Mindannyiunk kedves Czirok Pétere, Mohácsi Erzsébet délmagyarországi jobbkeze és sokszáz tanulni vágyó fehér és roma(!) deszegregált iskolába, deviáns, tetves putrispurdékkal összekényszerített gyerek jövőjének tönkretevője, megint alkotott. A következő hazugságot eresztette el az ITT (legalul) található írásában:
"Viszont, ha már szóba került: Finnország, a kompetencia alpú oktatásnak köszönhetően minden felmérésben az első helyen végez.
S, hogy mekkora a különbség a finn cigányság és a magyarországi cigányság közt? Nézd meg magad...
Finnország
Magyarország"
"Viszont, ha már szóba került: Finnország, a kompetencia alpú oktatásnak köszönhetően minden felmérésben az első helyen végez.
S, hogy mekkora a különbség a finn cigányság és a magyarországi cigányság közt? Nézd meg magad...
Finnország
Magyarország"
Alul a linkek Joakim Eskildsen általunk ITT bemutatott és kommentált képeire mutatnak, amelyek kapcsán elmondtuk, hogy egyrészt a finn képek borzasztóan ”mûtermi”, beállított alkotások, másrészt azt is bizonyítják, milyen hihetetlen pénzeket pumpálnak a cigókba, hogy még a szaros, amúgy több ezer euróba kerülő népviseletüket is ingyen megkapják. Szutyok Czirok szerint a képek viszont azt bizonyítják, hogy a romák milyen szépen beilleszkedtek a finn társadalomba, iskolázottak, munkaszeretők stb., hiszen, lám, a képek szerint nem élnek putris körülmények között. Nem ez az első ordas hazugsága...
Czirok fenti, első megállapítása (hogyaszongya “Finnország, a kompetencia alpú oktatásnak köszönhetően minden felmérésben az első helyen végez”) meg csak és kizárólag a nemcigány lakosságra vonatkozik, a cigányra nem – azaz Czirok megint, ebben IS hazudik.
A mokkák Finnországban is éppen olyan iskolakerülők és analfabéták, mint nálunk vagy bárhol máshol, és összehasonlíthatatlanul, nagyságrendekkel iskolázatlanabbak, mint a többségi társadalom. Nem hiszi ezt a Kedves Olvasó, bár már számtalan példát és bizonyítékot mutattunk (lásd pl. EZT és legfőképp EZT)? Nos, akkor nézzük a két napja (!) megjelent, meglehetősen hosszú, de rendkívül tanulságos, ráadásul angol nyelvû, így finnül nem, de angolul beszélő olvasóink számára is emészthető, ITT található cikket. Legeslegfontosabb részét idézzük és fordítjuk le:
"Tanulmányomban 176 cigány és 174 finn bûnöző adatait használom fel. Természetesen, ez az anyag nem képezi le egy az egyben a társadalom szerkezetét, mivel a kutatások tárgyának családi kapcsolatai, háttere sok esetben nagyon problémás volt; de ettől függetlenül még mindig nagyon jól mutatja a különbségeket a finn és a cigány csoport között. (Kuruc.info: ne feledjük, hogy Finnországban a hivatalos statisztikák alapján a felnőtt férfi cigányoknak pont a fele(!) börtönviselt, így az orkokra vonatkozó arány igenis nagyon jól jellemzi az egész cigányságot – kivéve persze a kb. 1%-nyi, “kultúráját” feladott, beilleszkedett romát, aki még csak véletlenül sem tartja magát cigánynak, és rühelli fajtatársait. Ezen megjegyzés tehát inkább csak a politikai korrektség jegyében született, és gyakorlatilag csak a minimális mértékben bûnöző finnekre vonatkozik, az orkokra nem.)
Ebben a mintában [a 176-ból] 142 cigány nem végezte el a nyolc általánost [azaz 142 / 176 = 80%-uk], míg a finnek esetében csupán 29 [azaz 29 / 174 = 16%-uk]. Azon 23 cigány közül, amely elvégezte az általánost, 10 nevelkedett valamilyen intézményben (gyerekotthon vagy börtön), három pedig fehér, finn nevelőszülöknél [azaz igen nagy azoknak az aránya a tanult(abb)ak között, akik NEM cigány szocializációt kaptak – gyengébbek kedvéért, jobb lenne 142 / (176-10-3) = 87%-kkal számolni a cigány szocializációjú, általános iskolát el nem végzett, roma származású emberek számarányának meghatározásánál]. Az általánost el nem végzett 142 cigány között 23 olyan volt [23 / 142 = 16%], aki egyetlen egy osztályt sem végzett el. Egyetlen egy olyan cigány volt, aki a középiskolát elvégezte [1 / 176 = 0.56%]. Ami a fehéreket illeti, a családi, neveltetésbeli stb. problémák ellenére (Kuruc.info: vegyük észre, ezt külön hangsúlyozta a tanulmány, míg a cigók esetében nem; ezzel is bizonyítva, hogy a mokkákra vonatkozó arányszám általánosítható a teljes, hagyományos rétinéger életmód szerint élő cigányságra, míg a fehérek esetében ez nincs így) 131 elvégezte az általánost, 4 a gimnáziumot és 2 érettségivel is rendelkezett. A csoportban egyetlen egy olyan sincs, aki ne végezte el volna legalább az elsőt. Szintén érdeles, hogy miközben a finnek közül csak 9 járt kisegítőbe, ez a szám a cigányoknál 30 volt. A 30-ból két esetben megemlítették az okot: azért akartak feltétlenül oda járni, mert tele volt más cigánnyal [azaz a sajátjai között lehettek].
Ezek az eredmények semmi esetre sem meglepőek. A hivatalos iskolába járás soha nem volt cél a cigány kultúrában. (Kuruc.info: igen, ezt így leírta a tanulmány!)
Két, új, tudományos (Kuruc.info: na, fajvédők, ezen tessék fogást találni!) tanulmány szerint a cigányok oktatás irányában vett hozzáállása ellentmondásos. (Kuruc.info: milyen szép, polkorrekt megfogalmazása annak, hogy b*sznak tanulni, pedig meg lenne rá a lehetőségük, ráadásul a finn oktatási rendszer világelső, a legjobb tanárgárdával, így az a Magyarországon a fajvédőktől oly sokszor hallott érv sem lehet érvényes rá, miszerint a cigányok azért iskolázatlanok, mert a tanárok alkalmatlanok és kontraszelektáltak, és tényleg csak olyanok mennek erre a pályára, akik az égvilágon semmire sem alkalmasak.) Egyrészről, megértik, hogy amit az iskolában tanul az ember, az hasznos. Ugyanakkor az, amit az ember ott tanul, a többségi társadalom értékrendjéhez igazodik, amit a cigányok nem tartanak túl nagyra, amiről nem gondolkodnak túl pozitívan. A formális iskola nem érték a tradícionális cigány társadalomban."
Czirok fenti, első megállapítása (hogyaszongya “Finnország, a kompetencia alpú oktatásnak köszönhetően minden felmérésben az első helyen végez”) meg csak és kizárólag a nemcigány lakosságra vonatkozik, a cigányra nem – azaz Czirok megint, ebben IS hazudik.
A mokkák Finnországban is éppen olyan iskolakerülők és analfabéták, mint nálunk vagy bárhol máshol, és összehasonlíthatatlanul, nagyságrendekkel iskolázatlanabbak, mint a többségi társadalom. Nem hiszi ezt a Kedves Olvasó, bár már számtalan példát és bizonyítékot mutattunk (lásd pl. EZT és legfőképp EZT)? Nos, akkor nézzük a két napja (!) megjelent, meglehetősen hosszú, de rendkívül tanulságos, ráadásul angol nyelvû, így finnül nem, de angolul beszélő olvasóink számára is emészthető, ITT található cikket. Legeslegfontosabb részét idézzük és fordítjuk le:
"Tanulmányomban 176 cigány és 174 finn bûnöző adatait használom fel. Természetesen, ez az anyag nem képezi le egy az egyben a társadalom szerkezetét, mivel a kutatások tárgyának családi kapcsolatai, háttere sok esetben nagyon problémás volt; de ettől függetlenül még mindig nagyon jól mutatja a különbségeket a finn és a cigány csoport között. (Kuruc.info: ne feledjük, hogy Finnországban a hivatalos statisztikák alapján a felnőtt férfi cigányoknak pont a fele(!) börtönviselt, így az orkokra vonatkozó arány igenis nagyon jól jellemzi az egész cigányságot – kivéve persze a kb. 1%-nyi, “kultúráját” feladott, beilleszkedett romát, aki még csak véletlenül sem tartja magát cigánynak, és rühelli fajtatársait. Ezen megjegyzés tehát inkább csak a politikai korrektség jegyében született, és gyakorlatilag csak a minimális mértékben bûnöző finnekre vonatkozik, az orkokra nem.)
Ebben a mintában [a 176-ból] 142 cigány nem végezte el a nyolc általánost [azaz 142 / 176 = 80%-uk], míg a finnek esetében csupán 29 [azaz 29 / 174 = 16%-uk]. Azon 23 cigány közül, amely elvégezte az általánost, 10 nevelkedett valamilyen intézményben (gyerekotthon vagy börtön), három pedig fehér, finn nevelőszülöknél [azaz igen nagy azoknak az aránya a tanult(abb)ak között, akik NEM cigány szocializációt kaptak – gyengébbek kedvéért, jobb lenne 142 / (176-10-3) = 87%-kkal számolni a cigány szocializációjú, általános iskolát el nem végzett, roma származású emberek számarányának meghatározásánál]. Az általánost el nem végzett 142 cigány között 23 olyan volt [23 / 142 = 16%], aki egyetlen egy osztályt sem végzett el. Egyetlen egy olyan cigány volt, aki a középiskolát elvégezte [1 / 176 = 0.56%]. Ami a fehéreket illeti, a családi, neveltetésbeli stb. problémák ellenére (Kuruc.info: vegyük észre, ezt külön hangsúlyozta a tanulmány, míg a cigók esetében nem; ezzel is bizonyítva, hogy a mokkákra vonatkozó arányszám általánosítható a teljes, hagyományos rétinéger életmód szerint élő cigányságra, míg a fehérek esetében ez nincs így) 131 elvégezte az általánost, 4 a gimnáziumot és 2 érettségivel is rendelkezett. A csoportban egyetlen egy olyan sincs, aki ne végezte el volna legalább az elsőt. Szintén érdeles, hogy miközben a finnek közül csak 9 járt kisegítőbe, ez a szám a cigányoknál 30 volt. A 30-ból két esetben megemlítették az okot: azért akartak feltétlenül oda járni, mert tele volt más cigánnyal [azaz a sajátjai között lehettek].
Ezek az eredmények semmi esetre sem meglepőek. A hivatalos iskolába járás soha nem volt cél a cigány kultúrában. (Kuruc.info: igen, ezt így leírta a tanulmány!)
Két, új, tudományos (Kuruc.info: na, fajvédők, ezen tessék fogást találni!) tanulmány szerint a cigányok oktatás irányában vett hozzáállása ellentmondásos. (Kuruc.info: milyen szép, polkorrekt megfogalmazása annak, hogy b*sznak tanulni, pedig meg lenne rá a lehetőségük, ráadásul a finn oktatási rendszer világelső, a legjobb tanárgárdával, így az a Magyarországon a fajvédőktől oly sokszor hallott érv sem lehet érvényes rá, miszerint a cigányok azért iskolázatlanok, mert a tanárok alkalmatlanok és kontraszelektáltak, és tényleg csak olyanok mennek erre a pályára, akik az égvilágon semmire sem alkalmasak.) Egyrészről, megértik, hogy amit az iskolában tanul az ember, az hasznos. Ugyanakkor az, amit az ember ott tanul, a többségi társadalom értékrendjéhez igazodik, amit a cigányok nem tartanak túl nagyra, amiről nem gondolkodnak túl pozitívan. A formális iskola nem érték a tradícionális cigány társadalomban."
Kuruc.info - Arppi S.
Az eredeti cikk alább (félkövérrel a lefordított részek). Figyelem, a tanulmány jó része politikailag korrekt porhintés és cigánysajnáltatás; a fenti, rideg, támadhatatlan, objektív számok, adatok és megállapítások viszont magukért beszélnek.
"The principle of equality in Finnish minority policy
written by Anna Maria Viljanen, Institute of Culture and Anthropology, University of Finland
In this paper I have two aims. First I want to discuss the concepts ethnic, ethnicity and minority which are often used in overlapping and miscellaneous ways. My second point is not the adult education for Finnish minorities but to discuss the reasons why a special ethnic group, Gypsies or Roma in this country that is proud of its high standards of education and a practically non-existent percentage of illiteracy, need adult education acutely.
Now first to the terminological question. With the concept minority we usually understand a population group comprising a numerically inferior position in a state, and distinguished in some sense from the majority. In order to constitute a minority the members of the group must also have certain characteristics in common, must be conscious of these characteristics and be desirous of preserving them. In documents by Advisory Board for International Human Rights Affairs the notion national minority includes ethnic, religious, and linguistic minorities of a given state. Members of these minorities are also citizens of this state. This definition excludes various immigrant groups.
The terms 'ethnicity', 'ethnic minority' are much more vague. In everyday speech they are used quite loosely. We speak for example, of 'ethnic music' and 'ethnic dance', we have 'ethnic restaurants' and so on. It is also used in political discussions to argue and explain different demands which groups have. In scientific texts it has also been used very differently according to the writer's discipline so that it has almost become an empty attribute, to describe or explain almost anything. Seldom do we stop to consider what we really mean with this attribution.
I leave the very interesting etymology of the word ethnicity and only state that this originally Greek word in the early texts meant foreign or barbarous nations, as opposed to 'Hellenes', In later texts it meant religious otherness, that is, non-Christian and non-Jewish. Its recent use has the echo of this latter meaning, with connotations of 'difference' from us, our way of life and general 'otherness'. One characteristic of this term ethnic seems to be a rather vague label which is given to somebody who is somehow different from the speaker. The more exotic a group looks to us the more easily it is given the label ethnic.
Ethnicity is something that a member of an ethnic group seems to have in vommon with other members of the group. It represents those common cultural characteristics that are different from the speaker's own group, examples of this are the above mentioned ethnic music and ethnic dance. So some immigrant groups are called 'ethnic groups' in the Western discussion; the original people, the majority is not ethnic. In Finland we call ourselves 'Finnish citizens', and our country is a nation but we do not tell anybody that we are an ethnic group called 'Finns'. The immigrants may also be Finnish citizens but the majority group categorizes them in the first place as an ethnic group. This distinction is very similar in many European countries and it becomes emphasized especially in situations where the classifier is white and the classified are coloured. The more culturally remote a person is from us and the more different the appearance of this person is from us, the more easily he or she can be distinguished from us by these external criteria and the more probably this group will be called an ethnic group. We have ethnic restaurants owned by Greeks or Indians; we have also American snackbar chains McDonalds' and Carrols' etc. but nobody labels them ethnic.
So it is no wonder that in recent sociological and anthropological texts it has been claimed that the concepts ethnic and ethnicity do not exclusively mean only cultural characteristics shared by a certain group but they may also have implications to biological features. It has also been warned that the term ethnic is only a more civilized alias to the word race with its very notorious connotations to the old devil, racial hierarchy. Race itself as a biological concept is neutral; everyone belongs to a race. But when it is laden with hierarchical values it becomes susceptible. The white minorities, for example Jews, Irishmen in England or white immigrants in Western countries are less likely categorized as ethnic groups than the coloured groups.
Minority groups very often lack political or economic power. If they are ethnic minorities their cultural 'otherness' hinders obtaining political endorsement and influence on society at large. The general 'otherness' also makes these groups easily targets to different kinds of discrimination in their everyday life. The demands of equal human rights and non-discrimination, however, belong to the ideological principles of the modern world and the status of different oppressed minorities has been attempted to improve by legislation both internationally and nationally. The UN Human Rights Commission speaks also of 'protection of minorities'. According to Myntti (1992: 6-7) the concepts of equality and non-discrimination are distinct from the protection of minorities: The non-discrimination and equality imply a formal guarantee of uniform treatment for all individuals. The protection of minorities implies special measures in favour of members of a minority group.
Finland has been one of culturally and religiously most homogenous countries in Europe. Here are only five so called endogenous minorities (by endogenous minorities is meant groups that already have lived a long time, for several generations in a given country). The Swedish speaking linguistic minority, the Samis (or the Lapps; 5700), the main part of the group lives in the northern part of the country, a very small Jewish group (about 1200 persons), the still more smaller group of islamic Tatars (less than 1000) who came originally from Russia in 19th century. There are also the Romas or the Gypsies, all in all 6000 persons and about 3000 persons who quite recently have moved over to Sweden. They still have close contacts to their relatives in Finland. There are documents of Gypsies in Finland from the 16th century; in Central Europe they have been documented some decades earlier.
Compared to the other Scandinavian countries Finland has a small number of distinct immigrant groups, with the largest perhaps coming from the former USSR.
Also religiously Finland is extremely homogenous. More than 90 percent of Finns belong to thr Lutheran protestant church which is the official state church. About 53 000 persons belong to the Eastern Orthodox Church, which originally prevailed in the Eastern provinces of Finland. Now it has the semi-official status. The official and semi-official status means for instance, that the members of these churches pay tax. Roman catholics, since the Reformation (in 15th century) have been here a very small minority, of about 4000 persons today. Roman catholic congregations in Finland now includes refugees or immigrants from catholic countries like Chile and Philippines and also the descendants of the Polish military who immigrated here in the 19th century when both Finland and Poland were under Russian rule, Finland as an autonomic grand duchy, about a period of one hundred years. Freedom of religion is guaranteed by law.
There are historical reasons why the Swedish speaking minority is one of the minority groups by which the protection principle has been realized very clearly and also by specific laws. As Finland was a part of the Swedish kingdom until the beginning of the 19th century, the official administrative language in Finland has been Swedish until the late 19th century - despite of the period of Russian rule. Now both Swedish and Finnish have the status of national languages. Other minority groups have either had more or less to fight for their equal linguistic status in the society or to adopt the Finnish language so that it can be used at school and with authorities. A result of this fight is the recent right (1991) for the Sami people to use their own language before courts of law and other authorities. Sami language is of course in a different position from the Swedish language because there have been problems on how to get common ortography for different and small Sami linguistic groups.
In this last part of my paper I shall concentrate on some specific questions which concern specially the Gypsy minority in Finland and some cultural factors in their way of life that seem to be contradictory with our qualification-conscious society.
The attitudes among authorities towards the romani minority are ambiguous: on the other hand it is considered very important that the Finnish citizens are treated equally; an example of this is the nonexistance of official statistics or registers that are based on ethnicity (Myntti 1992: 4). There is also the law of a common compulsory education, the main parts of the curriculum being the same to every pupil. The different sectors of the public health service treat their clients equally: everyone has the right to get proper health care in spite of their ethnic origin. Still the authorities who work with Gypsies face many difficulties. Too many Gypsies are in jails, depend on social welfare services, dislike and do not complete the comprehensive school. These are just the same features that describe for example black minorities both in England and in the USA.
The authorities have tried the equality principle when considering Gypsy affairs and in many cases and situations it has proved to lead to failures. Quite recently there have been some protective steps which have concentrated on reforming their social conditions. About forty years ago, in 1950's many Gypsies were at least seminomadic and lived on their so-called traditional sources of livelihood, horse-dealing, peddling, handicraft and so on. The authorities saw the poverty, the homelessness, the lack of formal education and tried to reform their standard of living for example by giving Gypsies improved dwellings through the availability of 30 years low interest loans. That is a very good benefit, because of the peculiarity of Finnish dwelling policy which has favoured owner-occupied dwellings, the prices of which have been very high and most people, especially young couples were and still are heavily in debt. By these minority-favouring steps it was thought also that the other conditions for better living were fulfilled: Gypsies would live in a house instead of travelling around and children would go to school, learn an occupation and begin to live like ordinary people.
In the back of the mind of the reformers has been a clear vision of how a person ought to get on in his life and cope with everyday problems. The surface of the 'otherness' of this minority group is seen very clearly. But the specialities of Gypsy culture are seen from the outside and therefore are superficial and stereotyped. That is why the image of Gypsy culture is shaped so fragmentarily. Gypsy culture is like an old-fashioned ethnographic museum exhibition, where the museum pieces have been taken out of their original context and the visitors can only superficially understand the inner meanings of the pieces to their original owners. And as in an exhibition, the cultural stuff is supposed to be easily exchanged with other cultural stuff, in this case the cultural stuff of the majority.
As the general attitude towards Gypsy culture can be said to be at least slightly negative I have in other occasions called Gypsy culture from the majority's viewpoint an illness which ought be cured. In my recent study on the forensic psychiatrists' reports of both gypsy and Finnish criminals the term 'pathological culture' occurred only in connection of the Gypsy explorands. The Gypsy culture was in some reports taken for the origin and cause of criminality, different personality disorders and inferior intelligence. The medicine to this kind of viciousness is naturally the adaptation to the majority's way of life.
This pathologization of a given culture is not a typically Finnish feature. For example in Great Britain and in the USA some minority groups are easily considered culturally pathological because their family systems are different from the typical Western family and this somehow defective family structure is thought to lead to pathological family dynamics.
But the authorities are not solely to be blamed for their lack of deep understanding and ignorance of the Gypsy culture. Gypsies have had very bitter experiences during many centuries in Europe that they have been treated extremely hostile which has even lead to persecutions and holocaust. There is no more reasonable cause to these cruelties than the usual xenophobia, majority's fear of strange people and their alien customs and ways of life. For example, in Finland the Gypsies' own language, Romani, has degenerated and it has been on the verge of extinction because Gypsies have used it mostly as a secret language. Its publication has been impossible until now because of the fear that Finnish people will learn it and then in some confrontation situations use their power through this knowledge against Gypsies.
The small number of Gypsies keeps them politically ineffective so that they don't have a strong lobby group to act as a protagonist in their affairs.
As earlier mentioned, the lack of Gypsies' formal education which is seen in the high rates of uncompleted comprehensive or primary school is one of the problems that is known in many countries. As I already mentioned, we do not have any official national statistics on this, only some provincial and unofficial small scale surveys have been made very haphazardly.
In my study, the material consisted of written psychiatric reports on 176 Gypsy and 174 on Finnish criminals from 1960 till 1988. Of course this material is biased compared with the average population because the family background of many explorands was very problematic and they were criminals prescribed to evaluation of responsibility, but it still shows clearly the difference between these groups.
In this material 142 of the Gypsy group had uncompleted comprehensive or primary school, of the Finnish group the corresponding numbers were 29. Of those 23 Gypsies who completed their comprehensive school 10 lived in some institution, like jail, reformatory or orphanage, 3 lived with his Finnish adoption parents. Of these 142 Gypsies with this uncompleted formal education 23 completed less than one grade or nothing. One Gypsy completed his O-level examination or junior high school. In spite of family problems, personality problems, for instance lack of concentration and impulsiveness, 131 of the Finnish explorands completed their comprehensive or primary school either living at home or in some institution. 4 of them completed the O-level examination or junior high school, 2 passed their matriculation examinations. None of the Finnish group is totally without formal education. It is also interesting that 30 Gypsies and only 9 Finns attended school for retarded children. In two Gypsy cases was a mention of their motivation: they wanted to go to this school because there were other Gypsy children. One psychiatrist wondered why one Gypsy explorand attended a school for retarded children although his level of intelligence was quite normal.
These results are surely no surprise to many teachers who have Gypsy pupils. Formal education has not been an aim as such in Gypsy culture.
According to two recent academic studies the attitude of Gypsies themselves toward formal education is contradictory. On the one hand it is well understood that school is a place where you can learn many useful skills, reading, writing and so on. On the other hand the values you learn at school are the the values of the majority which are not thought highly of. Formal education has not been a value as such, in traditional Gypsy society there have not been such models for children. In Finland a highly regarded Gypsy adult was capable to earn his or her livelihood, take care of his or hers family. The persons who live on social welfare are not thought highly of. The traditional occupations of Gypsies in Finland dealt with different kinds of clients. As a horse-dealer, peddlar, tinker, fortune-teller a capable Gypsy needed the skill to cope with different and often difficult situations and people. Children learnt this skill with their parents. According to my material it seems that still in 60's and 70's young Gypsy boys interrupted their school every now and then and went with their father or their uncle or elder brother or cousin to make some kind of business. That was the vocational school for Gypsies who wanted to be in later age of a highly regarded man. Formal education does not give tools for this kind of living.
The basic values that Gypsies still consider as their cultural cornerstone are typical to many so called collective cultures: extreme loyalty to the kingroup and family. In gypsy culture all over the world to this credo is also entwined a bunch of strict moral codes derived from the ideology of ritual cleanliness and avoidance of pollution. This dichotomical ideology of purity and impurity divides things to pure and impure and constitutes a hierachical structure of persons. I'll try shortly to explain what this means in everyday life.
When we speak of ritual cleanliness in connection of a person it means a decently behaving person; that is a person who knows the Gypsy rules of (I purposely use an old-fashioned word) chastity. That is: not to speak directly or indirectly of any matters connected with sexuality and bodily functions. These prohitions are very strict in mixed company and in company of persons who are older than the speaker. This chain of thought is clearly understood with a couple of examples: It is not proper for parents to mention a child's age in the presence of older people. The age of the child is a link to the polluting incident of delivery and also to the marriage of the parents. (In Finland Gypsies have the so called marriage by elopment: nobody is supposed to notice the courting of the young couple and they leave their kingroups secrectly and keep avoiding their parents and old relatives some months).
Also it is not proper to speak after a meal of 'full stomach' or to merely hint to other bodily functions. The straightforward approach of health care personal to gynaecological and internal problems is considered extremely embarrassing. This embarrassment is also seen in attitudes toward those parts of the curriculum where themes like health and sex education are discussed.
To the rules of decent behaviour belong also the the rules concerning to dress properly. The adult Gypsy woman in Finland wears a quite unique dress: a very large black velvet skirt (like the gentlewoman's dress from the middle of the 19th century) with a long-sleeved blouse of some fine material, silk, lace etc. The dress is very spectacular. It is a sign of a grown-up woman, and is not considered proper that young and immature girls should wear it; but when the girl looks mature and begins to have male company her parents will ask a semptress to sew it to her.
Teachers have noticed that in many cases after the girl has begun to wear this dress she leaves the school for good.
The function of this dress is to cover decently the female body, especially her legs and arms. Therefore it is considered most improper to even young girls to wear slacs let alone grown-up women. Because of these strict rules - combined also with rules which do not allow public nakedness or showing in underwear - the physical training lessons might turn to the stumbling block at school.
On the highest level of the hierarchical gypsy society are the oldest ones. They are also the most ritually pure persons and can claim respect from the younger ones, especially from young women. Respect is shown also to everybody who is some years older than yourself. Young women must be humble and decent in many situations also in mixed company of of her own age group and it is shown by the above mentioned avoidance of certain topics but also by ways of speech, as not to be on first name terms and so on. This sounds very old-fashioned here in Finland where the Scandinavian idea of equality has been realized also in manners: it is quite usual in shops that also old people are spoken to informally.
There are many more rules: how to handle food and dish without soiling them, how to organize the dwelling so that the ritual cleanliness of the things and people living there is maintained. All these rules are connected to the moral values of the Gypsy community: if a person follows these rules as far as possible, he or she is maintaining also the honour of his or her kingroup. If he or she consciously breaks the rules not only the offender but the whole kin is resposible for this offence. The most dangerous offences, besides bringing shame on her husband by adultery, are often due to a woman's failure to obey the rules, for example to behave clumsily, dishonouring old people by polluting them by stepping on their clothes or sitting on their bed or clothes, going upstairs knowing that there are old people downstairs or polluting them by speaking in their precence of those above mentioned shameful things. The person offended and his or hers kinsmen can demand compensation: The husband or the brothers of the offending woman is supposed to punish her and in case of extremely serious offence the dishonoured party can demand compensation which leads to open hostilities between the two kingroups.
The close contacts especially between kinsmen and also other Gypsies is so important that if a situation arises where a kinsman needs the support of the large kingroup as is the case of illness, death or trial, nothing - neither long distances nor childrens' school can prevent - them from coming. The normal school is also interrupted in situations when two kingroups have drifted into an open conflict and somebody has been wounded or killed. The parties involved in the fight and also their families and persons belonging to the kin have to avoid each other after the incident. That means often moving over to some other province, perhaps to another country, usually to Sweden and also explains some of the interruptions to school and the earlier mentioned failure in the attempt to improve the Gypsies' living conditions with the long-term loan.
Gypsies do not approve the majority's moral values. They think our morality in sexual matters very low which can be verified in high rates of venereal diseases, they do not appreciate our disrespect of our old people, they seem to think that formal education as such makes people emotionally cool and robotlike when it demands strict schedules and long-term planning.
The equality principle is very noble so far as everyone wants to be treated equally in all situations. But it has turned against itself in the educational frame of reference and also for example in the mental health sector, where the specialities of each client, both individually based and culturally based, must be paid attention to. The demand for equality, to treat everyone similarly, in these occasions has shifted to the demand of similarity in cultural questions and that denies an important part of a person's identity.
So what can be done? Special schools for Gypsies has been suggested. Gypsies say that the idea is impossible because some kingroups have been on avoiding terms for several generations time because of old quarrels.
Although I am not a Gypsy, it is also relatively easy to tell fortunes to the Finnish authorities in these problems. Culturally different very distant refugee groups will continuously arrive to Finland in spite of the reluctance of the authorities, politicians and opinions of ordinary people, and more flexibility is needed to treat them as equal persons who have the right to be accepted as a whole personality, of which their cultural identity is an important part. To deny that part of the identity is to deny their history and their social networks and their moral values."
Az eredeti cikk alább (félkövérrel a lefordított részek). Figyelem, a tanulmány jó része politikailag korrekt porhintés és cigánysajnáltatás; a fenti, rideg, támadhatatlan, objektív számok, adatok és megállapítások viszont magukért beszélnek.
"The principle of equality in Finnish minority policy
written by Anna Maria Viljanen, Institute of Culture and Anthropology, University of Finland
In this paper I have two aims. First I want to discuss the concepts ethnic, ethnicity and minority which are often used in overlapping and miscellaneous ways. My second point is not the adult education for Finnish minorities but to discuss the reasons why a special ethnic group, Gypsies or Roma in this country that is proud of its high standards of education and a practically non-existent percentage of illiteracy, need adult education acutely.
Now first to the terminological question. With the concept minority we usually understand a population group comprising a numerically inferior position in a state, and distinguished in some sense from the majority. In order to constitute a minority the members of the group must also have certain characteristics in common, must be conscious of these characteristics and be desirous of preserving them. In documents by Advisory Board for International Human Rights Affairs the notion national minority includes ethnic, religious, and linguistic minorities of a given state. Members of these minorities are also citizens of this state. This definition excludes various immigrant groups.
The terms 'ethnicity', 'ethnic minority' are much more vague. In everyday speech they are used quite loosely. We speak for example, of 'ethnic music' and 'ethnic dance', we have 'ethnic restaurants' and so on. It is also used in political discussions to argue and explain different demands which groups have. In scientific texts it has also been used very differently according to the writer's discipline so that it has almost become an empty attribute, to describe or explain almost anything. Seldom do we stop to consider what we really mean with this attribution.
I leave the very interesting etymology of the word ethnicity and only state that this originally Greek word in the early texts meant foreign or barbarous nations, as opposed to 'Hellenes', In later texts it meant religious otherness, that is, non-Christian and non-Jewish. Its recent use has the echo of this latter meaning, with connotations of 'difference' from us, our way of life and general 'otherness'. One characteristic of this term ethnic seems to be a rather vague label which is given to somebody who is somehow different from the speaker. The more exotic a group looks to us the more easily it is given the label ethnic.
Ethnicity is something that a member of an ethnic group seems to have in vommon with other members of the group. It represents those common cultural characteristics that are different from the speaker's own group, examples of this are the above mentioned ethnic music and ethnic dance. So some immigrant groups are called 'ethnic groups' in the Western discussion; the original people, the majority is not ethnic. In Finland we call ourselves 'Finnish citizens', and our country is a nation but we do not tell anybody that we are an ethnic group called 'Finns'. The immigrants may also be Finnish citizens but the majority group categorizes them in the first place as an ethnic group. This distinction is very similar in many European countries and it becomes emphasized especially in situations where the classifier is white and the classified are coloured. The more culturally remote a person is from us and the more different the appearance of this person is from us, the more easily he or she can be distinguished from us by these external criteria and the more probably this group will be called an ethnic group. We have ethnic restaurants owned by Greeks or Indians; we have also American snackbar chains McDonalds' and Carrols' etc. but nobody labels them ethnic.
So it is no wonder that in recent sociological and anthropological texts it has been claimed that the concepts ethnic and ethnicity do not exclusively mean only cultural characteristics shared by a certain group but they may also have implications to biological features. It has also been warned that the term ethnic is only a more civilized alias to the word race with its very notorious connotations to the old devil, racial hierarchy. Race itself as a biological concept is neutral; everyone belongs to a race. But when it is laden with hierarchical values it becomes susceptible. The white minorities, for example Jews, Irishmen in England or white immigrants in Western countries are less likely categorized as ethnic groups than the coloured groups.
Minority groups very often lack political or economic power. If they are ethnic minorities their cultural 'otherness' hinders obtaining political endorsement and influence on society at large. The general 'otherness' also makes these groups easily targets to different kinds of discrimination in their everyday life. The demands of equal human rights and non-discrimination, however, belong to the ideological principles of the modern world and the status of different oppressed minorities has been attempted to improve by legislation both internationally and nationally. The UN Human Rights Commission speaks also of 'protection of minorities'. According to Myntti (1992: 6-7) the concepts of equality and non-discrimination are distinct from the protection of minorities: The non-discrimination and equality imply a formal guarantee of uniform treatment for all individuals. The protection of minorities implies special measures in favour of members of a minority group.
Finland has been one of culturally and religiously most homogenous countries in Europe. Here are only five so called endogenous minorities (by endogenous minorities is meant groups that already have lived a long time, for several generations in a given country). The Swedish speaking linguistic minority, the Samis (or the Lapps; 5700), the main part of the group lives in the northern part of the country, a very small Jewish group (about 1200 persons), the still more smaller group of islamic Tatars (less than 1000) who came originally from Russia in 19th century. There are also the Romas or the Gypsies, all in all 6000 persons and about 3000 persons who quite recently have moved over to Sweden. They still have close contacts to their relatives in Finland. There are documents of Gypsies in Finland from the 16th century; in Central Europe they have been documented some decades earlier.
Compared to the other Scandinavian countries Finland has a small number of distinct immigrant groups, with the largest perhaps coming from the former USSR.
Also religiously Finland is extremely homogenous. More than 90 percent of Finns belong to thr Lutheran protestant church which is the official state church. About 53 000 persons belong to the Eastern Orthodox Church, which originally prevailed in the Eastern provinces of Finland. Now it has the semi-official status. The official and semi-official status means for instance, that the members of these churches pay tax. Roman catholics, since the Reformation (in 15th century) have been here a very small minority, of about 4000 persons today. Roman catholic congregations in Finland now includes refugees or immigrants from catholic countries like Chile and Philippines and also the descendants of the Polish military who immigrated here in the 19th century when both Finland and Poland were under Russian rule, Finland as an autonomic grand duchy, about a period of one hundred years. Freedom of religion is guaranteed by law.
There are historical reasons why the Swedish speaking minority is one of the minority groups by which the protection principle has been realized very clearly and also by specific laws. As Finland was a part of the Swedish kingdom until the beginning of the 19th century, the official administrative language in Finland has been Swedish until the late 19th century - despite of the period of Russian rule. Now both Swedish and Finnish have the status of national languages. Other minority groups have either had more or less to fight for their equal linguistic status in the society or to adopt the Finnish language so that it can be used at school and with authorities. A result of this fight is the recent right (1991) for the Sami people to use their own language before courts of law and other authorities. Sami language is of course in a different position from the Swedish language because there have been problems on how to get common ortography for different and small Sami linguistic groups.
In this last part of my paper I shall concentrate on some specific questions which concern specially the Gypsy minority in Finland and some cultural factors in their way of life that seem to be contradictory with our qualification-conscious society.
The attitudes among authorities towards the romani minority are ambiguous: on the other hand it is considered very important that the Finnish citizens are treated equally; an example of this is the nonexistance of official statistics or registers that are based on ethnicity (Myntti 1992: 4). There is also the law of a common compulsory education, the main parts of the curriculum being the same to every pupil. The different sectors of the public health service treat their clients equally: everyone has the right to get proper health care in spite of their ethnic origin. Still the authorities who work with Gypsies face many difficulties. Too many Gypsies are in jails, depend on social welfare services, dislike and do not complete the comprehensive school. These are just the same features that describe for example black minorities both in England and in the USA.
The authorities have tried the equality principle when considering Gypsy affairs and in many cases and situations it has proved to lead to failures. Quite recently there have been some protective steps which have concentrated on reforming their social conditions. About forty years ago, in 1950's many Gypsies were at least seminomadic and lived on their so-called traditional sources of livelihood, horse-dealing, peddling, handicraft and so on. The authorities saw the poverty, the homelessness, the lack of formal education and tried to reform their standard of living for example by giving Gypsies improved dwellings through the availability of 30 years low interest loans. That is a very good benefit, because of the peculiarity of Finnish dwelling policy which has favoured owner-occupied dwellings, the prices of which have been very high and most people, especially young couples were and still are heavily in debt. By these minority-favouring steps it was thought also that the other conditions for better living were fulfilled: Gypsies would live in a house instead of travelling around and children would go to school, learn an occupation and begin to live like ordinary people.
In the back of the mind of the reformers has been a clear vision of how a person ought to get on in his life and cope with everyday problems. The surface of the 'otherness' of this minority group is seen very clearly. But the specialities of Gypsy culture are seen from the outside and therefore are superficial and stereotyped. That is why the image of Gypsy culture is shaped so fragmentarily. Gypsy culture is like an old-fashioned ethnographic museum exhibition, where the museum pieces have been taken out of their original context and the visitors can only superficially understand the inner meanings of the pieces to their original owners. And as in an exhibition, the cultural stuff is supposed to be easily exchanged with other cultural stuff, in this case the cultural stuff of the majority.
As the general attitude towards Gypsy culture can be said to be at least slightly negative I have in other occasions called Gypsy culture from the majority's viewpoint an illness which ought be cured. In my recent study on the forensic psychiatrists' reports of both gypsy and Finnish criminals the term 'pathological culture' occurred only in connection of the Gypsy explorands. The Gypsy culture was in some reports taken for the origin and cause of criminality, different personality disorders and inferior intelligence. The medicine to this kind of viciousness is naturally the adaptation to the majority's way of life.
This pathologization of a given culture is not a typically Finnish feature. For example in Great Britain and in the USA some minority groups are easily considered culturally pathological because their family systems are different from the typical Western family and this somehow defective family structure is thought to lead to pathological family dynamics.
But the authorities are not solely to be blamed for their lack of deep understanding and ignorance of the Gypsy culture. Gypsies have had very bitter experiences during many centuries in Europe that they have been treated extremely hostile which has even lead to persecutions and holocaust. There is no more reasonable cause to these cruelties than the usual xenophobia, majority's fear of strange people and their alien customs and ways of life. For example, in Finland the Gypsies' own language, Romani, has degenerated and it has been on the verge of extinction because Gypsies have used it mostly as a secret language. Its publication has been impossible until now because of the fear that Finnish people will learn it and then in some confrontation situations use their power through this knowledge against Gypsies.
The small number of Gypsies keeps them politically ineffective so that they don't have a strong lobby group to act as a protagonist in their affairs.
As earlier mentioned, the lack of Gypsies' formal education which is seen in the high rates of uncompleted comprehensive or primary school is one of the problems that is known in many countries. As I already mentioned, we do not have any official national statistics on this, only some provincial and unofficial small scale surveys have been made very haphazardly.
In my study, the material consisted of written psychiatric reports on 176 Gypsy and 174 on Finnish criminals from 1960 till 1988. Of course this material is biased compared with the average population because the family background of many explorands was very problematic and they were criminals prescribed to evaluation of responsibility, but it still shows clearly the difference between these groups.
In this material 142 of the Gypsy group had uncompleted comprehensive or primary school, of the Finnish group the corresponding numbers were 29. Of those 23 Gypsies who completed their comprehensive school 10 lived in some institution, like jail, reformatory or orphanage, 3 lived with his Finnish adoption parents. Of these 142 Gypsies with this uncompleted formal education 23 completed less than one grade or nothing. One Gypsy completed his O-level examination or junior high school. In spite of family problems, personality problems, for instance lack of concentration and impulsiveness, 131 of the Finnish explorands completed their comprehensive or primary school either living at home or in some institution. 4 of them completed the O-level examination or junior high school, 2 passed their matriculation examinations. None of the Finnish group is totally without formal education. It is also interesting that 30 Gypsies and only 9 Finns attended school for retarded children. In two Gypsy cases was a mention of their motivation: they wanted to go to this school because there were other Gypsy children. One psychiatrist wondered why one Gypsy explorand attended a school for retarded children although his level of intelligence was quite normal.
These results are surely no surprise to many teachers who have Gypsy pupils. Formal education has not been an aim as such in Gypsy culture.
According to two recent academic studies the attitude of Gypsies themselves toward formal education is contradictory. On the one hand it is well understood that school is a place where you can learn many useful skills, reading, writing and so on. On the other hand the values you learn at school are the the values of the majority which are not thought highly of. Formal education has not been a value as such, in traditional Gypsy society there have not been such models for children. In Finland a highly regarded Gypsy adult was capable to earn his or her livelihood, take care of his or hers family. The persons who live on social welfare are not thought highly of. The traditional occupations of Gypsies in Finland dealt with different kinds of clients. As a horse-dealer, peddlar, tinker, fortune-teller a capable Gypsy needed the skill to cope with different and often difficult situations and people. Children learnt this skill with their parents. According to my material it seems that still in 60's and 70's young Gypsy boys interrupted their school every now and then and went with their father or their uncle or elder brother or cousin to make some kind of business. That was the vocational school for Gypsies who wanted to be in later age of a highly regarded man. Formal education does not give tools for this kind of living.
The basic values that Gypsies still consider as their cultural cornerstone are typical to many so called collective cultures: extreme loyalty to the kingroup and family. In gypsy culture all over the world to this credo is also entwined a bunch of strict moral codes derived from the ideology of ritual cleanliness and avoidance of pollution. This dichotomical ideology of purity and impurity divides things to pure and impure and constitutes a hierachical structure of persons. I'll try shortly to explain what this means in everyday life.
When we speak of ritual cleanliness in connection of a person it means a decently behaving person; that is a person who knows the Gypsy rules of (I purposely use an old-fashioned word) chastity. That is: not to speak directly or indirectly of any matters connected with sexuality and bodily functions. These prohitions are very strict in mixed company and in company of persons who are older than the speaker. This chain of thought is clearly understood with a couple of examples: It is not proper for parents to mention a child's age in the presence of older people. The age of the child is a link to the polluting incident of delivery and also to the marriage of the parents. (In Finland Gypsies have the so called marriage by elopment: nobody is supposed to notice the courting of the young couple and they leave their kingroups secrectly and keep avoiding their parents and old relatives some months).
Also it is not proper to speak after a meal of 'full stomach' or to merely hint to other bodily functions. The straightforward approach of health care personal to gynaecological and internal problems is considered extremely embarrassing. This embarrassment is also seen in attitudes toward those parts of the curriculum where themes like health and sex education are discussed.
To the rules of decent behaviour belong also the the rules concerning to dress properly. The adult Gypsy woman in Finland wears a quite unique dress: a very large black velvet skirt (like the gentlewoman's dress from the middle of the 19th century) with a long-sleeved blouse of some fine material, silk, lace etc. The dress is very spectacular. It is a sign of a grown-up woman, and is not considered proper that young and immature girls should wear it; but when the girl looks mature and begins to have male company her parents will ask a semptress to sew it to her.
Teachers have noticed that in many cases after the girl has begun to wear this dress she leaves the school for good.
The function of this dress is to cover decently the female body, especially her legs and arms. Therefore it is considered most improper to even young girls to wear slacs let alone grown-up women. Because of these strict rules - combined also with rules which do not allow public nakedness or showing in underwear - the physical training lessons might turn to the stumbling block at school.
On the highest level of the hierarchical gypsy society are the oldest ones. They are also the most ritually pure persons and can claim respect from the younger ones, especially from young women. Respect is shown also to everybody who is some years older than yourself. Young women must be humble and decent in many situations also in mixed company of of her own age group and it is shown by the above mentioned avoidance of certain topics but also by ways of speech, as not to be on first name terms and so on. This sounds very old-fashioned here in Finland where the Scandinavian idea of equality has been realized also in manners: it is quite usual in shops that also old people are spoken to informally.
There are many more rules: how to handle food and dish without soiling them, how to organize the dwelling so that the ritual cleanliness of the things and people living there is maintained. All these rules are connected to the moral values of the Gypsy community: if a person follows these rules as far as possible, he or she is maintaining also the honour of his or her kingroup. If he or she consciously breaks the rules not only the offender but the whole kin is resposible for this offence. The most dangerous offences, besides bringing shame on her husband by adultery, are often due to a woman's failure to obey the rules, for example to behave clumsily, dishonouring old people by polluting them by stepping on their clothes or sitting on their bed or clothes, going upstairs knowing that there are old people downstairs or polluting them by speaking in their precence of those above mentioned shameful things. The person offended and his or hers kinsmen can demand compensation: The husband or the brothers of the offending woman is supposed to punish her and in case of extremely serious offence the dishonoured party can demand compensation which leads to open hostilities between the two kingroups.
The close contacts especially between kinsmen and also other Gypsies is so important that if a situation arises where a kinsman needs the support of the large kingroup as is the case of illness, death or trial, nothing - neither long distances nor childrens' school can prevent - them from coming. The normal school is also interrupted in situations when two kingroups have drifted into an open conflict and somebody has been wounded or killed. The parties involved in the fight and also their families and persons belonging to the kin have to avoid each other after the incident. That means often moving over to some other province, perhaps to another country, usually to Sweden and also explains some of the interruptions to school and the earlier mentioned failure in the attempt to improve the Gypsies' living conditions with the long-term loan.
Gypsies do not approve the majority's moral values. They think our morality in sexual matters very low which can be verified in high rates of venereal diseases, they do not appreciate our disrespect of our old people, they seem to think that formal education as such makes people emotionally cool and robotlike when it demands strict schedules and long-term planning.
The equality principle is very noble so far as everyone wants to be treated equally in all situations. But it has turned against itself in the educational frame of reference and also for example in the mental health sector, where the specialities of each client, both individually based and culturally based, must be paid attention to. The demand for equality, to treat everyone similarly, in these occasions has shifted to the demand of similarity in cultural questions and that denies an important part of a person's identity.
So what can be done? Special schools for Gypsies has been suggested. Gypsies say that the idea is impossible because some kingroups have been on avoiding terms for several generations time because of old quarrels.
Although I am not a Gypsy, it is also relatively easy to tell fortunes to the Finnish authorities in these problems. Culturally different very distant refugee groups will continuously arrive to Finland in spite of the reluctance of the authorities, politicians and opinions of ordinary people, and more flexibility is needed to treat them as equal persons who have the right to be accepted as a whole personality, of which their cultural identity is an important part. To deny that part of the identity is to deny their history and their social networks and their moral values."
