Coco wrote: ↑03 Sep 2023, 07:27
the Finns and Swedes have experienced significant cultural and genetic convergence over the past eight centuries
Let me explain something.
You see, the southern part of Finland has been bilingual for a long long time, it is even awknowledged in the 2nd prolog of first Finnish-language translation of the new testament (written by Mikael Agricola in 1540's):
[...] se Wdhen maan Randacanssa / Borghon ia Rasburin Läneis / ette mös caiki Lootolaiset / Calandis / ia Pohialaiset / iotca wiele tenepene Rotzinkielille puhuuat / ouat ollut Rotzista eli Gollandista ensin wlostulleet
https://kaino.kotus.fi/korpus/vks/meta/ ... t1_rdf.xml
''Uusimaa coast-dwellers of the provinces Borgå and Raseborg, and all population of Kaland and Österbotten the same, who speak swedish of today, have come from
Sweden, meaning Gotland, as their origin.''
This can be explained thus:
Firstly, with ''swedish'' is ment that the language, that which was turned into a bible at the time when Gustav Vasa was the king of Sweden and Finland, became the official ''other-than-finnish''-language bible - for the Swedes, Gotland inclued, and likewise the population of Finland who were living around the coastal areas and thus became unified in book-wise manner (if you know even just a tiny bit of Dutch, Norwegian and Swedish, it is obvious that at one time their root is the same, and the language of Gotland is somewhere near the split maybe?). It is awknowledged pretty much by everyone that coastal culture and inland culture of Finland were separate, the first made their living by fishing and seafaring, the later with hunting (they must have known agriculture...) etc.
Now, were a ''swede'' from Uusimaa to travel Stockholm, they can't understand anything what is being said - the Gotland swedish ''A, B, C, D...'' of today is
practically identical to that of Uusimaa both finnish and swedish of today, but finnish ''A, B, C, D...'' has two (2) differences - <today> the connection of Gotland's swedish language <only> applies to southern part of Finland, for the language of Gotland is very different from swedish spoken in Stockholm, while the swedes of Österbotten is highly similiar to swedish of Stockholm. The truth is that the swedes of Österbotten and that of Uusimaa are separate people, and it all makes sense when we awknowledge what Mikael Agricola wrote down in the 16th century - it is really that simple.
The ''
Sweden, meaning Gotland''-part is simply phrased this way because at that time Gotland was a part of Sweden.
All of this becomes even more clear from the documented interviews made with finnish population of Österbotten (use google browse-translator):
https://www.narvasoft.fi/kalevanpojat/s ... etoja.html
And that doesn't stop there:
The early settlements (of southern Finland) were raided by Vikings, and later colonised by Christians from Sweden. They arrived mostly from the Swedish coastal regions of Norrland and Hälsingland, and their migration intensified around 1100.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helsinki# ... NKent_33-1
As you can see from the quote, Mikael Agricola, who has no reason to lie about something like this, is completely ignored by scholars of today, and if you don't make a separate request for me to explain why this claim in the quote is 100% nonsensical (which is, by the way, forced upon the kids in the ''free'' but mandatory school of Finland called ''peruskoulu'') I don't care to go thourgh it because it really hurts my head. If you look into it by yourself, just so you know, what the scholars are suggesting is an absolute impossibility and it doesn't even make any sense.
The truth is that Museovirasto (''Finnish Heritage Agency'') is outwardly a Swedish-led corporation the destroy proof of the nonscholarly history of Finland, and their own, and I have plenty of proof. I am not making this accuastion on my own. The actions of swedish-led academy of Finland is no different from Sweden of today destroying their antiquity, and whenever there's a sight of regalia or something else, it is either destroyed or hidden somewhere, and if that can't be done, it is simply ignored. The same way historians like Johannes Messenius (1579–1636) are imprisoned in their time and ridiculed in our time.
Many many european sagas consist of women and men with a
Finn as their name or is a part of their name - these are ignored all the same my academy. All of this makes sense in the face of the fact that ''swedish'' royal families have wiped away their history and their familytrees don't reach further than (if I remember right) 13th century - they were ''finns'', and Finland-based ''swedish'' royal families (which happen to be the oldest ones out there, for example the Horn-family) have been there for a long time, besides the southern part of Finland which seems to have been completely decimated (somewhere around the battle of Hastings) before the so-claimed crusades had reached Finland in the 13th century. All of this confusion and destruction of the knowledge of the past has come about only lately and it has gotten worse and worse after the French revolution.
.
