A large poster, showing the Scandinavian boys, on thick Gloss Art 170gsm paper.
Party Crasher
Oh how often I have been asked by Estonians, “Where is Estonia? We’re a Nordic country too!”
Problem is, the other Nordics doesn’t think so.
I asked around what the stereotypes for the Baltic countries were, and the overall answer was, “Very depressed people who wear grey and live in grey houses”
Estonia have a good relationship with Finland, which is why he doesn’t hide, but he doesn’t consider her a Nordic either which is why he doesn’t let her in. The Finland’ish hat is because Estonians are seen as being very much like Finns by the other Baltics.
3rd August 2010
12:49am Wed 22nd Feb #8190665
@NetherMark
My suggestion wasn't about Estonia being Nordic because of its language, but that Estonia is not Baltic because of its language. This is a good argument "should Hungary be Nordic then?" but that wasn't what I meant. My statement is that it is most likely that Estonia will be accepted as Nordic country soon but Estonia definetly isn't Baltic. Two different arguments actually.
@NetherMark
My suggestion wasn't about Estonia being Nordic because of its language, but that Estonia is not Baltic because of its language. This is a good argument "should Hungary be Nordic then?" but that wasn't what I meant. My statement is that it is most likely that Estonia will be accepted as Nordic country soon but Estonia definetly isn't Baltic. Two different arguments actually.
6:32am Mon 20th Feb #8186572
@SisterBohus
let me put it this way: imagine place, where you belong. then imagine, when someone forces you to somewhere you DONT belong. wouldnt you feel uncomfortable, even tough company can be nice, but you just feel that you dont belong there. thats pretty much same issue here
@NetherMark
"
Well, not more "wrong" than calling a country with a Finno-Ugric majority Nordic, as the others (Scandinavians) speak a Germanic language. Or should we consider Hungary a Nordic country too?"
i think you are missing the point: only balts are latvians and lithuanians, as only they have baltic languages and also baltic culture. besides, Oeselian wrote a bit longer than that.
However, i do agree, that language criterium should be at bottom, if not excluded entirely: being Nordic is mostly about culture and shared history (btw, Estonia matches to both criterias)
@SisterBohus
let me put it this way: imagine place, where you belong. then imagine, when someone forces you to somewhere you DONT belong. wouldnt you feel uncomfortable, even tough company can be nice, but you just feel that you dont belong there. thats pretty much same issue here
@NetherMark
"
Well, not more "wrong" than calling a country with a Finno-Ugric majority Nordic, as the others (Scandinavians) speak a Germanic language. Or should we consider Hungary a Nordic country too?"
i think you are missing the point: only balts are latvians and lithuanians, as only they have baltic languages and also baltic culture. besides, Oeselian wrote a bit longer than that.
However, i do agree, that language criterium should be at bottom, if not excluded entirely: being Nordic is mostly about culture and shared history (btw, Estonia matches to both criterias)
2:41pm Sat 18th Feb #8166419
@Oeselian "...isn't it kind of wrong to call a country with Finno-Ugric language a Balt?"
Well, not more "wrong" than calling a country with a Finno-Ugric majority Nordic, as the others (Scandinavians) speak a Germanic language. Or should we consider Hungary a Nordic country too?
Of course, it is all a matter of convention. At least Finland, with its Swedish minority has some concrete ties to Scandinavia. Not that I would mind Estonia (or Scotland) becoming Nordic. I just think that using the language as an important criterium is rather silly.
@Oeselian "...isn't it kind of wrong to call a country with Finno-Ugric language a Balt?"
Well, not more "wrong" than calling a country with a Finno-Ugric majority Nordic, as the others (Scandinavians) speak a Germanic language. Or should we consider Hungary a Nordic country too?
Of course, it is all a matter of convention. At least Finland, with its Swedish minority has some concrete ties to Scandinavia. Not that I would mind Estonia (or Scotland) becoming Nordic. I just think that using the language as an important criterium is rather silly.
4:00am Sat 18th Feb #8165188
@Franzen THANK YOU!
Geez Louise people, why take the "nordics" discussion so seriously? It's not like it's exclusion out of a monetary or political union, it's just a loose term for a few countries with the same cultural and lingual background! It's an archaic term that has survived since the middle ages, and to discuss inclusion or exclusion of countries in these modern ages is a bit excessive.. It's like claiming that South Africa should be included in the germanic countries since they stem from Dutch culture.
@Franzen THANK YOU!
Geez Louise people, why take the "nordics" discussion so seriously? It's not like it's exclusion out of a monetary or political union, it's just a loose term for a few countries with the same cultural and lingual background! It's an archaic term that has survived since the middle ages, and to discuss inclusion or exclusion of countries in these modern ages is a bit excessive.. It's like claiming that South Africa should be included in the germanic countries since they stem from Dutch culture.
6:02am Mon 13th Feb #8153349
i'd add to Oeselian's claim, that Estonia will most likely will do better than current Nordic council members in future, that actually T. Halonen (finland's ex-president) said that, along with many economy scientists
i'd add to Oeselian's claim, that Estonia will most likely will do better than current Nordic council members in future, that actually T. Halonen (finland's ex-president) said that, along with many economy scientists
4:39am Mon 13th Feb #8153227
Let the future speak for itself. Considering Estonia's achievements now, I say that Estonia will be better than today's Nordic countries. And it will happen a lot sooner than most of you think.
But on one thing i am 100% certain. Estonia IS NOT Baltic! Nothing against Balts, great people Latvians and Lithuanians, but isn't it kind of wrong to call a country with Finno-Ugric language a Balt? Estonia is too different from Latvia and Lithuania to be put in the same group. So Estonia is having hard time belonging there where it feels most resemblance. Latvia and Lithuania don't want Estonia to leave and Nordic countries aren't quite sure when or how to accept Estonia as one of them.
Let the future speak for itself. Considering Estonia's achievements now, I say that Estonia will be better than today's Nordic countries. And it will happen a lot sooner than most of you think.
But on one thing i am 100% certain. Estonia IS NOT Baltic! Nothing against Balts, great people Latvians and Lithuanians, but isn't it kind of wrong to call a country with Finno-Ugric language a Balt? Estonia is too different from Latvia and Lithuania to be put in the same group. So Estonia is having hard time belonging there where it feels most resemblance. Latvia and Lithuania don't want Estonia to leave and Nordic countries aren't quite sure when or how to accept Estonia as one of them.
3:23pm Fri 10th Feb #8146750
About the cross on "Nordic" flags.
The first such flag was Denmark's Dannebrog, which brought victory to the Danish crusaders in the battle of Lindanise in 1219. As I have read, the flag itself was the flag of the crusaders from Rügen, which itself was a conquest of Danish crusaders not much time ago. With the revered cross on the "Nordic" flags, for an Estonian it almost looks like the scandinavians are revering the good luck on teaming up (Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Novgorod) against Estonians around 1200AD - a successful plan to erase Estonia as a Nordic country for 8 centuries (and perhaps more).
The semantics of the cross is connected to christianity, and even more so to eastern crusades.
So, based on the semantics, I don't see why finns should be fond of the cross on their flag, besides being a ticket to the exclusive (but claiming to be egalitarian) feeling-good "Nordic" club. As I see it (and indoeuropean scandinavians may see it differently, of course), there is a reason why Finland always has a serious face - because Finland has to play a constrained role within the "Nordic" countries, i.e. Finland is not taken as equal to Sweden, Denmark or Norway. After all, Finland has never been at war against Estonia (contrary to Sweden, Denmark and Norway).
And as I wrote before in another thread, the way "Nordic" is used in Scandinavia, it becomes evident that it describes the region only since christianity. We can also narrow it down to the Kalmar Union and even more so to the "welfare state" of the 20th century.
So, the Scandinavian "Nordic" the way it is used, has NO connections to the viking age or the nordic history before that (because if it did consider history before christianity, then Estonia could not be ignored as part of the Nordic).
The Scandinavian "Nordic" usually also conveniently forgets the saami and Meän kieli speakers of northern Scandinavia.
As Franzen mentioned, the presence of a scandinavian language is considered as a prerequisite to being Nordic, while the presence of a regional native finno-ugric language is not considered as a prerequisite (and not even as a substitute).
Any way one looks at it, the contemporary perception of "Nordic" in Scandinavia from the position of Estonia does not exactly beam of egalitarity, nor of deep history.
This is an opinion of a grumpy party chrasher from Estonia.
About the cross on "Nordic" flags.
The first such flag was Denmark's Dannebrog, which brought victory to the Danish crusaders in the battle of Lindanise in 1219. As I have read, the flag itself was the flag of the crusaders from Rügen, which itself was a conquest of Danish crusaders not much time ago. With the revered cross on the "Nordic" flags, for an Estonian it almost looks like the scandinavians are revering the good luck on teaming up (Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Novgorod) against Estonians around 1200AD - a successful plan to erase Estonia as a Nordic country for 8 centuries (and perhaps more).
The semantics of the cross is connected to christianity, and even more so to eastern crusades.
So, based on the semantics, I don't see why finns should be fond of the cross on their flag, besides being a ticket to the exclusive (but claiming to be egalitarian) feeling-good "Nordic" club. As I see it (and indoeuropean scandinavians may see it differently, of course), there is a reason why Finland always has a serious face - because Finland has to play a constrained role within the "Nordic" countries, i.e. Finland is not taken as equal to Sweden, Denmark or Norway. After all, Finland has never been at war against Estonia (contrary to Sweden, Denmark and Norway).
And as I wrote before in another thread, the way "Nordic" is used in Scandinavia, it becomes evident that it describes the region only since christianity. We can also narrow it down to the Kalmar Union and even more so to the "welfare state" of the 20th century.
So, the Scandinavian "Nordic" the way it is used, has NO connections to the viking age or the nordic history before that (because if it did consider history before christianity, then Estonia could not be ignored as part of the Nordic).
The Scandinavian "Nordic" usually also conveniently forgets the saami and Meän kieli speakers of northern Scandinavia.
As Franzen mentioned, the presence of a scandinavian language is considered as a prerequisite to being Nordic, while the presence of a regional native finno-ugric language is not considered as a prerequisite (and not even as a substitute).
Any way one looks at it, the contemporary perception of "Nordic" in Scandinavia from the position of Estonia does not exactly beam of egalitarity, nor of deep history.
This is an opinion of a grumpy party chrasher from Estonia.
11:00am Fri 10th Feb #8146044
In fact Estonian is a Fenno-ugric language and the Estonians are ethnically related to the Finns, so the Finnish-looking hat is justified.
In fact Estonian is a Fenno-ugric language and the Estonians are ethnically related to the Finns, so the Finnish-looking hat is justified.
9:29am Fri 10th Feb #8145812
@Franzen
-actually Estonia was considered to be integral part of Sweden- just look at documents from swedish era in Estonia. True, Estonia had semi-authonomy, but it was still considered rightful part of Sweden
-well, you are true on that, however many regular people (i mean who are not history geeks like i am) ignore the fact, that during swedish rule, peasants situation improved greatly and all those reforms, that Russian empire did in mid 19-th century, could have happened earlier, but were cancelled thanks to Great Northern War (1700-1721)- it would have released peasants, cut the rights of upper-class and it would have most likely (again- theres a quite fair ammount of professional historians, who believe that way) ended by Estonia getting independent even before Finland and probably in mid 19th century!
-That depends on how long ago was that- before Estonia was occupied by USSR in 1940, there were in fact almost as much swedes in here than russians (at least according to some estimates, others suggsest lower swedish numbers, but still remarkably high). These swedes, mostly living in western Estonia and islands, escaped from soviet occupation. So, viewing current situation you are right (altough there STILL is fair ammount of swedes), but if to go back to ww2, you are wrong. BTW, these swedes arrived here around year 1000-mid 13th century. so, basically over 900 years before most of them evacuated.
-i think you are right on that one, but i have some doubts for Finland. I might be wrong tough
-you are semi-right about this one. If to look official state, than yes, its really that way, even tough, again, situation has began to improve a bit. But if you look at unofficial situation (charity, soup kitchens, or any positive community work), than you see, that people themselves have actually same equality princip in mind, even tough we might not show it out always. to make it short- official position- your right, unofficial- your wrong
-btw whats Diet? i have never heard of that word.
again- Estonia was part of these (besides Nordic council), well, at least as much as other Nordics allowed it to be (Sweden especially was very careful with Estonia)
and again- officially for Sweden, Finland was Baltic until end of ww2
@Franzen
-actually Estonia was considered to be integral part of Sweden- just look at documents from swedish era in Estonia. True, Estonia had semi-authonomy, but it was still considered rightful part of Sweden
-well, you are true on that, however many regular people (i mean who are not history geeks like i am) ignore the fact, that during swedish rule, peasants situation improved greatly and all those reforms, that Russian empire did in mid 19-th century, could have happened earlier, but were cancelled thanks to Great Northern War (1700-1721)- it would have released peasants, cut the rights of upper-class and it would have most likely (again- theres a quite fair ammount of professional historians, who believe that way) ended by Estonia getting independent even before Finland and probably in mid 19th century!
-That depends on how long ago was that- before Estonia was occupied by USSR in 1940, there were in fact almost as much swedes in here than russians (at least according to some estimates, others suggsest lower swedish numbers, but still remarkably high). These swedes, mostly living in western Estonia and islands, escaped from soviet occupation. So, viewing current situation you are right (altough there STILL is fair ammount of swedes), but if to go back to ww2, you are wrong. BTW, these swedes arrived here around year 1000-mid 13th century. so, basically over 900 years before most of them evacuated.
-i think you are right on that one, but i have some doubts for Finland. I might be wrong tough
-you are semi-right about this one. If to look official state, than yes, its really that way, even tough, again, situation has began to improve a bit. But if you look at unofficial situation (charity, soup kitchens, or any positive community work), than you see, that people themselves have actually same equality princip in mind, even tough we might not show it out always. to make it short- official position- your right, unofficial- your wrong
-btw whats Diet? i have never heard of that word.
again- Estonia was part of these (besides Nordic council), well, at least as much as other Nordics allowed it to be (Sweden especially was very careful with Estonia)
and again- officially for Sweden, Finland was Baltic until end of ww2
8:40am Fri 10th Feb #8145718
Why Estonia is not Nordic?
There are some people arguing that Estonia would be Nordic and asking for counter-arguments. Here you are!
-Estonia has never been an integral part of Scandinavia. It was a dominion of Sweden for cirka 100 years with different laws, different citizen rights (for example, there was serfdom in Estonia that didn't exist in Scandinavia). Comparison: Finland was an integral part of Sweden (same citizen rights, same laws) from medieval times to 1809. That is, Estonian history was different from the Nordic countries.
-A related point: Estonian state, society, laws were different. There was serfdom and peasants didn't have anything to say on politics. But in Sweden(+Finland) peasants actually were represented in the Diet and monarchs/aristocracy didn't have absolute power. An important part of the Nordic tradition is equality and freedom. Estonia was more like Central Europe in this sense and it was in fact ruled by a German aristocracy, not Swedish or Danish one (like in Finland, Norway and Iceland).
-Estonia doesn't have a strong Scandinavian presence. Finland has had a significant Swedish minority since the Middle Ages to this day (about 15-20 % at max, now 6 %). In Estonia the significance of Estonian Swedes was considerably smaller and now they are almost extinct.
-Estonians are not traditional minorities in Nordic countries. Finns/Finnish speakers have been a minority in Sweden and Norway since the Middle Ages and even today about 5 % of Swedes have a Finnish background. Ofcourse there have been some Estonians in Nordic countries but very small amounts. Instead there have been f.ex. Finnish language church ceremonies in Stockholm since the Middle Ages.
-Today: Estonia doesn't have the Nordic Welfare State/Nordic Model. Estonia has a flat tax-rate and greater inequality, problems with poverty. The Nordic Model comprises ideals of equality and low income differences, equal opportunity. These ideals are at the heart of our societies.
In sum things that define the Nordic Countries for me:
-Tradition of equality: no serfdom in history, lower classes represented in the Diet, welfare state today - all this lacks in Estonia
-Scandinavian languages: Swedish has also a strong presence in Finland but not in Estonia
-Shared past: Kalmar Union, later 5 countries/their contemporary areas unified under 2 (Sweden and Denmark), after separation unifying institutions (society Norden in the 1920's, different co-operative projects in the 1930's and 1940's, Nordic Council in the 1950's etc.) - Estonia was not part of these (only a dominion for a short period of time)
It's also not true that Finland would have been incorporated into the Nordic Countries only in the 1950's. Finland was an integral part of Sweden from Medieval Times to 1809 and strongly connected also after that. Short after the independence of 1917 Finland joined the organization "Norden" (lit. "The North", corresponds to "Nordic Countries"), in 1924, that was the first unifying organization before the Nordic Council in the 1950's. Finland was immediately welcomed to Nordic co-operation by Sweden. Only outer powers (like Germany, Russia) lumped Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland together in the 1920's as "Baltic Countries" because of the geopolitical situation (these countries were bordering Russia and all newly independent after the WWI). Finland was not a "Baltic Country" for Sweden.
In conclusion: I don't see Estonia as a Nordic Country. But I don't have anything against Estonia. I see it as a Northern European country but just not Nordic. It's in any case a close country for Finland in addition to Sweden.
Why Estonia is not Nordic?
There are some people arguing that Estonia would be Nordic and asking for counter-arguments. Here you are!
-Estonia has never been an integral part of Scandinavia. It was a dominion of Sweden for cirka 100 years with different laws, different citizen rights (for example, there was serfdom in Estonia that didn't exist in Scandinavia). Comparison: Finland was an integral part of Sweden (same citizen rights, same laws) from medieval times to 1809. That is, Estonian history was different from the Nordic countries.
-A related point: Estonian state, society, laws were different. There was serfdom and peasants didn't have anything to say on politics. But in Sweden(+Finland) peasants actually were represented in the Diet and monarchs/aristocracy didn't have absolute power. An important part of the Nordic tradition is equality and freedom. Estonia was more like Central Europe in this sense and it was in fact ruled by a German aristocracy, not Swedish or Danish one (like in Finland, Norway and Iceland).
-Estonia doesn't have a strong Scandinavian presence. Finland has had a significant Swedish minority since the Middle Ages to this day (about 15-20 % at max, now 6 %). In Estonia the significance of Estonian Swedes was considerably smaller and now they are almost extinct.
-Estonians are not traditional minorities in Nordic countries. Finns/Finnish speakers have been a minority in Sweden and Norway since the Middle Ages and even today about 5 % of Swedes have a Finnish background. Ofcourse there have been some Estonians in Nordic countries but very small amounts. Instead there have been f.ex. Finnish language church ceremonies in Stockholm since the Middle Ages.
-Today: Estonia doesn't have the Nordic Welfare State/Nordic Model. Estonia has a flat tax-rate and greater inequality, problems with poverty. The Nordic Model comprises ideals of equality and low income differences, equal opportunity. These ideals are at the heart of our societies.
In sum things that define the Nordic Countries for me:
-Tradition of equality: no serfdom in history, lower classes represented in the Diet, welfare state today - all this lacks in Estonia
-Scandinavian languages: Swedish has also a strong presence in Finland but not in Estonia
-Shared past: Kalmar Union, later 5 countries/their contemporary areas unified under 2 (Sweden and Denmark), after separation unifying institutions (society Norden in the 1920's, different co-operative projects in the 1930's and 1940's, Nordic Council in the 1950's etc.) - Estonia was not part of these (only a dominion for a short period of time)
It's also not true that Finland would have been incorporated into the Nordic Countries only in the 1950's. Finland was an integral part of Sweden from Medieval Times to 1809 and strongly connected also after that. Short after the independence of 1917 Finland joined the organization "Norden" (lit. "The North", corresponds to "Nordic Countries"), in 1924, that was the first unifying organization before the Nordic Council in the 1950's. Finland was immediately welcomed to Nordic co-operation by Sweden. Only outer powers (like Germany, Russia) lumped Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland together in the 1920's as "Baltic Countries" because of the geopolitical situation (these countries were bordering Russia and all newly independent after the WWI). Finland was not a "Baltic Country" for Sweden.
In conclusion: I don't see Estonia as a Nordic Country. But I don't have anything against Estonia. I see it as a Northern European country but just not Nordic. It's in any case a close country for Finland in addition to Sweden.
8:05am Sun 5th Feb #8116662
@Aurinkolasit
im not taking things too seriously, even tough it may seem that way
@Aurinkolasit
im not taking things too seriously, even tough it may seem that way
6:36am Sun 5th Feb #8116502
@Meelis13
*sigh* I really don't want to get into an Internet argument over something I don't feel so strongly about either way, so no. I just wanted to write a comment about what was in my head at the time and that's it. Don't take things too seriously.
@Meelis13
*sigh* I really don't want to get into an Internet argument over something I don't feel so strongly about either way, so no. I just wanted to write a comment about what was in my head at the time and that's it. Don't take things too seriously.
2:15pm Sat 4th Feb #8114887
Estonian flag is a nice flag and everything, but it would ruin the "collection". If you changed your flag - which I know you don't want to do - people wouldn't feel so weird about you being Nordic. If the flag was based on the Dannebrog and didn't look like "a Russian/Baltic flag", it's possible people would actually start thinking about Estonia as a Nordic country. People know - or care - very little about other cultures. It's the appearances that matter, in the end.
Estonian flag is a nice flag and everything, but it would ruin the "collection". If you changed your flag - which I know you don't want to do - people wouldn't feel so weird about you being Nordic. If the flag was based on the Dannebrog and didn't look like "a Russian/Baltic flag", it's possible people would actually start thinking about Estonia as a Nordic country. People know - or care - very little about other cultures. It's the appearances that matter, in the end.
12:59pm Sat 4th Feb #8114505
Well, they are pretty good, but Latvia should have boobs and make-up. You know, fun fact, Lithuanian guys invite Latvian girls to their events as some kind of geishas or something, everytime I go there I get either drooled at or proposed
Well, they are pretty good, but Latvia should have boobs and make-up. You know, fun fact, Lithuanian guys invite Latvian girls to their events as some kind of geishas or something, everytime I go there I get either drooled at or proposed
View all 585 comments
adverts
Fact: Historians and intellectuals consider Estonia a Nordic country.