Talk:Slavery in Finland

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Racism

[edit]

@User:Aciram Finns were involved in the Swedish slave trade and the Atlantic slave trade was indeed racial. Perhaps the US-centric assumption here is the assumption that I am an American projecting US views onto Finns rather than directly addressing Finnish involvement in the enslavement of Africans. Take care. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 13:03, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the Atlantic slave trade was racist, but that was but a small part of slavery in the context of Finland. Therefore, the entire category of slavery in Finland (or Sweden for that matter) should not be synonym to racism. It is enough to term the part of slavery that was racist - the atlantic part of the slavery - as racism, rather than all of it. To term the entire context of slavery in Finland and Sweden as racist, would indeed be US-centric. In these countries, that would not be factual. Take care.--Aciram (talk) 18:29, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of the categories is to aid navigability and to help readers find relevant topics. You are splitting hairs in ways that impair readability rather than improve it. If not a parent category, then perhaps a see also category would work. These are relevant, overlapping topics. The smallness of the Swedish/Finnish slave trade is arguable. Saint Barthélemy in particular was a major slave trading hub and Sweden was a major supplier of iron for slave chains. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 19:06, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 29 November 2025

[edit]

Slavery in Finland → Finns and slavery – I am promoting the suggestion below to a formal RM. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 20:32, 29 November 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 02:06, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article's current title, "Slavery in Finland", doesn't seem to reflect most of its content. Only a small portion deals with actual slavery in Finland, another small portion covers Finns as slavers in Swedish overseas colonies, and most of the content focuses on Finns who were enslaved and taken outside Finland. In my view, "Finns and slavery" would be a much more accurate title for the article as it currently stands. ~2025-37298-20 (talk) 20:05, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See below for an alternative proposal. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 10:12, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Partially changed opinion: Alternatively, I could support the title Slavery and Finland. It is not too different from the current title for it to be very inconsistent with articles, and may still include both slavery and slave trade. I could see that as a good compromise.--Aciram (talk) 03:24, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. The 'consistency' arguments are irrelevant if the other articles have different scope and content. The title must reflect the actual content of the article. Given that the bulk of the content is about slavery outside of Finland the current title is misleading and inaccurate. I would be open to other proposals. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:39, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would support this name change: accurate and not too different to the old one. It is a good compromise. If I had thought of that title myself, I might have given the article that name from the beginning.--Aciram (talk) 03:09, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is no question of consistency, since other arcticles like Slavery in Great Britain really deal with slavery inside the respective country. This article mostly deals with slavery outside of Finland. For me, both Finns and slavery and Slavery and Finland would be fine. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:17, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rsk6400 The institution of slavery and the material gains from it significantly impacted Finnish life and Finnish economy within Europe, slavery-related and slave-produced goods and money flowed to and from every point of the triangle in triangular slave trade, and given that there were slaves living in Denmark-Norway and Sweden, I would be surprised if there were no African slaves in Swedish-ruled Finland. Academics such as Hanne Østhus have written interesting work on slaves living in Denmark-Norway. Gustav Badin is the most famous slave brought to Sweden, but there were others as well. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 08:24, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually (being from Scandinavia myself and having studied history), I would be very suprised if there were any African slaves living in Finland or Sweden in that time period. Slavery was indeed legal in the colony of Saint Barthelemy, yes. But that law did not apply to Sweden itself, were slavery had been banned since 1335. This was common for several European countries: while slavery was legal in the colonies, it was nonetheless banned in the mother country, and this was certainly the case in Sweden (and thereby Finland). You give Gustav Badin as an example, but I advise you to read that article more carefully. Badin was indeed originally a slave in the Danish Carribean and victim of the slave trade; however, as soon as he arrived within the borders of Sweden, his state of slavery was automatically ended, since that state had been abolished in Sweden in 1335, and law did not recognize the status of slavery in Sweden. If you read the article of Badin, you will see that he was never manumitted, and that was simply because he was always seen as free in Sweden. As you can see, he owned property and had several professions and lived the life of a free person. There was no need to manumit him, since the state of slavery did not excist in Swedish law (the colony had a separate law that only applied to it). There were several cases such as his: while there were individuals with a background in slavery bought to Sweden, it was not possible for them by law to live as slaves in Sweden. This would also have been the case in Finland. You might find individuals of African heritage in Finland in this time period, but they would not be slaves: those are not synonymous.--Aciram (talk) 02:56, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Aciram Being a Scandinavian who studied history doesn't make you right or wrong. It makes you a Scandinavian history student. See: Argument from authority. Furthermore, I have not initiated baseless accusations of regional or ancestral biases, so please assume good faith and refrain from repeated baseless accusations about my own putative views. I'd already read the Badin article, so nothing you have said is persuasive. Former slaves in Sweden were brought as slaves on slave ships. Does this sound like a consensual arrangement? And do you really think European chamber blacks had freedom under such deeply unfree conditions? They were often brought to Europe in chains. Yes, I think that fails under the rubric of "Slavery in Sweden" or "Slavery in XYZ"; they wouldn't have been in Sweden in the first place if it wasn't for the enslaving. And certainly, you must know there is a distinction between what law states and the reality of how Africans lived in Europe, and the deep unfreedom of being somewhere you didn't choose to be - and with limited options. Frankly, it astounds me that any human would split hairs to the point of thinking these realities can't be described as part of "Slavery in Europe", slavery as a phenomenon with European dimensions. I'm not sure why you bring up former slaves owning property. You may or may not be knowledgeable about US history, but some slaves in the US owned property, some of them even owned other slaves. None of this has any bearing on the fact that slaves were brought on slaves ships to a county with a slave trade. I'm also not sure why "Slavery in Swedish colonies" doesn't count as "Slavery in Sweden"; Swedish colonies are Swedish. So yeah, "Slavery in Sweden/Finland/etc." is an absolutely appropriate title. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 07:36, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, but having studied facts does actually make me right. I see you talk about opinions above. Well, this is not about personal opinion. This is about facts and legality. People brought to Sweden as slaves, were indeed slaves during their trip to Sweden. But as soon as they arived on Swedish soil, their status as slaves automatically ended. That is a fact, not a matter of opinion. If we consider personal opinion, there is not a single nation in this world that does not have what some would consider slavery today. Considering American history, I realize that slavery is a hot topic for an American, which can cause strong emotions. However, Scandinavia has a different history, and do not see things the same way. It is not such a hot or controversial topic here as it is in America; it is simply a matter of historical facts. You talk about opinions above, and I think your opinions might perhaps be colored by a US-centric debate. I can respect that, and I am sorry if I have caused offense. But this is not about opinions. I prefer facts. Have a lovely day.--Aciram (talk) 13:14, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Aciram I have asked you to stop making nationality-based personal attacks and you have refused. That's not sticking to "facts", that's an emotional investment in attacking someone else because of cultural assumptions you are making. Consider that you might have some glaring biases of your own, but you don't seem interested in such a conversation, you only seem interested in being supposedly correct and in your own self-declared authority. This conversation has concluded. You aren't operating in good faith. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 17:33, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are some institutions that can be considered slavery within Finland itself:
  • Serfdom in Old Finland until 1826 [1]
  • Child auctions until 1930s [2]
  • It is also possible that there were a few African slaves in Finland. However, there is no evidence so far, and we don't base our articles or their titles on speculation.
However, there would be more material on Finnish involvement elsewhere, like in Belgian Congo.[3] Such material is not well described by the title "Slavery in Finland". It is not a question of downplaying Finnish involvement in colonialism, but the accuracy of the title.
Also note that the Swedish article is not titled "Slavery in Sweden", but Swedish slave trade, and that title accurately describes the content of the article. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 08:39, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • There could be no African slaves in Finland: to refer to slaves in Finland in this time period when the state of slavery did not legally excist in Finland would not be factual.
  • Note that the child auctions were not slavery, and that serfdom is serfdom, and not slavery. By slavery we refer to legal chattel slavery, nothing else. A person who has not studied history may think all sorts of things classify as slavery, but Wikipedia must be factually correct. But I think we could place those under the See also-section.--Aciram (talk) 13:22, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with both points. It is reasonable to limit to chattel slavery. Child auctions were sometimes referred to as 'slave markets', but this was only a colloqualism. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 13:56, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Then we are in agreement. But, as I said, there is nothing that prevent us from linking the examples you list in the See also-section and I actually think we should (note also that I have reconsidered my first vote above somewhat). --Aciram (talk) 14:00, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for two reasons. One reason is consistency. The other reason is that one of the points on the triangle in "triangular slave trade" was Europe. There were absolutely enslaved and formerly enslaved Africans coming and going, living and working, all over Western Europe, especially in cities like London, Paris, Amsterdam, Copenhagen, etc. We can see the African presence in Europe from Rembrandt's paintings to Gustav Badin at the Swedish royal court to Juan de Pareja in Spain to Ignatius Sancho in London. There were many enslaved people in Europe itself, not just in the colonies. London and Amsterdam obviously had significant numbers of enslaved and ex-enslaved Africans during the 17th and 18th centuries. I am looking for additional sources, but I would be astounded if African slaves ended up in Sweden but not Swedish-ruled Finland. And beyond the literal people, the material facts of the slave trade impacted daily Finnish life: sugar refineries in Finland used slave-produced raw sugar, Finnish ships carried that sugar, Ostrobothnia produced much of the tar used by slave shipping, etc. Finnish corporations like the Åbo Skeppswarf were building ships during the time of the Swedish slave trade. And of course, money from slavery flowing into the Finnish economy through the Swedish treasury. The fact that much of the article focuses on the enslavement of Finns is itself arguably ideological: "The debate about whether Atlantic slavery and the slave trade should become part and parcel of Finnish collective memory was soon challenged by an equally forgotten narrative about the exposure of Finns and Karelians to enslavement and the Eurasian slave trade. The topic hardly figured in Finnish historiography until Finnish historian Jukka Korpela published his seminal work on Finland and Karelia as a slaving zone during the medieval period in 2014...The collective memory of Finns must commemorate the sufferings of Finns during Russian occupation rather than alleged Finnish participation in Swedish colonialism, the counter-narrative to Finnish involvement in the transatlantic slave trade therefore claims. The most militant activists even push for a monument to Finnish suffering from enslavement and genocide to be erected on the island of Karlö..." Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 08:09, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Finland, WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, WikiProject Human rights, and WikiProject Discrimination have been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPathtalk 02:06, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please se my comment to you above. Being a native and having studied history, I can tell you that although there were, indeed, people of African heritage in Sweden (and possibly in Finland) who arived there in this time period in a state of slavery, such as Gustav Badin and others, this status were automatically no longer legal as soon as they passed the border. While slavery was legal in the single colony of Saint Barthelemy, that was a separate law for the colony that did not apply for the mother country of Sweden-Finland, were slavery had, and continued to be, outlawed since 1335. That law was not changed and was still enforced (and is still enforced today). No slaves could legally exist in Sweden or in Finland after 1335. You might indeed find individuals of African heritage in Finland in this time period, but that does not mean you will find slaves, since that would not be legally possible. I realise this may sound different for someone not familiar with Scandinavian history and more used to American or English history and concepts, but that is nonetheless the factual past. If we want to find slaves living in Finland or Sweden, we must go back to the middle ages.--Aciram (talk) 03:00, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Aciram This is not a difference in access to knowledge, it is a difference of opinion on the contours of the subject. I think enslaving people and dragging them to Scandinavia counts as "Slavery in Scandinavia". You don't. I think the slavery-produced goods and money flowing into the Dano-Norwegian and Swedish-Finnish economies also constitutes a dimension of "Slavery in Scandinavia". You don't. I also think that things that happened "in Swedish colonies" were things that happened "in Sweden". You don't seem to. As an aside, there were also slaves in New Sweden, not only in Saint Barthelemy. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 07:42, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about opinion to begin with, this is about facts. Slavery in Scandinavia is slavery IN Scandinavia: a state of slavery that takes place on Scandinavian soil. That is simply the meaning of the words. You gave Gustav Badin and others like him as an example. I explained why they are not a good example, because as soon as they arived in Sweden, they were no longer slaves. That is simply facts. If you dislike the facts, that is an issue of emotions, but not an issue of fact. We cannot be US-centric about the history of other countries.--Aciram (talk) 13:19, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above italicized comment should be read in light of the public statements of historian and right-wing politician Teemu Keskisarja, who has promoted such a shift in emphasis from Atlantic slave trade to slavery of Finns. Nevertheless, it is an oversimplification to state that the Great Wrath and the associated capture and deportation of civilians were forgotten aspects of Finnish history. One of the best-known Finnish children's stories, fi:Koivu ja Tähti, is based on this theme, and in the early decades of independence some right-wing parties drew on these past events in their anti-Russian rhetoric, so that the events remained in the collective memory. I agree that the issue is politicized in Finland, but primarily in the context of Finnish–Russian relations rather than post-colonial discourse. The fact that various groups attempt to use the topic for political purposes does not mean it should be excluded from the encyclopedia, or that it should receive less weight. The article's title should fit all the topics it covers.
On a sidenote, the work of Jukka Korpela on medieval slavery is not a traditionally discussed subject and really represents a new area of research, which should perhaps be more explicitly attributed to him. As it is based on a single study, albeit well-received, it should not be considered as fully established fact. As an observation, applying "consistency" on Wikipedia can have the side effect of reinforcing methodological nationalism: in his study, Korpela takes care to avoid framing the topic in terms of nation states or present-day ethnic groups, and presenting his work under the heading of "Finland" does some injustice to that approach. But it is nevertheless relevant for this topic, and I am not suggesting that it should be removed. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 09:31, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jähmefyysikko You make a good point about methodological nationalism, and I agree with the spirit of it, but I also think contemporary ethnic groups and contemporary nation-states inherit the history of the lands they occupy. The topic of slavery is a live topic "in Finland", in Finnish historiography and Finnish politics, so I do believe talking about the topic of Slavery in Finland is most appropriate and would ask the question of whether a name change here better serves factuality or better serves a sort of psychological distancing from the unpleasantness at hand. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 17:52, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Changing in to and does little to create psychological distance, but makes the geographical scope clearer. Consider what topics would a reader expect to find in an article titled "Slavery in Finland" as opposed to "Slavery and Finland". I also question the claim that discussion about slavery in Finland naturally implies the phrase slavery in Finland. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 07:43, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bohemian Baltimore: Setting aside questions of consistency and your view that "Slavery in Finland" is sufficient, is there any reason why "Slavery and Finland" would not be an accurate title? Jähmefyysikko (talk) 10:24, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]