3 ms·

Nothing about your comment disputes anything I said. I don't know why you posted this in such a contentious tone and implied that I'm squeezing "Sámi into a gen

by antris 4y ago

Nothing about your comment disputes anything I said. I don't know why you posted this in such a contentious tone and implied that I'm squeezing "Sámi into a generic indigenous people mold". I wasn't stereotyping Sámi people, just talking about the challenges they face as a native minority people that live under a repressive government. You can find similar challenges posed to other native people, that's all I was saying.

vintermann 4y ago
I tried to keep it as non-confrontational as I could. From what you wrote, people on HN wouldn't know. Apart from the ones living in Russia, I don't really agree that Sámi live under a repressive government. Norway, Finland and Sweden all have Sámi parliaments to take care of their special interests, as well as (of course) legal protection for their cultural and linguistic rights in the "regular" government.
- mongol 4y ago
  Today, it seems to me that Sami have more rights than other citizens. They have all the same rights that other citizens do, but in addition, they have these special rights to be the only ones allowed to hunt on certain government lands etc.
  - vintermann 4y ago
    Some complain about that, but personally, I see the "exclusive" rights as primarily being about things that have no point if you are not Sámi anyway. I remember some years ago, there was a huge debate in the forums of Vårt Land, Norway's largest Christian newspaper, between one advocate for these exclusive rights, and one furious opponent. The funny thing was that the proponent was a super-samophile southerner who had learned the language and moved north, while the opponent was a (genetically, at least) full Sámi who just happened to be an old school Marxist who hated rights based on nationality.
    - mongol 4y ago
      I personally don't hunt or even live close to these lands where it has become an issue, but I can certainly understand why those living close to there could be upset about it.
- antris 4y ago
  I was talking about Sámi history as a whole. Sámi parliament in Finland was recognized in 1995, and its authority is extremely limited. Basically they have no power over the Finnish government. Like I said, they have been thrown a bone and some positive developments have occurred in recent years, but that doesn't make the governments non-repressive as a whole when looking at their history and how they are still affected today by it. Just because you grant them some rights, doesn't erase what has happened before and the resulting societal position of the people. Finland also has a minority of Swedish-speaking Finns. Just compare how the Finnish-Swedish population and the Sámi population were treated throughout history, and you'll see the difference. Swedish is an official language in Finland, none of the Sámi languages are. And you couldn't get an education with Sámi as your primary language until 1994. These are very recent developments when compared to repression lasting centuries. Just like racism towards African-Americans didn't stop with the Civil Rights Movement, repression of the Sámi people didn't end with the Sámi parliament.

by antris 4y ago

vintermann 4y ago

I tried to keep it as non-confrontational as I could. From what you wrote, people on HN wouldn't know. Apart from the ones living in Russia, I don't really agree that Sámi live under a repressive government. Norway, Finland and Sweden all have Sámi parliaments to take care of their special interests, as well as (of course) legal protection for their cultural and linguistic rights in the "regular" government.

mongol 4y ago
Today, it seems to me that Sami have more rights than other citizens. They have all the same rights that other citizens do, but in addition, they have these special rights to be the only ones allowed to hunt on certain government lands etc.
- vintermann 4y ago
  Some complain about that, but personally, I see the "exclusive" rights as primarily being about things that have no point if you are not Sámi anyway. I remember some years ago, there was a huge debate in the forums of Vårt Land, Norway's largest Christian newspaper, between one advocate for these exclusive rights, and one furious opponent. The funny thing was that the proponent was a super-samophile southerner who had learned the language and moved north, while the opponent was a (genetically, at least) full Sámi who just happened to be an old school Marxist who hated rights based on nationality.
  - mongol 4y ago
    I personally don't hunt or even live close to these lands where it has become an issue, but I can certainly understand why those living close to there could be upset about it.
antris 4y ago
I was talking about Sámi history as a whole. Sámi parliament in Finland was recognized in 1995, and its authority is extremely limited. Basically they have no power over the Finnish government. Like I said, they have been thrown a bone and some positive developments have occurred in recent years, but that doesn't make the governments non-repressive as a whole when looking at their history and how they are still affected today by it. Just because you grant them some rights, doesn't erase what has happened before and the resulting societal position of the people. Finland also has a minority of Swedish-speaking Finns. Just compare how the Finnish-Swedish population and the Sámi population were treated throughout history, and you'll see the difference. Swedish is an official language in Finland, none of the Sámi languages are. And you couldn't get an education with Sámi as your primary language until 1994. These are very recent developments when compared to repression lasting centuries. Just like racism towards African-Americans didn't stop with the Civil Rights Movement, repression of the Sámi people didn't end with the Sámi parliament.