In Minnesota, the state with the most Americans of Scandinavian ancestry, this question is the stuff of great controversy.
Kate Parry, Star Tribune Reader's Representative
It took many years in Minnesota for this lost Hoosier to gain even a rudimentary understanding of the subtleties of Scandinavian culture here -- where a meeting room full of silent people can mean a ferocious argument is underway.
I'm 28 years into my indoctrination in lutefisk, lefse and a ritual for accepting a cup of coffee that makes Japanese social rules seem wildly careless. Still, I was unprepared for the reaction provoked by this question: Is Finland part of Scandinavia?
I assumed it was, along with Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Iceland. But it's not so simple.
Original Article or
I now know controversy roils just below the repressed surface in this state with the most people who claim Scandinavian ancestry. It takes little provocation to unleash the full force of polite Scandinavian debate on this issue.
The latest provocateur was reporter David Peterson (who describes himself as 75 percent Swedish). On Dec. 31, he wrote about a study by University of Connecticut anthropologists that showed while most Europeans admire Scandinavians, the Scandinavians have less complimentary views of each other. The study included Swedes, Norwegians and -- brace yourselves -- Finns.
That's when Sara Raines, a retired mental health professional from Spring Lake Township and a Finn, called to educate me: "Finnish people are not Scandinavians," she said. "Finns are closely related to Estonians." Others left similar messages. At day's end, as my daily report on what readers had to say showed up in e-mails across the newsroom, a parade of Scandinavian staff members approached my desk to tell me firmly that Finns aren't Scandinavians -- or that they absolutely are. Uff-da.
To mediate this dispute, I descended into an endless wormhole of research seeking an answer. While Scandinavians may have lost some visibility in recent years as Asian, African and Hispanic immigrants have enriched Minnesota's culture, let me assure you that there is a deep well of scholarship on Scandinavia in Minnesota's colleges. And there are myriad associations where Scandinavians gather to drink coffee and apparently debate Finland, yea or nay.
From my research, I can say one thing with absolute certainty: Experts do not agree.
According to the improbably named Margaret O'Leary, chair of the Norwegian Department at St. Olaf College (she's an O'Leary by marriage, but Norwegian on her mother's side), "Technically speaking, Finland is not part of Scandinavia, which usually includes only Sweden, Norway and Denmark."
If you group Finland and Iceland with those Scandinavian countries, she said, they are called "Norden or Nordic countries."
Yet Monika Zagar, associate professor of German, Scandinavian and Dutch at the University of Minnesota, flatly said, "There is no doubt in my mind that Finland is a Scandinavian country," based on government, culture and religion influenced by Swedish rule. Language, she said, is different, with the university labeling its B.A. degree "Scandinavian languages and Finnish."
Agreeing with Zagar was Thomas DuBois, professor of Finnish and chair of Scandinavian Studies at the University of Wisconsin. "It makes sense to say Finland is Scandinavian in culture," he said, but not linguistically.
Cindy Wentland, staff person at the Minneapolis-based Swedish Council of America, said that "people who aren't splitting hairs would include Finland." But, she added, "Finland is always the sore spot."
At Augsburg College, Betsey Norgard works in communications and also is president of the Twin Cities Chapter of the Finlandia Foundation. She explained that the Finnish language is unrelated to Swedish and she prefers "Norden" to "Scandinavia." But, she added with a chuckle, "I would never come to fisticuffs with a Norwegian over this."
I thought the controversy would die down, but quiet tenacity is in plentiful supply in Minnesota. A week later, reader Dennis Griebenow, who lives in Minneapolis but spent 12 years in Norway, e-mailed me wondering if the definition of Scandinavia had changed. I translated this as a polite way to suggest we were wrong.
I went online to the encyclopedia website Wikipedia, where a search for Scandinavia brings up a warning that "the neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed." Anyone can dip into Wikipedia and edit it, and it seems various factions edit Finland in and out of the section. A related chatroom debate runs for 13 pages.
I decided to try one more thing. I called the Finnish Embassy in Washington, D.C., where press aide Mari Poyhtari started by saying Finland is part of Scandinavia, but then someone in the background disagreed and she corrected herself. The most accurate term is Fenno-Scandinavia or the Nordic countries, Poyhtari said. But, she admitted, "We always say we're part of Scandinavia."
©2006 Star Tribune. All rights reserved.
January 16 2006, 19:36:59 UTC 6 years ago
January 16 2006, 19:58:58 UTC 6 years ago
The few ethnic Finns I've spoken with are very clear on this point: they do not refer to themselves as Scandinavian and do not consider themselves such.
I'm by no means an expert, and not being of any of the nationalities relevant to the debate, it's not really any of my business. Finns are pretty clearly ethnically and linguistically distinct from Swedes and Norwegians, though.
January 16 2006, 20:13:53 UTC 6 years ago
January 16 2006, 19:57:53 UTC 6 years ago
Deleted comment
January 17 2006, 17:41:13 UTC 6 years ago
Deleted comment
January 17 2006, 18:43:57 UTC 6 years ago
Deleted comment
January 17 2006, 19:04:44 UTC 6 years ago
Deleted comment
6 years ago
January 16 2006, 20:14:53 UTC 6 years ago
January 16 2006, 23:26:06 UTC 6 years ago
Deleted comment
January 18 2006, 02:20:12 UTC 6 years ago
January 16 2006, 23:35:00 UTC 6 years ago
Classic case of "it depends"...
Finland is an odd country. For one, the language they speak is not even Indo-European (it's Uralic), but the languages in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden are all North Germanic. This puts the Finnish closer to Hungarians in language than their Swedish neighbors, at least for those who speak Finnish rather than Swedish. That brings me to another point... Finland has been bounced back and forth between Sweden and Russia for a long part of its history. I've heard that a lot of people in southern Finland and around Helsinki speak Swedish, and there are Swedish-speaking schools there. That's a lot of contact with Sweden, then, and Finland seems pretty Scandinavian as far as its culture goes. I could also see why some Finnish people wouldn't want to be called Scandinavian due to nationalist sentiments.Hmmm... In the end, I guess if you tend to look at language, Finland isn't Scandinavian, but if you tend to look at the culture, they are more like *kind of* Scandinavian.
January 17 2006, 00:12:51 UTC 6 years ago
Re: Classic case of "it depends"...
"I've heard that a lot of people in southern Finland and around Helsinki speak Swedish, and there are Swedish-speaking schools there."Well theoretically every Finns speaks Swedish, because it's an obligatory subject at all levels of education. Swedish is acknowledged as an official language. Reality is slightly different of course; not all want to learn the language, and there's an on-going debate on whether its position is maybe too strong. Personally I think it is, but that's a whole another story.
It's true though that most Finnish bilingual communalships (?) with special Swedish-speaking schools are located in the Southern and Western country. I grew up in one.
As for nationalist sentiments, I have a feeling that many would rather identify with the West, including Scandinavia, than the obvious alternative. Attitudes to the former Soviet Union are way more hostile than to Sweden, for one, although Sweden is often referred to as the multiculturalist dystopia by nationalists. Russia, however, is viewed as a more thorough threat.
Just my two cents.
Deleted comment
January 17 2006, 19:14:09 UTC 6 years ago
The fact is that identities are not natural objects, nor can they be fixed by mutual agreements. Who are Norwegians, Swedes and Danes really to tell Finns what they should perceive themselves as?
But it is true that by a lot of other standards Finland is not a part of Scandinavia.
Deleted comment
January 17 2006, 19:49:14 UTC 6 years ago
What I'm trying to say is not that Norwegians, Swedes and Danes should necessarily include Finns in their definition of Scandinavian, but that Finns will, just like any other nation, define themselves by themselves. That's what anthropologists have been saying for the last few decades, as far as I know.
Confusion and lacking knowledge? That's just human nature. Since when have identities had an objective, rational, universal basis?
Deleted comment
January 17 2006, 20:28:26 UTC 6 years ago
I never said that it isn't. Been taking it for granted all along, actually.
"What is so wrong with the term "Nordic" anyway?"
Absolutely nothing, that's the term I like to use myself. I don't consider myself "Scandinavian". A lot of Finns do though, whatever the reason, or use it as a synonym to "Nordic". The objective fact is that language is always somewhat ambiguous.
And just for the record, I'm concerned with the topic self-definition in general. Not doing this for the Finns. Also, this does not seem to go anywhere; I have made my point, and understood yours, but I see that we will not agree.
Deleted comment
January 17 2006, 21:29:42 UTC 6 years ago
But, let me phrase my disposition one last time:
1: I have never said that Finns will suddenly "become" objectively Scandinavians, whatever the term might refer to, by defining themselves as such. My only concern here are identities that are not objective nor rational, which I think should have been obvious from the start. Maybe it's my bad phrasing, maybe something else, who knows.
2: I'm not putting more weight to either side here. I'm simply emphasizing a point that has not been emphasized that much, as opposed to points that have (referring to the official definition of Scandinavia). To speak about the former does not equal disagreeing with the latter.
Speech is about making choices. You always pick a focus, a topic. By answering to your "That should settle the debate?" question I did not intend to rule over your statement, but look at the thing from another perspective. Perhaps I would not have done that, if your response to the original topic would not have have been a bit arrogant. Personally I will gladly accept your definition of Scandinavia, but I don't think pointing its truthfulness out to people will instantly solve all problems and settle debates. That's just reality.
And trust me that it isn't an excuse to get out the conversation if I say that I have this major paper to write. Now, unfortunately.
Deleted comment
6 years ago
6 years ago
January 17 2006, 19:24:28 UTC 6 years ago