Pick-up games at the army base be wild. Imagine being poor Vihtori having to guard Lauri Markkanen after a tough day of drills.
And Finland will lose another "Republic of Karelia" sized land to Russia and will be ordered to pay war damages. Respect to every country including Finland but they lost to Russia twice in WW2 era, ceded between 10 to 15 % of their land and paid huge amount money.Thus, Finland was the poorest European country at the end of the second world. Finland became neutral and rejuvenated (no defence spending). Now, they are member of NATO, will spend 2 % of GDP for arms. History is a cycle as @AroundTheWorld mentioned recently. Good luck to the Finns.
Pretty weird take there. Fins did amazing all things considered back then. A brave nation and a strategic win for US foreign policy
A certain success for US Foreign Policy, no doubt. Whether it will work for Finland or not is another issue. Jury is out. Finns fought against Russians together with mighty Germans&Italians. Hope Finns do better this time.
Finland is the "happiest country on Earth" they enjoy some of the highest standards of living, low(ish) inflation and have a democracy that the people believe and participate in with far less corruption than in other countries. Good for Markannen to fulfill his civic duty to his country. Great player and citizen.
Let's be honest with ourselves- all things being equal, it's pretty easy to achieve social satisfaction if you live where you're a member of a monoculture.
Do you feel the same way about Sweden and Norway? Sometimes diversity can be a result of geography. If you go by some reports Finland ranks top 5 in racial equality alongside the other countries I mentioned. You dont hear about mass shootings in Scandinavia. Their civic programs are great. Healthy populations. They value their citizens and the quality of life far exceeds that of other "monoculture" EU states - why is that?
'Monoculture', as in, countries with a single definable culture, supported by all levels of society and state. Apart from Finland, the other countries you mention still maintain royalty as the representation of state- and society often reflects the attitudes and sentiments embodied in that representation of state. Plus, those societies still have a vestigial sense of paternity from their royals, i.e., as subjects to the crown, they have an expectation that they will be cared for. There might actually be something to demographic ratios in these countries highly ranked in racial equality, as well- what are the percentages of non-ethnic Finns relative to the indigenous population? And if I'm not mistaken, Swedish society has pushed back rather forcefully on its current immigration intake in recent times. What could have led to that?
The UK also operates within a monarchy and they tend to have the same issues WE have. I guess the royal family of Sweden and Norway treat their subjects "better" than the UK, but Finland is not under a monarchy. Populations that originate from temperate climates dont seem to go running for that part of the world, and the pushback from these countries in accepting refugees could be a microcosm of the issues that other countries deal with. Doesnt help when these low crime countries have to endure the unfathomable in respect to crime and have it come from "outsiders". I'd probably venture to guess that the indigenous populations of these countries looked similar to the current populace. The Vikings were known to take slaves and somehow they were not dispersed among the general population in terms of diversifying the gene pool.
You're probably familiar with the old trope "The sun never sets on the British Empire." And at one time, that was true- think of all the different people in far-flung corners of the globe who lived under the Union Jack until post-WWII. Once they became a maritime power and acquired colonies, there was no way the UK would ever again be considered a 'monoculture'. Contrast with the colonial aspirations of the Scandinavian states; what, they had/have none? As such, there are no great populations of 'outsiders' claiming to be subjects of the Norwegian/Swedish crowns and migrating to those lands en masse...
I guess I miss some posts because of "ignore". Anyway I will try to clarify some points: 1. "The sun never sets" was used for ancient empires. In modern times it was used for German Empire first, not for the British one: The phrase "the empire on which the sun never sets" (Spanish: el imperio donde nunca se pone el sol) was used to describe certain global empires that were so extensive that it seemed as though it was always daytime in at least one part of its territory. The concept of an empire ruling all lands where the sun shines dates back to the ancient Egyptians, Mesopotamians, Persians, and Romans. In its modern form, it was first used for the Habsburg Empire of Charles V, who, as Duke of Burgundy, King of Spain, Archduke of Austria, and Holy Roman Emperor, attempted to build a universal monarchy. The term was then used for the Spanish Empire of Philip II of Spain and successors when the empire reached a global territorial size, particularly in the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries.[1][2][3] It was used for the British Empire, mainly in the 19th and early 20th centuries, a period in which it reached a global territorial size. In the 20th century, the phrase has sometimes been adapted to refer to the global reach of American power. If you need more information please read :"The shortest history of Germany" by James Hawes 2. Swedes always tried to colonize the other countries. They were contained by Russians during Peter the Great (or Peter the Mad). Their king Carl XII and the nobility fled to Turkish land and stayed there 5.5 years.Hence Carl was renamed as Carl the Fixed Asset by Turkish historians. After too many failed attempts against Russians they imported one of Bonaparte's general as their king. 3. Finns has no relation to the other Scandinavian nations. As Uralic people they have already invaded the current Finland (or should I say Suomi). They speak a different language (an agglunative language, part of Transeurasian language family -used to be called Ural-Altaic, most similar to Hungarian and Estonian) 4. Finns are brave people but it does not mean they did not lose twice to Russia. Some people try to create a false narrative, kind of Finnish Rambos. Rambo was brave but the US failed in Vietnam, Finns were brave but they lost twice in 1930s-40s. Hope Finns live as happy ever and do not return to be "the poorest nation of Europe" as they were in 1945 but there is no need to provoke them for another war. We need more Sibelius, Litmanen, Markkanen than snipers.
Many of the slaves taken were sold down market or taken directly to the great slave markets of Dar Al Islam. A trade so prolific that the word for "slave" in most Germanic and Romance languages comes from "Slav", not Latin "Servus" or Norse "Thrall". The Viking involvement in the european slave trade was tremendous, but the men and many of the women were simply sold instead of taken back to Scandinavia. Most slaves taken back to Scandinavia were women turned into concubines, and mostly came from either Northern European, Celtic, or Slavic stock, their children were already half norse to begin with, and unversially adopted the culture of their fathers. As for the crime issues today, much of the issues emerge from governments trying to run cover for said immigrant communities to prevent support for migration collapsing. The worst example being the British government allowing rape and grooming gangs to run rampant across the UK, which almost universially pray on underage British girls, with gag orders given to victims, and in some cases, more victims seeing prison time than the rapists.
This thread became surprisingly informative! Love to learn new things. Appreciate everyone who chimed in. Never thought Finland could be so polarizing!
