Quote:
Originally Posted by Marulus
As for me, I was neither justifying nor condemning it, just stating a plain fact that Russians have been there (in Siberia, that is) for the last 450 years at least. Noone had ever conquered that area before, there were only several Palaeo-Siberian tribes there, scattered across the tundra, probably very few in numbers, which did not yield any significant resistance. The case of Russian rule in Finland (1806-1918) and in the Baltic is of entirely different nature and cannot be compared with Siberia.
|
Finnish autonomy within the Russian empire is one of the most important episodes in Finnish history and the development of Finnish nationhood. I hold no grudge over that period of time despite the russification measures towards the end.
What saddens me most is that so many of our close kindred peoples, who were trapped on the wrong side of the border with the Treaty of Dorpat, have ceased to exist as nations. Many Finns felt (and perhaps still feel) that the spiritual home of Finnish culture was with these peoples, the White Sea Karelians, the East Karelians, the Veps, the Izhorians and the Ingrians, and the Votic people. This was called Karelianism within the art world. I feel that we've lost unique Finnic tribes and peoples, along with their rich cultural traditions, for ever, and in some ways, it has taken a great big chunk out of the spirit of Finnish culture as well as Finnish nationalism, which in the early 20th century was unmistakebly irredentist.
Tsarist Russia was not so much a cultural threat because, at least initially, it was much like Austro-Hungary a dynastic Union, where the emperor presided over many different nations. Later on, after the Crimean war, the trend towards a united and indivisible Russia was stepped up, which of course was in contradiction with the idea of the Finnish state and nationhood which had begun to develop since the 1830's among Finnish intellectuals and bureaucrats.