequences?

Should they comprise 30 or 40 percent of population of the USA, they perhaps shall not " suffer the consequences of their parents' choices to move there" , and they might demand that other people learn their language as well as any other .

I don't understand why particular percentages should force some children to bear consequences of their parents' choices, and exempt other children from having to do so (although these are pretty minor consequences we're discussing), independently of practical considerations.

The status of French in Canada (a modern, economically and politically stable country like Finland) is the closest parallel I've been able to find thus far to the status of Swedish in Finland, but Francophones are nearly 1/4th the population there, and French is only a mandatory topic of study in the eastern provinces.

I can give you all so many differences in the situation in Canada compared to Finland, starting from the fact that Canada is a newly colonized country where French colonies and English colonies existed separately for quite considerable time. if it was not for the French Revolution and the Louisiana purchase they would have been two different nations now. the language act was actually away to prevent breakaway of French speaking territories. There is an obligation to conduct all federal state affairs in both official languages in Canada and schooling is provided in both languages. and , yes, poor children in predominantly English speaking areas have to learn French at school....

Thanks for listing further differences between the two situations (I had already mentioned the different demographic ratios involved).

but why going that far ? Check Belgium , to start with....At least it is a country which exists in the same legal environment as Estonia, Finland , Sweden and (to some extent) Russia. I am sure you will find many surprising things there...

[/quote]

The Dutch vs. French ratio is about 60 to 30 percent in Belgium, I think. That's still quite a ways off from 90% vs. 5%, and to my knowledge French is not mandatory for Dutch speakers, nor vice versa, in most of the country.

[Noral]

And why wouldn't we think it's important that Swedish stays as a national language? How it is then implemented is another matter. I would rather go the other way and extend national languages in Finland to also include the Sami languages and Romani. I don't see it as being tied to how many speaks some language, but what the historical and cultural ties are to the country.

I do not know about Sami or Romani, but Swedish played a major role in Finnish history, including the Finnish revival (done mostly by bilingual swedes). no one should forget that and try to take it away from Finnish Swedish people.

Since the promotion of Finnish by bilingual Swedes was done at the expense of Swedish (i.e., at the expense of Swedish's supremacy in Finland), it's difficult for me to understand how Swedish played a positive role in this process.

[foca]

Finnish independence didn't consist in Finnish speakers overthrowing Swedish speakers, or Swedish speaking elites being replaced with Finnish-speaking ones: there were native Swedish speakers on both sides. That's what I meant when I said that the power structure could not have been equated with Swedish speakers as a whole, even if it overlapped to some extent with the dominance of the Swedish language.

ok. let us make some changes to your statement.

Estonian independence didn't consist in Estonian speakers overthrowing Russian speakers, or Russian speaking elites being replaced with Estonian speaking ones. sounds strange? but that is truth. in Estonia (and in other Soviet Baltic republics ) the elites were always national, thus separate Estonian communist party consisted (to a great degree) and was controlled by Estonians. moreover many if former communist Estonian leaders are still in power ( Arnold Rüütel or Edgar Savisaar , for example). It was Estonians who ruled Estonia ( of course with supervision of the " big brother") . in that respect the situation is quite different in Estonia compared to Finland.
Swedish in Finland as a ruling class had a much longer and more profound history, unlike Russians in Estonia (before 1917 the language of learned classes in Estonia was not Russian , it was German. those who wanted to study in the Derpt university had to learn German). Swedish (Fennoman mostly) made a conscious choice to learn Finnish and over the period of time to develop a separate from mainland Sweden identity.

OK, in that case, they invaded a very peripheral region of Finland, which had a history separate history from the rest of the country (in terms of how and when Sweden and Russia had fought over it).

Well , Russia did not invade Narva or Sillamae region ( exclusively Russian speaking territories in Estonia) , did it?

Not no one, certainly. And even if the Russian state had no serious plans to put pressure on Estonia at any point during the 1990s (which is possible), I don't know how Estonian leadership could have been sure of this, and completely dismissed this possibility from their decision making process.

See above for Estonian leadership. I think they were very much weary of what might happen in Russia, but yet they were and still are the people with absolutely a soviet upbringing. Initially they considered to take it more correctly ( for example there were mutual agreements on free citizenship choice between Russia and Estonia), but then they realized they could pull this off and much more nationalistic approach was chosen . in essence they perfectly well understood that being protected by EU and NATO and with all that turmoil in Russian they have nothing to be afraid off while enforcing nationalistic language laws.

Outside questions of citizenship, and the need to provide services for monolingual Russian speakers, I have to admit that I don't share your concern for preserving a small pocket of a language that is already the majority language in the largest nation on earth. By contrast, Estonian is spoken nowhere other than Estonia, which is small even compared to the other Baltic countries. Where are you getting the number 40% from, by the way?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russians_in_Estonia - for one. It us estimated that 40 percent population of Tallinn is Russian speaking, with around 30 percent of the entire population of the country. Due to the current state of affairs most emigrants from Estonia are Russian speakers, thus the Estonian government us fulfilling its goal - to decrease the Russian speaking population to minimum. the official statistics in Estonia prefers to count " citizens" and "aliens" , but some if the "citizens" are Russian speakers, thus, bearing in mind emigration, it is hard to access the real size of the Russian speaking community, but it is very sizable , just by yourself a ferry ticket to find out.
and it is not just the language it is the human rights question. as I stated earlier they have the right to speak their language , to have their children educated in their language and to conduct official business with the state in their own language. instead they were segregated on the nationality basis. And neither I nor anyone in the Russian community there advocates for disappearance of Estonian , however small the number of people who can speak it.

I don't understand why particular percentages should force some children to bear consequences of their parents' choices, and exempt other children from having to do so (although these are pretty minor consequences we're discussing), independently of practical considerations.

And I do not understand why particular percentages should force some adults to bear consequences of certain governments decisions, which these adults never had a chance to vote for. And it is not me who invoked the percentages into discussion.

The Dutch vs. French ratio is about 60 to 30 percent in Belgium, I think. That's still quite a ways off from 90% vs. 5%, and to my knowledge French is not mandatory for Dutch speakers, nor vice versa, in most of the country.

it well may be so ( with drastic local variations though) . But have you ever asked yourself a question why did Netherlands united for a short period of time after the Napoleonic wars split in 1830? it did not split along language boundaries it split along confessional line - Belgians ( both francophones and Flemish speaking) are predominantly catholic while Dutch are Protestant. as I said before on a number of occasion a nation is defined by many characteristics, and language is only one of them. the Finnish Swedish have a unique national identity , they feel themselves different from Swedish in Sweden, taking away the status of their language will definitely change their affinity towards Finland and the way how they perceive themselves.

[foca]

Since the promotion of Finnish by bilingual Swedes was done at the expense of Swedish (i.e., at the expense of Swedish's supremacy in Finland), it's difficult for me to understand how Swedish played a positive role in this process.

?????? did they play a negative role then, for whom and how? it seems that you comment for the sake of commenting....

[onkko]

Since the promotion of Finnish by bilingual Swedes was done at the expense of Swedish (i.e., at the expense of Swedish's supremacy in Finland), it's difficult for me to understand how Swedish played a positive role in this process.

?????? did they play a negative role then, for whom and how? it seems that you comment for the sake of commenting....

Swedish speakers did have huge positive role in raising finnish as language of finland, albeit being swedish speaker was mandatory to be in any position of power. They also have negative and continuing effect (rkp).
Heres examples of swedish speaking finns who contributed a lot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elias_L%C3%B6nnrot and http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Sibelius I dont know their homelanguage but both spoke swedish.
In that time about 80% of people spoke finnish and not all swedish speaker saw us as inferior but as rightful language for country and acted according that and made sure that finnish was accepted as language for higher education.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fennoman_movement

"Swedes we are no more,
Russians we cannot become,
therefore Finns we must be."