#finland #scandinavia #history This question I get asked ALOT! Is Finland a Scandinavian country? let's take a look! Thank you very much for watching this video! Please like, share and subscribe!
Funny how Finland become not a part of "Scandinavia" a bit after 1809 when Russians defeated the Swedes in war and took 1/3 of the Kingdom of Sweden .. prior to that Finland had been part of Sweden for almost 700 years ..
It's nice that Finns and Scandinavians can agree that Finns are not Scandinavian. Now if rest of the world understood and agreed with us that would be cool 😂
Partly Finland is located on the Scandinavian peninsula. However Finland 🇫🇮 is a Nordic country with Sweden 🇸🇪 Norway 🇸🇯 Denmark 🇩🇰 and Iceland 🇮🇸 politically, economically, religiously, culturally and geographically. They are all members of the Nordic council and are prosperous countries with a high standard of living. Finland was ranked the best country by World economic Forum conference in Switzerland Davos 2019 and World happiness index report and UN ranked Finland the happiest country six times in a row 2018-2023. Why? The reasons are approximately the same. Finland is at the top in almost every category. The other Nordic countries are among the ten best and happiest countries. The other Nordic countries have no need to be ashamed of Finland. I wish Finns would defend their country more, when a lot of foreigners still think Finland is a part of Russia.
Well, "finland is not Scandinavian country but a part of the Fennoscandian region" is general knowledge that is taught to all children in basic school geography classes in Finland. That information cannot be avoided in Finland.
@@Hrotiberhtaz Sweden colonised Finland for hundreds of years, you are result of that. They took our history, our religion. They killed our people in pointless wars that had nothing to do with FInland. They used Finland as buffer against Russia and did NOTHING when Russia killed and raped and took slaves.
It's funny how Finns get annoyed when you lump them in with Scandinavians, while the Estonian government markets the country as Scandinavian on the basis that it's kinda like Finland.
I kinda wonder who is even interested is some country part of scandinavia or not, especially as it seems that often the one asking it, does not even know any accurate definition of Scandinavia... Nor can s/he tell me why this means something to them.
@@osmoahma7561 Well, Estonia's problem, in terms of international perception, is that nobody knows anything about the Baltic countries. Scandinavia meanwhile is an internationally recognized Thing with a good reputation. If you put the word "Scandinavian" in front of a product, people will assume that it's high-quality, nicely designed, probably ethically sourced...So Estonia figured it would be easier to convince investors, tourists etc. that Estonia is like those other Scandinavian countries they've heard about than to teach them about the Baltics.
You forgot one geographic - or rather geological - definition of Scandinavia: Scandes. It's the Scandinavian mountain range. Apparently, the only reason Denmark is even above sealevel is because it's located on top of the southern most part of the geological formation.
If the mountain range is what makes them Scandinavian then people living around the appalachian mountains in USA, the Scottish people at the highlands, and the Moroccan people living around the Atlas mountains are also Scandinavian because it's technically the same mountain range.
@@Einari1983 Yeah, the Scandes argument is the one I learned in school, being Swedish, but it includes culture as well. The argument for it is that if Norway is classified as a scandinavian country with Scania as a base, then Iceland should as well, since it was also part of Denmark at the time and spoke a scandinavian language.
Scandinavia is an ancient Romance contraction (a portmanteau) of SCANia+DINamarca+Noruega and was the name for the Danish trade federation also called Co-DANovia. Later when the Danes generously gave Sweden its independence, the Swedes became regarded as Scandinavians rather than simply Norwegians.
@@jesperlykkeberg7438 Not sure what you mean by this, but Pliny the Elder called Scandinavia Scatinavia already in the 1st century AD and that's before Denmark, Norway and Sweden existed. Also, "Denmark gave Sweden independence"? What do you even mean by that?
I guess purely geographically, if you totally ignored national borders, one should draw a line from Tornio/Haparanda to somewhere northeast, maybe to the great city of Varangerbotn in Norway, to mark the beginning of the Scandivanian peninsula. I'm not sure of how much of Finland that would leave within the Scandinavian peninsula, maybe 1/7 or 1/6. It would also leave a tiny bit of Norway outside of it, but that's just how it is in my eyes.
Geography is perhaps irrelevant, because if it was a question purely about that, then Denmark would not be included. It would just be Sweden and Norway, that are on the Scandinavian peninsula (and yes, part of northern Finland too). Much more important is political, social, linguistic and historic ties, but these have given way to the Nordic dimension since the 1950's. The Nordic dimension is a much more important than the Scandinavian one today, when it comes to cooperation. I claim "Scandinavia" is a fluid term. It has changed over time, and the idea that it's just Sweden, Norway and Denmark comes from the 19th century. Just think, what would Scandinavia have been defined as if Sweden never lost its eastern half and/or if Iceland still had a monarch in Copenhagen?
@@Cikeb Yeah, that's why I included the word peninsula. And indeed Denmark isn't a part of it. Of course just looking at the landmass isn't that meaningful, but it's still there. The most interesting what if question indeed would be what if Sweden never lost Finland. Probably in that case Finland would be included in Scandinavia. Iceland is way out there, so cutting it off might not be such a big deal.
@@herrakaarme Oh, yeah, it would be a big deal - like saying Celtic is not a big deal in the north-western parts of Europe. Iceland is the keeper of our most original undeluted traditions - we can't do without it in a Nordic setting. Icelanders and Finns are in addition very similar as people (not language), great literary traditions, weather-fest population - independent, stubborn, creative, sturdy - and can drink you under the table anytime, hehe! And both countries have been pioneers in having excellent female presidents, as decided republics, no kingdoms there.
@@DNA350ppm Like I said in my first post, a part of Finland is purely geographically already a part of the Scandinavian peninsula. That's how close Finland is to Scandinavia. So, if Finland was still East Sweden, it makes some sense Finland would be counted as Scandinavia. Iceland, however, is about a thousand kilometers away from Norway. This has got nothing to do with how important Iceland is culturally. It's obviously more Scandinavian than Finland culturally, keeping in mind the language and cultural history. All that being said, this is nothing but how I view it. Even if Finland was still a part of Sweden, and if we assumed native Swedish speakers were still a minority in Finland (obviously a huge portion of native Finnish speaker would speak Swedish fluently if Finland was a part of Sweden, but that's irrelevant here), I'm fairly certain there would be people in the Nordic countries who wouldn't consider Finland (East Sweden) Scandinavian, perhaps rightfully so.
@@herrakaarme Yes, indeed, Mr Viper and everybody, opinions would vary, as always, when there is the least wiggle room. How close do you consider Finland to the Slavic peoples and how close to Hungary - and in which respects? And what are your ideas about Estonia and Latvia and Lithuania - and also to all of you: how important are parlamentary democracy (free elections and diversity) and Lutherian Christendom vs other versions of Christendom, from Ethiopia to Utah? Are rather geography and language the greatest factors for grouping countries together?
I remember when I first saw that new slogan of Oulu. I was sitting in a buss and another buss went by with that slogan taped on it. I immediately went "but we're not part of Scandinavia, wth".
Still is Sweden and Finland pretty intertwined. Swedens biggest foreign population used to be Finland (maybe still, but debatable). Still there are a lot of finns (1st, 2nd generation) in Sweden. Would like to see even more cooperation between Finland and Sweden (culturally, politically and so forth). They share a lot of common history. A lot of finnish loanwords in Finland is a direct translation of many common Swedish words.
It would be like saying that Iceland is a part of Scandinavia despite us being 1000km away from actual Scandinavia. Scandinavia is a geographical region and not a cultural or linguistic one. Finland is a Nordic Country yes like Iceland, Faroe Islands and Norway (Some would say Sweden and Denmark but I disavow them as Nordic and I give Sweden to the Arabic world and Denmark to the German world). The relationships between the Finns and the Norse dates back almost 1500 years and there were even Finnish vikings and so a lot of culture and traditions are shared. I will admit though that Finland is a very unique country within Europe and has it's own deep cultural roots dating back into prehistory before the Finnic people migrated west from the forests just west of the Urals and after they arrived in Karelia, Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Ingria.
There was just an article in the "Tiede" magazine (11/2023) about how Finns were considered barbaric, idiotic, lazy and violent people, whose destiny was to be ruled over. This was a pretty common belief among Swedes and other Europeans even in the 20th century.
@@Woffenhorst Well, it was more based on the Finnish language being so different from most other European languages, and measuring skulls (some of which were stolen from cemetaries). According to the "science" at the time, Finns were more closely related to the Japanese, than Swedes for example. Crazy stuff.
Swedes were really into racial theories, and they did actually show Finns as examples of lower level race in their text books. "State Institute for Racial Biology" was founded in 1922. In 1958 it was renamed as "State Institute for Human Genetics". Overall these racial theories and fascism were really popular in Europe at that time.
@@Nobody-Nowhere Sweden lost Finland to Russia in the Napoleonic wars, and they tried to cope with it by saying that it wasn't, after all, such a big loss because Finns are barbarians. Just some backwater land and backwater people, Sweden is better off without them. The usual coping mechanism after something bad happens. Just like if you drop your phone on concrete, shattering the display, you might say that it was getting too long in the tooth anyway, slowing down because of lack of memory, the battery didn't hold charge properly anymore, etc, so a new phone was needed anyway, no big loss.
Wow! I appreciate this video a lot. I even learned that my grandmother's birthplace was once controlled by Sweden in Norway. Did not know that. Also you illustrated the Russian relationship well.
Factoid: The largest concentration of Finns in the U.S. are in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. The "U.P" is still pretty wild. It's 1/3 the land mass of the state of Michigan but only has 4 % of the state's population! Finns like their solitude. :) P.S. my Finnish family immigrated to the UP in the late 1800s. My mom and dad were born there. :)
I am from the U.P.! Adding to the factoid by saying that 15% of all U.P. residents have aome Finnish ancestry and in some of the more Northern parts it is as high as 25%! One set of my great grandparents came over from Finland in the early 1900's.
@@windsongshf My great grandparents settled in the central U.P. near Trenary. Their farm is still in the family, and is now 105 years old! My Dad grew up in Houghton/Hancock though.
The rise of the use of the Finnish language by the educated elite in the 19th century is interesting Many drivers of Finnish nationalism were of Swedish origin but altered their names to make themselves more Finnish. The same happened in Estonia too.
The question of language is a little bit more complicated. Many of the Swedish-speaking elite in Finland had Finnish roots. Since there were no Finnish-speaking schools until in the 1850s, many educated and originally Finnish-speaking people/families had adopted Swedish as their mother tongue. After the founding of Finnish-speaking schools, the majority of the country, the Finnish-speaking Finns could send the offspring to schools and university without the students having to change their language. It was the sheer majority of the educated Finnish-speakers that made the difference and turned the former vernacular language of Finnish into a language of education, science, nwespapers, literature and government. Forerunners in this process were the students of theology at he University of Helsinki, the future Lutheran clergy. They chose Finnish as their "official language" in the 1850s at the Swedish-speaking university.
@@tarja-liisaluukkanen245 It is always tricky to tell whether a family is originally Finnish or Swedish Or like Mannerheim Dutch -> Swedish -> Finnish. But the dominant culture was definitely Swedish in the first half of the 19th century I have friends in Jyväskylä and we visited the University which was one of the first teacher training colleges which worked in Finnish. The Fennoman movement / party had a lot of first-language Swedish people as the intelligensia were educated in Swedish. Language politics is a tough one for a lot of countries and Finland is no exception.
@@johncrwarner Also, they can be both (if we completely ignore that the ethnic definition of today is not really the same as it was back then). We're talking about at least a thousand years of intermingling.
@@Cikeb My knowledge of Finnish history really stems from the nineteenth and twentieth century history and ignoring actual genetic data which we didn't have until recently there was definitely a movement from encultured Swedish speaking dominance even in Russian dominated Finland giving way to the Finnish speaking dominance That cultural shift and its benefits and problems were a strong marker in Finnish history.
Also a lot of ethnically Finnish, Finnish-speaking people had Swedish names. These might have been given to their family during military service under the Swedish military if I recall correctly. Many of these people, too, chose to translate their names into Finnish or take a Finnish surname. Surnames among the common people weren't all that common in Western Finland, whereas the surname history in Eastern Finland is much longer.
Nicely done video! You introduce the subject neatly and in a comprehensive way! I think that the comment section also proves well the final point of this video in that it is a lot better to simply use the term "Nordic" rather than "Scandinavian". That way one can avoid the never ending and headache inducing debates of whether Finland is Scandinavian or not, since people agree on Nordic but there is no similar agreement on Scandinavian. (In my opinion from cultural, historical and linguistical perspective, Finns are not scandinavian. :))
I am a proud nerd! These videos are like vOdKa to me! Btw, the table at 9:18 reminded me that Spede in in cinemas now, go watch it! (ok... it probably has no English subtitles.)
Just to add: also when Finland gained independence at the same time as the Baltic countries the 1st time, we were considered a Baltic country, and only after the USSR had taken the Baltic countries Finland was considered a Nordic country more than a Baltic one
@@lottaraatikainen3942 And Livonians, another Baltic Finn people, used to rule over modern day Latvia. They have been slowly pushing us into a smaller and smaller area. What is now Russia, East from Finland, West from Ural mountains used to be Finno-Ugric through and through. And some people wonder why we want to be Finnish, not part of something that oppressed us centuries (Sweden, and Scandinavians/Germanic people).
Finland was included in the scandinavian pavillion with Danmark, Sweden, Norway and Iceland in Expo 67 (world fair in Montreal). It was considered a scandinavian country back then.
It depends on the context: in USA and in Canada Finland, I think, is considered as a part of Scandinavia. During the Winter War, for example, Finland was ”small Scandinavian country fighting for it’s independence…”
As you correctly point out, the rest of the world should learn to use the term "Nordic countries". "Scandinavia" only makes sense in a purely geographical sense (the peninsula shared between Norway and Sweden), and perhaps a linguistic sense, which would include Denmark (or more precisely, the lands where the "continental" north-Germanic languages of Danish, Norwegian and Swedish are spoken). Geopolitically speaking, there is no such thing as Scandinavia.
Scandinavia is an ancient Romance contraction (a portmanteau) of SCANia+DINamarca+Noruega. Which is why using the word Scandinavia for the peninsula shared between Norway and Sweden is absurd. Likewise, Icelandic is a North Germanic language, but as opposed to Denmark, Iceland is not a part of Scandinavia, so your "linguistic sense" is a load of nonsense as well. Claiming that "geopolitically speaking, there is no such thing as Scandinavia" is ridiculous. Geopolitically speaken Scandinavia is indeed a cultural region. That´s just a fact. I would suggest that people, rather than indulging in nonsense and misinformation, should simply stop playing experts in things they know nothing about,
My finnish geography teacher told our class that we need to remember that Finland is not part of Scandinavia and if we say it is, we look stupid as everyone knows it's not. Fast forward to the age of the internet and 90% of people is calling Finland Scandinavian. 😂 I don't mind it too much except times when people are bringing up Scandinavia, and I am left wondering if person added Finland into that or not. Are they using term correctly or incorrectly? It's a mystery. 😅 Thank you for the video! Awesome job yet again.
this was a nice history recap. i'd still want to add my 5 pennies. -> The Scandies. I always thought scandinavia took the name from the mountains. Anyhow, finland has one arm touching the mountains, so basically we're like scandi-umm-let me think now, anyways good stuff heyy
In the 4th century CE the Greek explorer Pythea traveled to "Scandiae" in southern Sweden among other places , Pytheas mention of the place in 325 BCE seems to be the first mention of Scandinavia -in the 1st century the Roman Pomponius Mela calls it "Codanovia" where the Roman Pliny the elder calls it "Scatinavia"and the Sea around =Codanovia, around 500 CE the Jordanes used the term "Scandza" about the area where the Goths came from and that was Scandinavia -Ptolemy 90-168 AD used the term "Skandia" about the area -in Norse mythology "Skade/Skadi"
A Finn here. The *real* reason why Finland is not considered a part of Scandinavia but Denmark is, is simply that Norway, Sweden and Denmark want it so. There simply is no coherent argument from linguistics, geography or history. Like thvideo shows actually. There are a bunch of reasons that kinda sorta make Finland different, but it is a mess of rules and exceptions. Geography based on the Scandic mountains would leave Denmark out. Language would include Finland as Swedish has an equal legislative status to Finnish. History would include Finland. Only some cradefinitions like "Scandinavia are the countries and their islands in mainland Europe, where a Swedish-like language is spoken as the only official language" (or alternatively "... with a Swedish-like native language, and which never was under the ruling of Russia"). Or you can simply define Scandinavia as "Sweden, Norway and Denmark". That is arbitrary, yes, but at least it is openly so. Why do Sweden, Denmark and Norway want this definition - maybe that would be a better topic for discussion. I think those countries do still have closer ties. It is easier that the majority of people speak the same language. And I think a small part in the back of many of their minds sees Finns as hillbillies that they do not want to have a strong association with. I'm not saying they actively think this way, but sometimes it shows through I think. But this does leave Finland in a weird limbo: we are not counted in Scandinavia and we are not counted in the Baltic countries. This actually shows often in the scores in the Eurovision song contest, too! Sweden, Denmark and Norway all give top scores to each other, like do the Baltic countries, an we give the top scores often to Sweden, Norway and Estonia.
Up here, the somewhat vague term Scandinavia is mainly used in marketing and when communicating abroad. And, sometimes, about the North Germanic speaking Nordic continuum of Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Iceland and even - occasionally - Iceland. But Nordic is the chosen term for a region with many common traits: Mixed marked economies, hi-level democracy, liberal social norms, extensive welfare states and so on. These countries are Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Iceland and of course the various autonomous regions. And maybe Estonia will join the club one day?
I don't know why someone markets the Nordic countries as Scandinavian countries (whoever does this probably hasn't been awake during geography lessons at school), but when Finland markets the Nordic countries abroad, it is customary to talk about the Nordic countries as they officially are. But maybe others are more relaxed and flexible with these things.
@@janhanchenmichelsen2627 When it comes to design, what comes from Finland is strongly marketed as Finnish because we want to emphasize Finland's country brand and recognisability. For example, Alvar Aalto's Savoy vase or Marimekko's patterns are not called Scandinavian design but they are called Finnish design even in the products themselves.
The short answer is that a part of Finland is part of Scandinavia and our cultures have intermingled for so long that we're actually culturally very Scandinavian. Technically Finland isn't a Scandinavian country, but it kind of is, though.
We share a lot of similarities with Scandinavian culture, true, but our culture at its roots is not Scandinavian. We do not share the same mythology, and despite Christianity being forced upon us, parts of our native religions were still practiced well into the 1800s. There are still a lot of habits that come from our own culture most people aren't even aware of. The habit of not revealing a child's name until they are baptised is pre-Christian and originally you would not reveal the name until the baby had their first teeth. This had to do with the belief in three souls. People being very modest and unwilling to praise themselves or the things they own is also pre-Christian and has to do with the belief that good fortune is a finite resource. Your good fortune is literally away from someone else. If you show off your good fortune, then someone could get envious and look at you with an evil eye or otherwise try to take your good fortune. This is why people to this day say "oh, it's nothing special, just something I got off of a sale" when you compliment their new shirt.
Another good question on the Nordic countries closer to home for you, is should Iceland also be included as a Celtic Nation by descent in addition to being a member of the Nordic and Germanic nation worlds? Similar to how the Spanish regions of Asturia and Galicia sometimes are. Because they also don't have a Celtic language, but they have something about them and some of their traditions, traditions, and appearance scream Isles Celtic. As for Iceland, technically their maternal side is majority Irish and Scottish Highland/Isles/West Coast related so Gael, so descended from Gaelic speaking, culturally Celtic women who's ancestry goes back to Ireland ultimately. These women arrived both via intermarriage (Norse-Gael) families, and as women taken there by force. Some Irish and Scottish men were taken as well to work. Overtime these people were absorbed into the population. So in essence they are Paternally largely Norwegian-Danish related and Maternally largelly Irish-Scottish related. Appearance wise many people look straight up Irish or Scottish, to the point that visitors from Ireland and Scotland, comment on seeing people that they just know. The humor is has that Gaelic sarcasm, flow of life, love of music, even the environment. Culturally they have something about them that is more akin to the Celtic isles. I've even heard Irish and Scottish legends talk of monks settling on or near Iceland. Lingusitically it is an Old Norse more archaic Germanic language but has been found to have lots of Celtic loanwords. It makes sense your mother is whom you learn most from, and genetically these largely womens genes stayed strong. I remember an interview with an Irishman who lived in Iceland commenting to Icelanders your nothing like the Norwegians, Danes or Swedes, i've met the Norwegians, Danes and Swedes, you have our sense of humor, you look like you stepped out of Dublin. 😂 On a genetic and perhaps deeper cultural level, Iceland is therefore is a Norse-Gael Celto-Germanic country at its root and foundation. Dublin, Wexford, Waterford, Ireland Argyle, and the isles of Scotland, Shetland islands also have some of that legacy. And on that even Southwestern Norway got some of the Gaelic/Celtic DNA via migrations back to the mainland. So all in all, they have a partial Nordic root, and Iceland has a substantial partial Celtic root. The influence of Finns on Sweden is also studied. Genetically Iceland is the farthest West Norwegians are next, then Danes sit in the middle, Swedes are the farthest East. This makes sense as Norwegians and Danes had more contact with the Isles (Norse-Gaels) and Mainland Western Europe (Normans) whereas Swedes had more contact with Finns, Balts, and even Slavs (Novogorod, Kievan Rus ruling class).
just think of it, everyone in finnish areas are able to understand each other, we have been country for thousands of years, atleast. anyone saying otherwise is driven with agenda we dont speak scandinavian
Great video! heres my opinion: I kind of think more geographicly and id say Finland itself isnt Scandinavian but see the northern parts of Finland scandinavian so Finland isnt scandinavian but it also is. Same as the region of Kola in Russia (the region bordering Norway that is part of Russia) is also part of Scandinavian peninsula.
Your videos should be put part of our kids schools history lessons. Perhaps they would learn more (well for sure!) with 15 minutes Tube video than, for hours, monotonic history teachers ”peanuts woo-woo” -talk. Even I got new info from this! Thanks.. 😊 No.. I’ve never been a nerd.. really.. not.. just loving history and stories from the past which were true.. 🤓😉
Finland is far from eastern Europe. Finland was directly a part of Sweden for over 600 years and got its culture and sivilization through that period. Even today Swedish is the second official language in Finland. Finland🇫🇮 is a Nordic and western country culturally, politically, economically, religiously and geographically with Sweden 🇸🇪 Norway 🇸🇯 Denmark 🇩🇰 and Iceland 🇮🇸. They are all prosperous countries with a high standard of living. Finland was ranked the best country by World economic Forum conference in Switzerland Davos 2019 and the happiest country six times in a row 2018-23 by World happiness index report and UN. Finland is at the top almost in every category. All the other Nordic countries are among the ten best and happiest countries. Eastern European countries have never achieved that position. Finland was never under communism. Never a part of the Soviet union and never an eastern bloc country.
The fact that Finland, or Iceland, are often mistaken for Scandinavian countries is not really a big deal. The word Scandinavia can be quite complicated to define, even for some scholars, and there are many reasons to that as you mentioned on your video. Originally it referred only to the former Danish, now Swedish, region of Scania, the southernmost of the historical provinces of Sweden, just like you said. Nowadays Scandinavia refers to Denmark, Norway and Sweden. Some sources also argue for the inclusion of the Faroe Islands, Finland and Iceland. Finland was part of the Kingdom of Sweden for about 650 years. So for several hundreds of years, people elsewhere learned that Finland was just another region of Sweden. And when Sweden, Norway and Denmark became known as Scandinavian countries, it was naturally thought elsewhere that Finland, as a former part of Sweden, belonged to Scandinavia. In common English usage, Scandinavia also sometimes refers to the Scandinavian Peninsula, or to the broader region including Finland and Iceland, which is known locally as the Nordic countries. To make definition more complicated, the Scandinavian Peninsula includes the mainland of Sweden, the mainland of Norway AND the northwestern area of Finland. Denmark and some Norwegian islands, though belonging to Scandinavia, do not belong to the Scandinavian Peninsula. Today various promotional agencies of the Nordic countries promote market and tourism interests all around the world using the word Scandinavia in their names and they include also Finland and Iceland under that name (for example The American-Scandinavian Foundation, The Scandinavian Tourist Board, etc. etc.). These and many other companies, organizations, associations and agencies, which also represent Finland and Iceland under the name Skandinavia, in a way increase people's misinterpretation. All the 5 Nordic countries (Iceland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland) have common history, they have similar cultures and similar values, the economies of the countries are similar and amongst the highest in the world, they have similar school systems, they have similar generous welfare systems, they have the same main religion (Lutheran) and same kind of flags with different colours. The languages of the Nordic countries are almost the same, except Finnish. But according to the Constitution of Finland, Swedish is Finland's second official language. So studying Swedish is compulsory for all Finns whose native language is Finnish. They must study Swedish in primary schools, upper secondary schools, vocational schools and universities. Finland's government officials are required to speak Swedish. All official papers are in Finnish and in Swedish. The street names, place names and signs in many cities are both in Finnish and in Swedish. Almost half of Finland's municipalities and towns have both Finnish and Swedish names, or only Swedish names, etc. Swedish can be seen everywhere. All in all the word Scandinavia can, and has been defined many ways depending on the time of history and context. At this moment Denmark, Norway and Sweden are the official Scandinavian countries. However, considering the close history of the Nordic countries and the history of the word Scandinavia and the way it is used today in many official contexts as well, it's not a terrible sin in GENERAL SPEECH to call Finland or Iceland part of Scandinavia, though they officially are not. Rather, it seems that those who always point out the matter just want to emphasize their own wisdom.
It depends on defenition, if its geological/geographical then yes if its languages/racial/cultural/political then its debateble, in languages and racial no, political and cultural they have more similarities to Sweden of course some with the others and then you can ad them to scandinavian. But its easier to say nordics.
Scandinavia is not the same as the Norcdic countries which include Finland and Iceland, but culturally it is simular to Sweden since it was part of Sweden for almost 700 hundred even if the most Finnish people speak Finnish as their native language but some still use Swedish.
I find the concept of Nordic Countries to be more inclusive and accurate, better highlighting their closeness. These are: Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Faroe, Aland, Gotland, Estonia, Scotland, Orkney and Shetland.
None of these are Nordic: Estonia, Scotland, Orkney, Shetland. None of these are countries: Aland, Gotland. However, you forgot Greenland. It´s a country and it is Nordic.
@@jesperlykkeberg7438 You, of course, mistake countries for nations. People who post like you always do that mistake. Greeland is not a nordic country, it's a Innui country that is an autonomous region of Denmark situated in North America. Seriously you think you made a grand argument? Seriously? All the countries and nations i mentioned are considered nordics. Deal with it.
@@carlossaraiva8213 Sorry, but you totally messed it all up. Scotland, Orkney and the Shetlands are British not "Nordic countries". Actually Orkney and the Shetlands are part of Scotland which is part of Britain. Estonia is a Baltic Country and is NOT, as of yet, regarded as a Nordic country. Greenland is indeed a member of The Nordic Council. Maybe you could just bring some receits for your unfounded wild claims before rambling about things you obviously know nothing about. Just a suggestion.
@@jesperlykkeberg7438 nice try. Cant wait to see Scotland independent so you can make a picachu face on Scotland becoming part of the Nordic Counsil and trashing it's imposed "british" identiry by the english. Snd go yo Shetland and try to tell the l8cals theirs is not a country in its own right, i dare you. Estonia is both a Nordic and Baltic nation. Nations can be two things if they so chose to. Like how Spain is both Western Europe snd Souther Europe. You get it? Your attempt at smart failed. Go back to school.
It is very different from the rest of Nordic countries. Sámi languages are more closely related to Finnish than Estonian. Sharing language and dna with the Sámi does set us apart. That is why it is an atrocity that alcohol is legal, but not cannabis. In these tribal lands not even the amputated are allowed to use cannabis for pain, but are prescribed opium and stronger drugs. We used to have savusauna, the Scythian-style sauna, a tent sauna filled with cannabis. Sauna is accepted as Unesco's heritage, but still we are not allowed to take a sauna the traditional way. Getting caught with half a cigarette means one is punished for the next 70 years by law, should that cigarette be laiden with cannabis. The Irish also have a stronger connection with nature than many other nationalities due to their heritage, so I think the past harsh cannabis laws in Ireland are also very unethical, but Finland is still enforcing them like a teacher's puppet, a model student in the EU. They fine war veterans and amputated and the ms-diseased for it, which means they suffer from that one fine very much as it means they now have been marked down as criminals and are not allowed to drive, travel, work or have children or pain medication when one is old. There is zero legal way to get it from a doctor no matter if you were holding your head detached from your body in your hands and saying this hurts. This means even our brightest, the Einsteinian autists, are cast out of the physics department and out of the entire society, for one medical cigarette for autism, made to collect cans off the street instead and often institutionalised and drugged against their will to make them unable to use their brain power for good as they are seen as the developmentally disabled who have gotten into a crack habbit rather than being sick of an illness for which the only cure known to man is cannabis that removes autism completely for its duration and enables them to present their autistic findings to larger public. Autism means being so painful every day, that the only way to escape the pain is to escape it by studying something for a lifetime. Einstein or not, with that effort one becomes like a rare expert, but is not allowed to free himself from the grips of autistic pain not even for a few hours. Absolutely bonkers I tell you.
@@diamondsarenotforever8542 Yes they have a different culture, but we speak a language that is mutually almost intelligable. We share things, but of course they are of a different culture, but of the same root. Dna and linguistics prove it. But I wouldn't be studying Sámi, if I didn't believe they don't have nothing to add to my Finnishess. I am Sámi and a Finlander. I believe knowing both strenghtens our indigenous heritage.
of course it isn't, they have a shared history and finland has many borrowed elements of that culture, but this would also be true of the area east of finland up to the urals
Interestingly, for those not acquainted with British naval recruitment techniques in the days of sail, for the lower ranks, was called "press ganging" you were basically taken. The only people in the world inelligible were the Finns
Scandinavia (from proto-Norse "Skaðin-awjō", believed to mean: 'flat lowland island') is etymologically the same as Skåne (c.f. Old English "Scedenig"). The term is first known from Pliny the Elder. The term is not colloquial, Nordic peoples speak about "Norden" - the North. "Scandinavia" is used in science to refer to the Scandinavian Peninsula, and sometimes about the North East Germanic languages, by the later it has a cultural meaning, but is not very well understood by ordinary people. Finnish and Finland belong to Norden, but they don't *generally* speak an North East Germanic language as a first language. They are kind of "honorary Scandinavians" by speaking Swedish as a second language, but they are regarded as Nordic, because they live in Finland that are partaking in the Nordic Council, and because of the many connections with Sweden.
The term *Skaðin-awjō (it is reconstructed, thence the asterisk) is likely to mean "danger island" or "danger peninsula" (or "scathing" peninsula if you will) because of the dangerous reefs on its three corners.
Wrong. "Skaðin-awjō" is a fantasy word that has never been attested. Which is why it should always be written with a preceding asterix. There´s no evidence that the word "Scandinavia" is of Germanic origin. Scandinavia/Scadinavia is a typical Romance contraction (portmanteau) of SCANia+DINamarca+Noruega and was used on the European continent for what was also called "Codanovia" (COalition de DANemark et NORVÈge). Sweden was never a part of the portmanteau. At the time the Swedish language was simply regarded as a Danish dialect and Uppland and Svealand had status as a provinces, and not independent nations. Iceland was a complete deserted Island at the time, with no population. Also the language of ancient Scandinavia was clearly called "Danske Tunge" according to the oldest Scandinavian sources (Such as the oldest Icelandic text "Fyrsta málfræðiritgerðin"). "Old Norse" was a much later broken dialect of Danish which was spoken primarily in Iceland, the Faroes and some parts of Western Norway and Upper Sweden.
@@jesperlykkeberg7438 "fantasy word" is overly strong wording when it is actually a word reconstructed by linguists based on established sound laws and factual knowledge of the from inscription attested Proto-Norse language. And strong wording is also in discord with the cool Swedish codex of thinking before writing and thinking before speaking.
@@rursus8354 I´m not Swedish, so you´d have no reasons to assume I´m not thinking before I´m speaking. "Fantasy-word" is a polite term. It is a perfectly fair and decent classification not only because the term "Skaðin-awjō" has never been attested and is nothing but undocumented conjecture. Indeed there is no linguistic basis for the "-awjō"-part where as "-via" interpreted as in "way" could very well explain how the English name for Norway arose. But more importantly the term "Skaðin-awjō" is in conflict with basic Scandinavian grammar and orthography: According to Scandinavian grammar: if the "Scan"-syllable was indeed the root of a Scandinavian term "Scandinavia" IT WOULD CARRY THE STRESS. It´s an indisputable fact that in Norse languages it is the specifying ROOT in basic word constructions that carries the stress: SKÅNelande, SKAGensmalere, SKIBSbyggere, NORDen, etc. The stress is not necessarily carried on the first syllable (as some British and European linguists once imagined) but on the root, none the less: tilSIDEsættende, forSTANDig, iØREfaldende, vedLIGEholde. In Scandinavian languages the stress-carrying root in compounds (incl. abbreviations) can be defined as "the LATEST attached specifier/modifier". This is a functional definition as opposed to the lexical definitions used for Greek and French. English once followed the same - functional - rule ("LICan/aLIKE", etc) until English became Normanized into utter confusion. The problem is clearly that the pronunciation of the term "ScandiNAVia" doesn´t follow the ancient Scandinavian order for basic word-constructions. To the contrary "ScandiNAVia" is perfectly in line with other typical romanic constructions such as Macedonia, Catalonia, Mesopotamia, megalomania and necrophilia. Note the big difference here. "MegaloMANia" does not carry the stress on it´s latest attached specifier as opposed to the Scandinavian word "STORhedsvanvid". considering all this the reconstruction "Skaðin-awjō" surely seems to be utter nonsense and therefore the claim among ignorant linguists that "Scan" is the root of the term "Scandinavia" does indeed reveal their complete lack of knowledge of even the most basic grammar of Scandinavian and old Germanic languages. As I have already hinted at: There´s an exception to the rules both for loanwords and abbreviations containing several equally valid roots (BeneLUX, abC, etc.). Therefore the term "Scandinavia" is either a loanword or a portmanteau, - or both. It´s really that simple. But what no linguists should be able to ignore: There´s strong evidence ("coDANus Sinus" = Kattegat) that the word "CoDANovia" must have had the stress on the second syllable, since the "co-" syllable is a typical romanic prefix that doesn´t carry the stress (as in "comarco", "commerce", etc.) and likewise the "-us"-syllable in "Codanus" is a typical romanic suffix that also never carries the stress either. This analytic insight evidently renders the root as "DANE". This is solid word analysis. Who can argue against that? Now, you try and refute my knowledge-based assessments without descending into senseless "reference to authorities"-logical fallacies and absurd claims of "established sound-laws". Linguists have yet to show they have any profound understanding of Germanic word-constructional grammar and I have yet to find a linguist who doesn´t treat all language as it was simply a mere word-based hybrid-pidgin like his own. A false consensus among thousands of biased linguists doesn´t make utter nonsense true. Why? The proof is in the pudding.
As a Finn, I'd say that we aren't Scandinavian as it's strictly about geography of the Scandinavian pensinsula + Denmark which make up North Germanic countries and languages. Sure Finland borders two Scandinavian countries of Sweden and Norway and was exposed to their influence throughout thousands years. "Nordic country" suits Finland better as a cultural term.
I don't think that you are in danger of being boring to your audience. Going down rabbit holes is interesting to most people, and history and language are fascinating topics. I feel like mentioning that the 13th century Swedish settlement in Finland is not something we know very much about since we have so few sources. There doesn't seem to be anything indicating that people were deliberately sent there by the Swedish state as part of a project of colonisation. Rather, people left their local communities "under the radar" and went to the opposite coast as fishermen and later farmers. This also happened in Estonia. So in a way it is a different historical "track" than the Swedish annexation of Finland which is probably closer to the Irish experience.
"Codanovia" is a Latin portmanteau of "Confoederatio Dania-Norwegia". Likewise "Scadinavia" is a 4th century West-Romance portmanteau of Scania-Dinamarca-Noruega. Sweden was never part of the portmanteau. So why do we include Sweden in "Scandinavia", you may ask. Because we´re nice.
Well, the Scandinavian peninsula is a peninsula in the larger penunsula of the Fennoscandinavian Peninsula. As such not only are the Finns scandinavians but so are the Karelians, who are a brother people to both the Finns and the Estonians in culture and language.
For me Finland is and has been lot more a part of Scandinavia than part of Europe. Flags are similar. That's just my opinion, i have never thought us as europeans couse we are back here in north. Would be cool if Scandinavia would form a Scandinavian union of our countries instead of EU that i dislake due to many reasons. Could be just that we are our own thing here. Just Suomi. Paras kieli maailmassa, ei hiljaisia kirjaimia eikä piiloäänteitä.
It's not a matter of opinion, though. The definition of the term Scandinavia is Sweden, Norway, and Denmark. That's it. Finland is not a Scandinavian country. But Finland and Scandinavia are both Nordic. Just because we have a similar flag does not make us Scandis, or then Iceland would be, too. Also, the Scandinavian countries are already part of a political union, which Finland is also part of. It's called the Nordic Council.
Scandinavia is the bear or the dog on top of Europe on the map. Southern Norway is the head. Southern Sweden and Finland are the legs. The Kola Peninsula is its tail. Denmark is not really a part of it.
The video arrives at a correct conclusion based on a probably flawed reason. The idea of applying the term "Scandinavian" to the history of Norden is probably wrong, it makes little sense. It's like claiming that all the Nordics are from Funen (the island) and are therefore Funenian, because they speak the same language as the Funen inhabitants.
As Finland was part of Sweden about 800 years (As a part of the Viking occupations like in in England) or about 600 years (As an official part of Sweden), how does one decide if Finland has been or was a Scandinavian country? We have a quite interesting geographical and political dilemma here. For sure Finland is not geographically Scandinavia, but it has been a part of a Scandinavian country for over 600 years. All of that time Finland was officially part of the Sweden. Sweden was part of Scandinavia. And yet Finland was not geographically in Scandinavia.
Ireland was part of Scandinavia but we used lots of boats,rope and musclepower to drag it out where it is now. why? Cause they look weird and if you give showel to one it starts to sleep against the showel immediatly😂
Just watch the map. Geographically it is. Tallest fjell of Finland, is Halti, whichs belongs into same mountains as the rest of scandis.. This is very weird argument that Finland wouldn't be a scandinavian country. So it seems that some ppl also mentioned about the same thing.. Sorry about this :)
So why aren't Iceland, Greenland and the Faroe Islands considered Scandinavian? Greenland and the Faroe Islands are Danish territories, and Iceland shares a long history, a similar ethnicity and culture and a close-ish language with Norway, Denmark and Sweden.
Finland might not be geographically nor linguistically part of "Scandinavia", but culturally it's _de facto_ a Scandinavian country. I lived in the 80's, and it was a very general sentiment at least back then that Finland was just as Scandinavian as Sweden and Norway, at least culturally speaking. (It may well be that, at least back then, "Scandinavia" was used as a synonym for "the Nordic Countries".) I would say, as a Finn, that claiming that Finland is not part of Scandinavia reeks a bit of nitpicking. Technicalities.
That's not really true, though. The Finnish culture has been heavily influenced by Sweden, but at its roots, the Finnish culture is Finnic, which is a Uralic culture. It my not seem obvious to people in the modern day, but we do still in fact retain customs and beliefs from that. We do not share the same mythology with Scandinavia, and people were still practicing parts of pur native religion well into the 1800s.
Are Indians British because British Empire pushed their language etc. on them? Are Irish British because same was done to them? Fact is that Sweden tried to wipe out what makes us Finns Finnish. Our history is lost because of Sweden for Christ's sake! Only in past few years we have found out that apparently Finland actually had some pretty big communities before Swedes. But we don't know jack shit about them because Swedish were only concerned about Sweden's history. I was taught at school that Finland had NOTHING when Swedish came and civilised us. THAT is their legacy to Finland.
To complicate matters more, a part of Finland in the far north is on the Scandinavian Peninsula while Denmark makes it to Scandinavia without being on the Scandinavian peninsula. Scandinavian languages are spoken both in Finland and Denmark. So I don't see the logic in calling Denmark Scandinavia but not Finland. Greetings from Helsinki.
"Scandinavia" is a Roman portmanteau of Scania+Dinamarca used in southern Europe for the "Federation of Scania, Denmark and the Isles". The Scandinavian language was called Dansk Tunge/Dónsk Tungu in the oldest Icelandic text. The only people who can claim to be Scandinavians are those whose linguistic ancestors were once called Danes.
My opinion is that for the good-will of nations we shoud have seveeral over-lapping concepts of affinity - for example all the historically, linguistically, politically connected countries, and also thinking of religion, geography, economy (trade), and every-day traditions, too. Each country should belong to many constellations for greater stability. So Finland should be part of the UN, EU, Norden, the Baltic Sea neighbours, Lutheran churches, the serious nature-lovers, the coffee-beer-drinking countries, the arctic-friends, the sauna&ice-dip lovers, the choir-singing countries, the metal-band afficinados, the seriously climate-friendly, the republican countries with female presidents once in a while countries, the drinkable tap-water countries, the strong labor-union countries, the nations with difficult languages group, the ancient original mythology possessors, the rally countries, the Eurovision song-contest countries, the happiest countries, the no bling-bling countries, the earliest modernist artists and writers, the best educated populations, the multilingual populations, the free school-meals countries, the baby-welcoming package countries, the best operatic bassos, the greatest symphony composers, the funniest festivals, and did I mention the most humorous and happy-enough and not taking themselves overly serious types of countries (except when it comes to self-defense and borders)...
You can say Finland is not Scandinavia, but with what logic our Käsivarsi (in north-west) is not Scandivania... It is!! Ei jjestas näitä videoita taas.
Lets say that Saami, Finns and relatives occupied almost the whole Scandinavian peninsula before the first Scandinavian people moved to them. Then started the mixing and fighting so we were left with the border we have today. Like if a Swede insults me by saying that I am Scandinavian then I usually tell them about the gene maps that shows that the people in central Sweden shares pretty similar genes with us and the Estonians. You can still find maps that shows why and that there was not long ago big areas left of fin speaking people in central Sweden but now they are Swedes with Fin genes also(if it was the other way around you would see the similarities in Norway and Denmark also, plus northern and southern Sweden). Saami still live in Swe and Nor. So if you go by culture we are not Scandinavian and if you look at geography then we are more Scandinavian than Denmark(our arm, the head and the backside is within the peninsula touching the most northern part of our breast. Hard to find a real map when all seem to be stpd guesses but once I saw one without the country borders to confuse people) . If you look at Sweden its just finns that turned to rainbow colored folk and lost their Sisu. Use Nordic countries because many finns will be insulted if you say they are Scandinavian and if you talk about Scandinavia you leave others out. At least when I speak about Scandinavian I speak about the language/culture they belong to so I include those islands outside the peninsula. Never seen the Scandinavian word according to what Sweden once made it to be when they chose that only Denmark, Sweden and Norway should be included in the word. There's a reason why fennoscandia was used, I assume the finns back in the old days didn't like to be called scandinavians. We have mixed but we ain't still related like the countries in UK but still its like UK would be called England when you call the Nordic countries Scandinavia. Like people understand what you are talking about but still some can take it as an insult(and the swedes get roused because you include others). Its old silly history that really has no real meaning anymore except that we can use it against each other if we wanna argue. Still use the word Nordic countries, that word unites us while those old words doesn't have the same effect.
Then there was Scandinavian people in Finland before Sweden existed just to make it a bit more complicated. Just tell your friends, The Nordic countries.
Sami ppl inhabited Nordic countries before finns came there. Finns are completely different ppl and have completely different cultures. Actually Norway has got the biggest number of Sami's. Sweden is the second and Finland has the smallest number of them.
@@diamondsarenotforever8542 We are the same people, like ffs they have proved it with gene tests!!! Yes our languages are also related so yes we are the same people none of us are indo european. Yes finns have been influenced by indo european cultures more than the Saami. Like when they wrote down the texts for Kalevala it was hard to find good sources so most came from eastern parts that had been less influenced by indo european cultures.
@@diamondsarenotforever8542 For the "who came first to finland" there is multiple theories. One is that the Saami took the northern path while the finns were even the first ones in Europe and so on. One theory is that we came about the same time, Saami northern path and Finns through Karelia(Estonians say Estonia). Some stpd Russian theory is that we magically just appeared here after that the Russian empire already existed. The sad thing is that Russians and the church have destroyed so much that even if there is like 8000 year old finds some argue its not finns(I do not remember the exact year anymore but it was something between 7000-9000 so 8000 is in the middle). While the route the Saami took has had less indo european extermination so the historians can be more sure about that.
The map shown of the Russian Empire at 5.49 is wrong, it should include part of Poland, and Kaliningrad (which was called Königsberg) which was part of Prussia/German Empire not the Russian Empire, also the Ukrainian region of Galicia was part of Austria-Hungary and not the Russian Empire and should not be included.
It is news to me that Finns, native speakers of Finnish, would take offense if you call Finland Scandinavian - from a socio-political perspective Finland surely is part of that same tradition, as even throughout the roughly only *one* century period of Russian rule, Finland was still all the time adminstrated under the same set of laws as during the time when Finland was the eastern part of Sweden. (Ok, there are details to that fact...) Religion, politics, social security, food, pop culture, industry, buildings, and sports - are very much the same. To call Finland a Scandinavian country is not strictly accurate according to some definitions, and Nordic is a more modern concept, as there are more Nordic sentiments and collaboration since the establishment of the Nordic Councel and the Nordic economic collaboration agreements, like the open borders within the Nordic region from 1952. Polls indicated that the vast majority of Swedes and Finns would have preferred a Nordic Union to the European Union, but the politicians manipulated us into the EU disregarding the polls. In Sweden the population regretted this decision immediately after the fact. On the other hand to confuse people - the company SAS or Scandinavian Airlines was founded 1946 as a joint project between Denmark, Norway and Sweden, whereas Finland has "always" had its own company, Finnair, which was founded in 1923. It is often awarded the honor of being the safest flight company in the world. (Not the cheapest, though.) The friendly competition between the Nordic countries makes this region a vital, developing, progressive part of the world. Sweden is considered a big brother that is equally challenged by the four other "siblings", which can occasionally band together against Sweden's cocky attitudes. And that correction is very much needed, haha!
