Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > European History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

European History European History Forum - Western and Eastern Europe including the British Isles, Scandinavia, Russia


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old September 13th, 2017, 02:14 PM   #281

Offspring's Avatar
Internet Zombie
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: România
Posts: 6,116
Blog Entries: 8

Quote:
Originally Posted by deaf tuner View Post
It took me a while (had to look at Gmaps) but I think that it's because You're neighbours ?

Like in sharing the same space for some thousand years having some things in common, other things not, keeping Your languages and cultures although somehow mixed You were … ?

Nah, Iwan said it's impossible.

I'm surely wrong
I was nice to see you guys have it too.
Offspring is offline  
Remove Ads
Old September 13th, 2017, 09:45 PM   #282

Iwan's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Jun 2016
From: Russia
Posts: 979

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vaeltaja View Post
Now you are rather desperately just inventing more some random nonsense. The point which was being made was that there wasn't separate identities. Which meant they were all the same. At the time 'Swede' did not mean a person who spoke Swedish. But for some reason comprehending that is beyond you.

Prove it. As said before if you do not provide the documents which prove your argument true you only prove that you yourself are a liar and a fraud.
Of course there were separate identity. No one Swede would agree to be called Finn, and vast majority of Finn wouldn't agree to called Swede. You are surprized that I can't comprehend that, but what about your own forefathers? They didn't that either. They refused, actively refused to learn Swedish for 700 years. After 700 years of slavery they built national Finnish state where everybody spoke Finnish.
Iwan is offline  
Old September 13th, 2017, 10:10 PM   #283
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 3,005

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iwan View Post
Of course there were separate identity. No one Swede would agree to be called Finn, and vast majority of Finn wouldn't agree to called Swede.
All you need to do is to prove that. Post the sources which support your claim.
Quote:
After 700 years of slavery they built national Finnish state where everybody spoke Finnish.
No, they didn't. There wasn't slavery (apart from the one Russians tried to force upon Finns) and they didn't make everyone speak Finnish either. You are really aiming to prove that you do not know anything of Finland and that you didn't even bother to learn anything about it before posting. Finland is still bilingual. There are still plenty of Swedish speaking villages.
Vaeltaja is offline  
Old September 14th, 2017, 12:01 AM   #284
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,089

No one disputes that past history is full of inequality, divisions, conflicts etc.

It's just that the multi-lingual early modern Swedish kingdom didn't work like Iwan claims in that respect. Most Swedes in Sweden (as in inside modern borders) didn't speak modern Swedish as we understand it either. (Parts still don't, with "dialects" like Gutnish, Älvdalingska and a slew of northern dialects sufficiently different they could technically qualify as separate languages.)

Several parts of southern Sweden spoke Finnish too (only changed in the 19th c.). Large parts of northern Sweden STILL speak primarily Finnish, several kinds. Just like there were, and are, traditionally Swedish speaking areas in Finland. The Finnish Swedish speakers certainly can differentiate between "posh" Swedish, and these vernacular dialects of Finnish Swedish.

If language, in this case modern Swedish, is supposed to define a dominating oppressor, "the colonizer", then at best the situation is one where a VERY LIMITED area around the central Swedish lake system (Lake Mälaren etc.) "colonized" ALL the rest of SWEDEN + Finland, turning it's own (local) speak into a dominant upper class sociolect. Except that didn't properly happen until the 19th c., and for SPOKEN standard Swedish to REALLY impose itself, it took the 20th c. and broadcast media, i.e. radio and television.

The special allowance made for the radical linguistic difference of Finnish, and Sami for that matter, rom Swedish, is that all these languages were codified as separate languages already in the 16th c. Swedish kingdom.

The REAL imposition and acts of dominance then, was the definition of written standard language. And that also happened in Sweden, directed at all the local vernaculars spoken by the common people. Because that is what happens when a linguistic standard is defined and applied, in this case in order to render the Bible in Swedish.

But of course, THAT also happened with Finnish. All the multitude of local Finnish dialects had to be subsumed under the heading of the kind of written standard Finnish the Bible was published in. People of course went on speaking their local lingo, but for religious reasons they had to accept and learn a new standardized language — be it Finnish, or Swedish or Sami.

None of this has much relevance to what Iwan is primarily taking about here though — which is a kind of 19th c. nationalist filter applied to history, as updated for 21st c. political use. Somehow relevant in Russia we have to assume...
Larrey is offline  
Old September 14th, 2017, 02:49 AM   #285

Iwan's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Jun 2016
From: Russia
Posts: 979

Now what I learned about Finland and Sweden in 18th century. Swedish part was more developed. There lived not only king but all scietists, writers, chemists etc. there were three of four universities. But the Finnish part of the pair was ruled by Swedes as well. I found direct statistics of population only of Helsinki, and direct mentioning Abo (Turku) as swedish city. But there are enough of proves that Finns didn't live in other cities eiter. There were no Finnish scientists, no Finnish merchants, no Finnish nobles ever mentioned. Everyone I found were Swedes or Germans without any smallest doubts. Now we see the clear picture: a Finn could be nothing else but a peasant. What Finns thought about Swedes is clear. Everyone would think that way.
I didn't ever seen the "absense of separate national identity" in any even wildest society. But me seems the follower of that monstrous religion of "national identity" imagine the Finnish peasant coming to a Swedish city that way: "Look, these guys who national identity I don't know are eating meat and having good time, while we whose national identity I don't know either must work day and night and eat nothing but thin soup".
Iwan is offline  
Old September 14th, 2017, 02:56 AM   #286

Iwan's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Jun 2016
From: Russia
Posts: 979

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vaeltaja View Post
You are really aiming to prove that you do not know anything of Finland and that you didn't even bother to learn anything about it before posting. Finland is still bilingual. There are still plenty of Swedish speaking villages.
You don't imagine how much I learned about Finland from your words. As you didn't mentioned nobles, scientists, prominent persons of Finnish nationality I came to conclusion that there weren't any. To find proves was the easiest. Even here you tell with your "still" that the existence of swedish spoken villages wouldn't last for long. I bet that even in swedis spoken villages any one understands Finnish, right?
Iwan is offline  
Old September 14th, 2017, 03:21 AM   #287
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 3,005

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iwan View Post
Now what I learned about Finland and Sweden in 18th century. Swedish part was more developed. There lived not only king but all scietists, writers, chemists etc. there were three of four universities. Finnish part of the pair was ruled by Swedes as well. I found direct statistics of population only of Helsinki, and direct mentioning Abo (Turku) as swedish city.
This is large part of your error. You are aware that Helsinki existed only as a tiny town - often called as a fishing village - that had just few thousand inhabitants. The statistics you are seeing from 19th century are from the Russian sponsored new capital. Not from a naturally developing town.

And you are still not understanding that since there were no separate identities all towns and villages were 'Swedish'. Like has been said quite a few times you just can't seem to be able to grasp the concept of a multilingual society.
Quote:
But there are enough of proves that Finns didn't live in other cities eiter
Again false assumption. And something you have not proven despite of your claims. Post the sources here.
Quote:
There were no Finnish scientists, no Finnish merchants, no Finnish nobles ever mentioned. Everyone I found were Swedes or Germans without any smallest doubts.
As was shown to you previously you can not use name as basis for determining the national identity unlike you assume. You still can not.
Quote:
Finn could be nothing else but a peasant.
Given how learned spoke and wrote Latin, merchants used German, the exact same according to your very own logic could be said of Swedish. Or didn't you figure that part out yet?




Quote:
Originally Posted by Iwan View Post
You don't imagine how much I learned about Finland from your words. As you didn't mentioned nobles, scientists, prominent persons of Finnish nationality I came to conclusion that there weren't any.
Except that is again a false assumption from you. I never said that. That you assume it to be such is only descriptive of your own prejudicial attitude towards the matter being discussed - not of anything else. Keep in mind that contrary to what you have stated you have not provided a single actual evidence (i.e. a source) supporting your fantasies and fairy tales.
Quote:
Even here you tell with your "still" that the existence of swedish spoken villages wouldn't last for long.
Wrong. It was just to point out to you that they still exist. If things worked according to your logic they ought to have been long gone already. Yet they are still there. Which quite clearly indicated that the assumptions you made with your logic are false. Which as it happens also destroys the basis of your own argument.
Quote:
I bet that even in swedis spoken villages any one understands Finnish, right?
You would be mistaken.
Vaeltaja is offline  
Old September 14th, 2017, 05:42 AM   #288
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,089

The 19th c. sticks like a HUGE wedge in our understanding of the early modern situation. This whole wrangle is over the need — perception or, whether deliberate or not, denial of — to understand it on its own terms and as DIFFERENT from the kind of societies 19th c. nationalist politics produced.

The thing about the Swedish situation is that ONCE AMPUTATED of Finland (by Russia as it happened), Sweden progressively in the 19th c. went about trying to create a single-language, monocultural nation state. It produced homogeneity actively. And even then the process wasn't complete. It never worked entirely in the Finnish speaking north. The Sami are still there too, and pretty hacked off at a bunch of things the 19th c. Swedish nation state put them through. The Sami in the 18th c. still had their own set of laws regulating their affairs within the Swedish legal system. One of the legal battles in Sweden today is the Sami insistence that these laws, as they applied to rights to land and its use, were never formally rescinded. And the Swedish governments (a succession of) have been and still are very reluctant to give in to this line of reasoning, which has some pretty sound legal footing.

Iwan apparently struggles to think BEYOND the framework of 19th c. nationalism. Once the history in Sweden gets into that, it works like he assumes. It's BEFORE that point it doesn't work like that, in either Sweden or Finland.

Edit:
One of the big "What-ifs?" is how the situation would have worked out in the 19th c., had Finland remained as the eastern half of the kingdom of Sweden? It's of course fundamentally unknowable, but it is a possibility this is another of these situations where another Swedish war lost to Russia saved the Swedes a lot of trouble. Like Sozhenitsyn put it about Poltava in 1709 — it let Sweden off the hook of trying to be a military great power, and so it could use its effort to build a better society. While it straddled Russia with this imperial history that is rather a mixed blessing. Same thing with Finland in 1809. Potentially Sweden's loss of it in one stroke just made a budding 19th c. problem of national identities and relation go away. Instead it saddled the Russians with all those kinds of unsolvable questions.

Last edited by Larrey; September 14th, 2017 at 05:49 AM.
Larrey is offline  
Old September 14th, 2017, 09:31 AM   #289

Iwan's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Jun 2016
From: Russia
Posts: 979

Quote:
Originally Posted by Larrey View Post
The 19th c. sticks like a HUGE wedge in our understanding of the early modern situation. This whole wrangle is over the need — perception or, whether deliberate or not, denial of — to understand it on its own terms and as DIFFERENT from the kind of societies 19th c. nationalist politics produced.

The thing about the Swedish situation is that ONCE AMPUTATED of Finland (by Russia as it happened), Sweden progressively in the 19th c. went about trying to create a single-language, monocultural nation state. It produced homogeneity actively. And even then the process wasn't complete. It never worked entirely in the Finnish speaking north. The Sami are still there too, and pretty hacked off at a bunch of things the 19th c. Swedish nation state put them through. The Sami in the 18th c. still had their own set of laws regulating their affairs within the Swedish legal system. One of the legal battles in Sweden today is the Sami insistence that these laws, as they applied to rights to land and its use, were never formally rescinded. And the Swedish governments (a succession of) have been and still are very reluctant to give in to this line of reasoning, which has some pretty sound legal footing.

Iwan apparently struggles to think BEYOND the framework of 19th c. nationalism. Once the history in Sweden gets into that, it works like he assumes. It's BEFORE that point it doesn't work like that, in either Sweden or Finland.

Edit:
One of the big "What-ifs?" is how the situation would have worked out in the 19th c., had Finland remained as the eastern half of the kingdom of Sweden? It's of course fundamentally unknowable, but it is a possibility this is another of these situations where another Swedish war lost to Russia saved the Swedes a lot of trouble. Like Sozhenitsyn put it about Poltava in 1709 — it let Sweden off the hook of trying to be a military great power, and so it could use its effort to build a better society. While it straddled Russia with this imperial history that is rather a mixed blessing. Same thing with Finland in 1809. Potentially Sweden's loss of it in one stroke just made a budding 19th c. problem of national identities and relation go away. Instead it saddled the Russians with all those kinds of unsolvable questions.
In other words, we were good boys but then came Russia and took away Finland. I must remind you that in the time you were good boys there was not a single Finnish scientist, not a single Finnish writer, not a single prominent person. Notice, in 700 (seven hundred) !!!! years, with nearly equal population. Sweden has nothing to complain that Finland first pressed from Swedes their constitution and then changed "the friend".
I don't see the change in politics of Sweden toward Finns before and after 1809, only thing before 1809 it could be somehow hidden, or forgotten. It is impossible to put Finns in the position they had in 1809 without terrible oppression, oppression on purpose.
Iwan is offline  
Old September 14th, 2017, 09:45 AM   #290

Iwan's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Jun 2016
From: Russia
Posts: 979

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vaeltaja View Post
This is large part of your error. You are aware that Helsinki existed only as a tiny town - often called as a fishing village - that had just few thousand inhabitants. The statistics you are seeing from 19th century are from the Russian sponsored new capital. Not from a naturally developing town.
And you are still not understanding that since there were no separate identities all towns and villages were 'Swedish'. Like has been said quite a few times you just can't seem to be able to grasp the concept of a multilingual society.
Again false assumption. And something you have not proven despite of your claims. Post the sources here.

As was shown to you previously you can not use name as basis for determining the national identity unlike you assume. You still can not.

Given how learned spoke and wrote Latin, merchants used German, the exact same according to your very own logic could be said of Swedish. Or didn't you figure that part out yet?





Except that is again a false assumption from you. I never said that. That you assume it to be such is only descriptive of your own prejudicial attitude towards the matter being discussed - not of anything else. Keep in mind that contrary to what you have stated you have not provided a single actual evidence (i.e. a source) supporting your fantasies and fairy tales.

Wrong. It was just to point out to you that they still exist. If things worked according to your logic they ought to have been long gone already. Yet they are still there. Which quite clearly indicated that the assumptions you made with your logic are false. Which as it happens also destroys the basis of your own argument.

You would be mistaken.
I understand that you want to remain in the land of your dreams. That why I wouldn't prove you obvious thing: no one Finnish scientist, no one Finnish writer, no one Finnish noble until second half of 19th century. I don't know whom you want turn into a Finn, Linnaeus, Celcius or Scheele but all of them are unmistakable not Finns. The same with nobles. There are one or two Germans, but others are Swedes, without any doubt. I found 60 on nobles in Finland in wiki. Do that yourself and try to make from them Finns.
Iwan is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > European History

Tags
russian, tsar



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Was the Russian Revolution accidently created by the Tsar's Governement Lawnmowerman European History 12 December 31st, 2016 02:19 AM
The first Russian Tsar victory Learning History 0 March 20th, 2013 10:38 PM
Why didn't Russian Tsar, Alexander I, take over the French Empire? Jake10 European History 17 January 22nd, 2013 12:05 AM
History of Russian tsar`s family. Christening of Cesarevich Aleksey Painterilya European History 8 September 23rd, 2008 06:47 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.