Recent Focused Series »

Indo-European Origins
Siberia
Northern California
The Caucasus
Imaginary Geography
Home » GeoNotes

“The World According to Finns” Farcical Map

Submitted by on April 19, 2012 – 3:02 am 35 Comments |  
The World According to Finns

Just as the maps entitled “The World According to Americans” and “The American World” poke fun at geographical prejudices in the United States, “The World According to Finns” offers a farcical representation of geographical prejudices in Finland. Like the other two “World According to…” maps, it not only glorifies the country whose perspective it is supposed to represent, but also assigns mostly disparaging labels to other regions and countries of the world.

Note that the creator has directed the message “Please don’t come to Finland,” at Africa, Asia, and Eastern Europe, source areas of most of the recent immigrants to Finland. According to the map, Finns tend to view Southwest Asia as an area of “crazy people”; the region spanning India, China, and Southeast Asia as a source of inexpensive workers; and the United States as a “lazy,” “idiotic,” and “evil” country. Likewise, the map depicts Latin America as a wooded wilderness, Sweden as a land of rampant social liberalism, and Norway as an unduly lucky country. The creator starkly labels Western Europe (oddly, including the Balkans) as “good,” while depicting Eastern Europe in an entirely negative manner. The map also suggests that Finns view Russia with suspicion and alarm, as the country is labeled “Ruskies!!” and colored red, no doubt for Russia’s communist past.

Other curious features include the labeling of a greatly exaggerated Canary Island(s) as “Finland’s Disneyland” and Estonia as “Finland’s Disneyworld.” Finally, note that the creator has labeled the entirety of Africa with a single, racially degrading slur.

Previous Post
«
Next Post
»

Subscribe For Updates

It would be a pleasure to have you back on GeoCurrents in the future. You can sign up for email updates or follow our RSS Feed, Facebook, or Twitter for notifications of each new post:
        

Commenting Guidelines: GeoCurrents is a forum for the respectful exchange of ideas, and loaded political commentary can detract from that. We ask that you as a reader keep this in mind when sharing your thoughts in the comments below.

  • FM

    Is that Estonia or St. Petersburg?

    • http://www.pereltsvaig.com Asya Pereltsvaig

      Good question: Saint Petersburg has always been sort of a Disneyland for Finns. Lots of Finnish tourists would come by buses even during the Soviet days. Whether today they prefer to go to Estonia or not is a good question.

    • Juliann

      Estonia

  • awef

    noooo

  • hernandayoleary

    Finns ain’t even white fuck those mongol huns

    • SirBedevere

      So, have you any suggestions as to how I could determine whether I was white?

      • hernandayoleary

        Are you a finn?

        • SirBedevere

          Not to my knowledge. Is everyone who is not Finnish white? I mean, I kind of look like this guy, Sauli Niinistö, the President of Finland.

          • hernandayoleary

            Finns are not whites. Unless of course they are a fairly recent 10-20% germanic immgirant. But most finns have an asian male genetic ancestry and substanial asian admixtures they are roughly 50-50 white and asian. They were always the country between west and east, its a multiracial nation and it is not easy to figure out who is white simply on appearance. You look at other multiracial countries like Saudi Arabia, india or the arab states and you often have 1 family with white and black people in it, in the same house as siblings.

          • SirBedevere

            Once again, what is “white” in this context? As you say, it clearly has nothing to do with appearance, since the gentleman above has very light skin, light eyes, light hair, an apparently dolichocephalic skull, and everything else Mr Himmler would have been looking for. As to Asian, this gentleman and probably his ancestors for many thousands of years were born on the European part of the Eurasian landmass. How can I find out what is white and what is not white, if it has nothing to do with appearance and nothing to do with geography?

          • hernandayoleary

            Finns are mixed race, it has to do with ancestry. It goes back more than just a few hundred years. Finland use to model it self as gateway between east and west, europe and asia, they are neither full white nor full asian. Why is it hard to grasp multiracial people are not white? You can find out you race by seeing what country you are from and your ethnicity and taking a dna test and looking at the levels of admixture in your country. In fact i’ll do you one better tell me where your from and what your ethnic group is.

          • SirBedevere

            Ah, I see the problem. I suppose my question is what “race” means in this case, if appearance and ancestry in Europe are not dispositive. Cleary, in your scheme, what country one comes from would be immaterial. I’m from Western Washington state, but then so were Bruce Lee and Jimi Hendrix. When you ask what my “ethnic group” is, I would need to ask what you mean by that, since it sounds even more confusing than “race.”

          • hernandayoleary

            So you can be an african america, a chinese american, a german american, a italian american a welsh american. etc.
            Race is about ancestry. No the country can be material. As for ethnic group. Turks in germany are still turks, they are in europe but they aren’t white. Some gypsies and jews look white, they have blonde or red hair, white skin, blue or green eyes, all these features. But they are not whites because they have a non-white ancestry. They all come from non-germanic peoples from asia.

          • SirBedevere

            So, then, my question stands. Who is white and why are they white, if that guy and Michael Bloomberg are not white? What makes one a particular race? I can, for instance, trace most lines of my family back 15 or so generations, but I don’t know where they came from before that, so how could I tell whether I was white? Am I right in thinking that you are equating Germanic (a language group) with white? Does that mean people from the West of Ireland, from Italy, or from Aquitaine are not white? How far back do I have to know my ancestry to determine this?

          • hernandayoleary

            A white person is an unmixed racial person of germanic descent.

            Bloomberg is a jew, so he is not white. The jews are racially admixed and do not come from the germanic tribes. Now you might say but some jews LOOK white. Yes but they are not FULL jews. Some blacks (nicole richie, rashida jones, vin diesel, mariah carey, kris humprhies, jason kidd, wentz) LOOK white but they usually are not FULL blacks. Doesn’t make all blacks whites does it?

            Tell me where your ancestry lines trace back if they are jew, gypsies, slavs, asians or blacks, I’ll tell you if they are whites. Non-Germanics are not whites because they are heavily racially admixed, largely with asians. And no, not all Germanics even speak germanic languages. Some Germanics are in spain, north italy and spread through pockets of east europe.

            irish and french are whites mostly. Unlike Romania, dark skinned slanty eyed people are not the norm. You can just look at a romanian or finn and see they look different, slanty eyes and all.

          • SirBedevere

            As a historian of medieval Europe, I would have to tell you that the historical record would not bear out the idea that Frenchman and Irishmen are descended from speakers of proto-Germanic. Indeed, most Germans are not either. My ancestors came to this country on the Mayflower and the Susan Constant, they were aristocrats in the Wessex of Alfred the Great and the Lotharingia of Charlemagne, and yet, I must tell you that by your standard, I truly doubt that I, HM Willem Alexander, HM Elizabeth II, or anyone else I can think of, are white.

          • hernandayoleary

            France was conquered by the Germanics, charlamagne was king of the franks and franks were germanics. The franks land was called francia and francia later became france. The french ethnic groups are certainly germanic therefore white. I would say you are most probably white.

            Of the list you provide all are white as far as I know EXCEPT Elizabeth. She is known to be mixed, her grand mother queen victoria was I believe either a daughter or grand daughter of the mulatto queen charlotte who married king george the 3rd, who is himself of dubious race. You think its any coincidence these mulattos are pushing multiculturalism on england?

          • SirBedevere

            But, you said language has nothing to do with race, right? Yet you say that, when Gaul was conquered by Clovis, it was conquered by “Germanics.” What makes the Franks Germanic, except their language? Moreover, what makes you think that they then became a majority of the populus in the fifth century, as compared with the large numbers of Gallic and Latin speakers who were already there? Regarding Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz, what is it that gives you these doubts? Was it Charles of Mecklenburg or Elisabeth of Saxe-Hildburghausen that gives you these doubts? What is it that gives you pause about the House of Hannover over the House of Orange?

          • hernandayoleary

            Anyone can speak any language. The Franks were germanic through bloodlines. The gallic people are not that different from Germanics. but gallic people are a small minority who largely no longer exist through most of europe. The original galls come from in and around the rhine region of germany and the surrounding states and migrated to different parts of europe. The galls were indeed whites but still exist in Ireland I suppose. Latin is a language and any trip to dominican republic or mexico will let you know about them. While the original latini were white people most of the latins of today outside of france and some parts of spain and north and central italy are really multiracial people.

            Queen Charlotte was undoubtedly a mulatto, and you as an expert in medieval European history it needs no further explanation. There are some questions about George the 3rd as well because he too may have also been a mulatto or quadroon or mixed with color. There have been some interesting historical documents to say the least that certain ought cause one to question his race, ranging from his portrayls on coins to old art work where he is portrayed as black. On this topic of king geroge iii, none of that is particularly conclusive per se. Queen charlotte was indeed undoubtedly of non-white origins, but there are other blacks in the royal lineage like the black prince edward and his black mother queen philippia described as such by bishop stapledon

            “”The lady whom we saw has not uncomely hair, betwixt blue-black and brown. Her head is cleaned shaped; her forehead high and broad, and standing somewhat forward. Her face narrows between the eyes, and the lower part of her face is still more narrow and slender than the forehead. Her eyes are blackish brown and deep. Her nose is fairly smooth and even, save that is somewhat broad at the tip and flattened, yet it is no snub nose. Her nostrils are also broad, her mouth fairly wide. Her lips somewhat full and especially the lower lip…all her limbs are well set and unmaimed, and nought is amiss so far as a man may see. Moreover, she is brown of skin all over, and much like her father, and in all things she is pleasant enough, as it seems to us.””

            Between the flat nose and brown skin and having a black son I don’t see anything white about her.

          • SirBedevere

            I certainly defer to your knowledge of applied scientific racism, but you seem woefully misinformed regarding medieval Europe. Gauls is the term generally used for the Q-Celtic speaking people of what is now France. There is nothing that would make them any more “Germanic” than the Wends or the Illyrians. Do you have some text that makes you think they came from the Rheinland? Latin, I am afraid, is not spoken to any appreciable extent in either the Dominican Republic, Mexico, or anywhere else.

            I’m afraid Queen Charlotte does require an explanation. I see nothing in any of the standard genealogies that would lead me to understand why you call her a “mulatto,” unless you are using some very specialized meaning for that term or unless you know something that the Almanach de Gotha does not.

            As to the “black prince,” if you mean Edward, the son of Edward III, the nickname was not used during his lifetime but rather appears over a century later. It most likely was given him by later chroniclers who were very familiar with his arms of three white feathers on a black field, though it may simply refer to the brutality of his campaigns in France. As for Philippa de Hainault, there is certainly nothing in her known ancestry that would indicate any descent from Africa more proximate than that all human beings share. As for Stapledon, I would have to see the original, but the term brunus was used in medieval Latin for everything from freckles to a suntan. Moreover, you told me that appearance would not determine whether I was white or not, right? I have never met anyone who looked lighter than President Niinistö, and yet you tell me he is not “white.”

          • SirBedevere

            Actually, now that I think of it, the fact that HM The Queen is “non-white” because of an ancestor eight generations ago does give me new questions about my “ethnicity.” While I can trace most lines in my family fifteen or so generations and some back to the Middle Ages, there is one I cannot trace farther than four generations (a rather common occurrence, I’m afraid), so I can’t possibly know whether I am “white” or not. How far does one need to go? How far back can you substantiate? I would certainly want my guru in racial purity to be able to demonstrate it himself.

          • hernandayoleary

            Get a dna test then come back to me. Allosomal and autosomal. If you have any known non-white ancestry you are non-white. If it doesn’t come up in a dna test, and you cannot find nor trace it, and you come from a germanic country or even gallic (As long as it isn’t east european or slavs or hellenic or any of those multi-racial states in the south or east like southern italy or portugal or finland); then you are probably white. Welcome to the club.

          • SirBedevere

            So, there is a specific genetic marker for “non-white”? Do we have any evidence of how it might express itself, since it clearly is not in any physical feature? Since it does not relate to any physical or presumably mental feature, what is the importance of this “non-whiteness”? Aren’t you now, once again, confusing a state, at least the “multi-racial ones,” with a genepool? I’m afraid I must remain quite skeptical, since you continue to refer to whatever this is as Germanic, which is a language group. The speakers of Germanic languages in the early Middle Ages were quite a mongrelized bunch, living all around Central Europe. The idea of a “white” based on this category is so problematic as to be nonsensical. It could only work in the fantasies of Europeans who transported themselves someplace far distant form Europe and then dreamed up some golden age of genetic purity in their far distant Heimat.

          • hernandayoleary

            Yes. In snps we see them in the haplogroups. Non-whites often have different physical features. You keep raising the same arguement and I keep giving you the same answer. This is trolling at its finest.

            There is germanic languages but there are also germanic peoples, these were migrants with blonde hair and red hair, blue eyes in northern europe. They form the chief body of white peoples today. And the gallic people are whites as well. A namibia who is black might speak german but is not germanic. I don’t understand how someone with a degree could be so stupid to not understand the difference between a language and an ethnic group. There are lots of chinese who learn italian as a second language it doesn’t make a chinese an ethnic italian.

            While not ever single person in germany is white ethnic germans are germanic white peoples. Turks live in germany but they are not white.

            A white person is a racially unmixed person from the germanic tribes. There are some other minor tribes that still exist like the gauls who are white, but it excludes all known mixed race and multiracial people. Some brazilian might look white like adriana lima, but she admit she is mixed with japanese and black. She is not white because she is mixed with non white races.

          • http://www.pereltsvaig.com Asya Pereltsvaig

            As a linguist, I find this discussion quite amusing: “germanic” is a linguistic term, not an ethnic one. So speaking of “the Germanics” as an ethnic group is like “speaking of a dolichocephalic dictionary or a brachycephalic grammar”, to paraphrase Max Muller’s famous words.

          • hernandayoleary

            You expertise may be limited to linguistics, mine is not. Germanic is both a linguistic and an ethnic term. For if Germanic were merely linguistic as you suggest. Then we could not refer to say, Germanic immigrants into Brazil who speak portuguese only, as germanic peoples, although they are. There certainly are Germanic peoples and if you think differently, when was the last time you heard a turkic person being called germanic for living in germany. We all know its not true. Germanic refers to ethnic in this context of tribes who migrated to europe out of Scythia.

          • http://www.pereltsvaig.com Asya Pereltsvaig

            This usage of the term you are describing — it’s not something a respectable scholar would ever use. If you twist the terms on their head, no wonder you come up with outlandish theories like you do.

            P.S. My expertise is not “limited to linguistics”, as any long term reader of this blog would know.

          • hernandayoleary

            You are simply mistaken

            “There are five German races; the Vandili, parts of whom are the Burgundiones, the Varini, the Carini, and the Gutones: the Ingævones, forming a second race, a portion of whom are the Cimbri, the Teutoni, and the tribes of the Chauci. The Istævones, who join up to the Rhine, and to whom the Cimbri [sic, repeated] belong, are the third race; while the Hermiones, forming a fourth, dwell in the interior, and include the Suevi, the Hermunduri, the Chatti, and the Cherusci: the fifth race is that of the Peucini, who are also the Basternæ, adjoining the Daci.”
            Pliny the Elder, Natural History (English) (XML Header) [genre: prose] [word count] [Plin. Nat.].

            it is quiet eviden Pliny is not speaking about languages, he is speaking about German tribes or races of peoples or simply put Germanic peoples.

            To deny the germanic peoples in the face of such compelling evidence only shows the degree to which many modern scholars has eroded that they are oblivious to the obvious.

          • http://www.pereltsvaig.com Asya Pereltsvaig

            Pliny, last time I checked, didn’t write in English, nor did he have the accuracy required of a scholar. In the quote above, the word is “German” rather than “Germanic” — the devil is in the details. Today, hardly a scholar would talk about German(ic) as a race, or confuse the two terms.

          • hernandayoleary

            There is no point in me arguing with you on something beyond your capabilities and capacity. You have a nice blog. I’ll let you be, have a nice day.

          • http://www.pereltsvaig.com Asya Pereltsvaig

            Go figure, I was thinking the same thing! (in reference to your first sentence)

          • hernandayoleary

            Gauls were in france as well, but they were originally from southern Germany. The Gauls were not Germanic technically speaking but they are close relatives of the germanics. “The region inhabited by the ancient Gauls, comprising modern-day France and parts of Belgium, western Germany, and northern Italy. A Celtic race, the Gauls lived in an agricultural society divided into several tribes ruled by a landed class. By the 5th century BC the Gauls had migrated south from the Rhine River valley to the Mediterranean coast.” http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/historians/notes/gaul.html

            Not sure what you are trying to prove by denyng the gauls are white.

            What do you think spanish is, it is a laatin dialect. Your ignorance on Queen Charlotte is proof enough to me you are indeed a race troll and not a historian. It is widely known.

            “For the initial work into Queen Charlotte’s genealogy, a debt of gratitude is owed the History Department of McGill University. It was the director of the Burney Project (Fanny Burney, the prolific 19th century British diarist, had been secretary to the Queen), Dr. Joyce Hemlow, who obtained from Olwen Hedly, the most recent biographer of the Queen Charlotte (1975), at least half a dozen quotes by her contemporaries regarding her negroid features. Because of its “scientific” source, the most valuable of Dr. Hedley’s references would, probably, be the one published in the autobiography of the Queen’s personal physician, Baron Stockmar, where he described her as having “…a true mulatto face.”

            Perhaps the most literary of these allusions to her African appearance, however, can be found in the poem penned to her on the occasion of her wedding to George III and the Coronation celebration that immediately followed.

            Descended from the warlike Vandal race,
            She still preserves that title in her face.
            Tho’ shone their triumphs o’er Numidia’s plain,
            And and Alusian fields their name retain;
            They but subdued the southern world with arms,
            She conquers still with her triumphant charms,
            O! born for rule, – to whose victorious brow
            The greatest monarch of the north must bow.

            Finally, it should be noted that the Royal Household itself, at the time of Queen Elizabeth II’s coronation, referred to both her Asian and African bloodlines in an apologia it published defending her position as head of the Commonwealth.”

            There you go, the queen even admitted her african blood line, what more do you want, a picture of the sex?

            I could just take one look at her art paintings and tell she isn’t white; is your vision really so bad?

            You are an expert race troll. First you try to tell me the Gauls are not white now you are trying to tell me admitted quadroons, octroons and mulattos are white. Soon you will tell me kobe bryant and every other mix breed is white too! You ought to give back your history degree and trade it for an race troll degree.

            Non-sense Edward the black prince was called so from child hood. I already provided quotes demonstrating her as a brown skinned woman. She had a black son. There is more than enough evidence these were mixed race peoples. They were not white and its why they always push multi-culturalism down the real white britons throat kicking and screaming.

            I cannot look at a person from a multi-racial country, (especially when the white genes seem to often dominate) and tell you simply by looking what their ancestry is. I cannot easily tell if a gypsy quarter breed is a gypsy, or if a jew half breed is a jew, or if a black quarter breed is a black. Some of them try to pass as white. But if such an ancestry can be found, it means they are non white. a NON white can look white sometimes, like robin thicke son who is even whiter than the finn president you showed me. But a white will never look non-white. These brown skinned black hair black skin “English” people are not whites. No self respecting white would go around with a stupid name like the black prince.

            You are simply trying to play semantics and you know it. You want me to admit these mixed race people who “look white” are white. Because once I do that you will sneak in every other mix breed and mulatto. And since whites are the conquering race of the world most people will have some admixture with white.

            None of the major dna testing services have ever tested an african american who doesn’t have white admixture. By your logic you will use a slippery slope to force me to admit all mix breed blacks are white. After all once I acceppt the “white looking” mix breeds you’ll just keep moving the goal post back as to what looks white and the % admixture. And of course that is the goal of you anti-white racist. To pretend there is no race so you can take the next step to white genocide. I have to admit, cleverly played. You almost slipped your anti-white racism pass me as mere ignorance, but once you started acting ignorant about the gauls coming from the rhine and trying to insinuate they were secret blacks it became very clear that you were for white genocide.

            It is the typical old show me a white mix breed tactics. Finns are not white and never will be white, they might as well mix with the non-white slavs and blacks for all I care, they are all non-white to me. And they can take their quadroon queen elizabeth ii with them. How does a white nation like england get ruled by a self admitted quadroon queen? Who pushes multiculturalism to kill whites because she is working with her darky allies in secret.

          • SirBedevere

            First, I do not think I am a troll (I must admit that I do not know the definition of the term). I am a historian interested in intellectual history, investigating a late survival of a thoroughly discredited theoretical system. I would be just as interested in you if you were a flat earther or a homeopathic practitioner.

            Appearance is among the many continuing problems here. You insist that it is not important, and then you say that it is terribly important how her contemporaries described Charlotte of Mecklinburg-Strelitz. I see nothing in Benjamin West’s painting below that would cause me to attribute African ancestry to her and I do not know who this McGill genealogist is, but Queen Charlotte’s ancestors do not appear to include any Africans. I would be interested to know which of her ancestors is thought to be.

            As for Edward, sources written centuries later are of little interest. Who was calling him “black” in his childhood and why? I have never seen a source that uses the term, though fourteenth-century England is far from my specialty. Stapledon’s description means, I’m afraid, bugger all. In medieval Europe, there were very few of what those of us who live in multi-ethnic former colonies would call dark skinned people. Consequently, as I noted, the word brown was used to describe skin that might be anything from freckled to suntanned. In what you imagine as racially pure England, peasants were often characterized as brown-skinned, for instance, because they worked in the sun.

          • hernandayoleary

            On the issue of appearance. A non-white person who is mixed with white can look white. But is not white. a mixed person is never counted as white.

            look at her broad nose breathing up all the white man’s air and her black facial features. She simply doesn’t look white. As for Africa ancestry. You claim you are a expert historian in medieval europe. You ought to know that there were quiet a few africans running around in portugal, spain and italy during this period. Of course these people were not always called africans, many of them had been in europe for multiple generations. She comes from the portuguese line of mix breeds and blacks although she was technically from germany. Anyhow we know that septimus severus and several blacks have been found in the ancient period. No recent african migration would even necessarily be necessary for a particular royal like queen phillippa who is described as a black woman (broad nose brown skin) to be black or quadrooned. There are several sources that describe Edward as black during childhood and they were calling him black for the same reason they called his mother a broad nose brown skinned woman. Because that is what they were!

            Yes I seen the sources when I was in England. Contact dr. hakim adi, he might be able to help you. You are simply mistaken. While brown could make sense of a suntanned person, a person whose been to England would know it would not be easy to suntan at all. In fact most british white royal put on lots of white powder on their skin. The fact she was still brown is proof of her admixture. You want me to believe brown skin is now white. Next you will be telling me kobe bryant has brown skin and therefore is white and then you will go into your one race arguement. Nice try race troll but I will never accept any brown skinned person as white. The other issue you have is her general countenance is not white. “White people” with flat noses and sun tanned skinned and dark black hair are called blacks! Next you are going to tell me white people with slanty eyes and yellow skin are white too!

            And lastly as for your claim prince edward was called so for his black armour. What a ridiculous statement. Have you even seen his armour?

            http://www2.fiu.edu/~casinesg/OtherFigures/black%20prince.jpg

            The only thing that is black there is his darkey skin. Peasants were not characterized as brown skin. I been to England it hardly gets hot for more than a month in the year and its not enough to even tan most people’s skin. Have you even seen a farmer in england, they are as white as everyone else, they do not obtain tans, it just isn’t hot enough.

            https://static-secure.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2010/10/29/1288357172063/Happy-Meat-006.jpg

            Give your head a fix.

            You claim you know of no black royals. Tell me why this black is wearing a crown?

            http://www.realhistoryww.com/world_history/ancient/Misc/Crests/Barbados_penny_1.jpg

            Nothing about this man looks black to you does it?

            http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/secret/art/fustinov.jpg

            On his father’ side Ustinov is a member of the old Russian nobility. But on his mother’s side, he is a member of the Ethiopian Royal Family. The origin of this interracial line was the marriage of his great grandfather, a Swiss military engineer, with the daughter of the Emperor Theodore II. Forbidden to leave Ethiopia, as were the most valued of the Europeans who joined the Imperial service, the engineer had been wedded to the princess, apparently not only in compensation, but to insure his loyalty to the Emperor.

            http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/secret/famous/ustinov.html

            But when one asked how does a russian end up with black hair and dark ehyes it should be obvious. This is why look white isn’t good enough to BE white.

  • SirBedevere

    As an American, I wonder who “Phil” is.