Equal opportunities
and
ethnic minorities
-the Sami people
By Hege Kofstad
In this essay I will discuss equal opportunities and ethnic minorities. I will use the
Scandinavian indigenous people, the Sami as my case study.
I will argue that a lot has been done for the Norwegian Sami people to achieve equal
opportunities. I will further question if enough have been done, on whose terms and with
what consequences.
I will back up this argument by firstly trying to define “equal opportunities.” Secondly I
will present the Sami people and the problems that have and still are occurring in relation
to this group. I will then discuss to what extent the Sami people have achieved equal
opportunities and with what consequences.
Equal opportunities
-definition
“Equal opportunities as a concept are complex, continuous and controversial. It means
different things to different people,”1 Barbara Bagihole writes in her book on equal
opportunities. For those who benefit from inequality it may seem like an injustice when
people that previously have not been a competition suddenly is- and certainly so when
these people get extra benefits or help in becoming a competitor. A common view is that
measures taken to obtain equal opportunities are that it helps minorities on the expense of
majorities.
With so many different views upon what equal opportunities actually are it is difficult to
have a clear definition. Collins in Bagihole attempts one definition, saying that:
“Basically equal opportunity is about treating everybody fairly and equally regardless of
background and lifestyles.”2
This definition does however have certain shortcomings. Firstly it relies on the premise of
treating everybody the same- which in itself can be unjust and unequal. Secondly this
definition does not consider peoples premises. A scenario where someone is not treated
differently or discriminated against a day of his or her lives, but still faces unequal
1
2
Bagihole1997:29
Bagihole1997:31
opportunities is possible, if for examples a person do not have the means to get an
education, but instead must get a job, is possible. There has not been any direct
discrimination against this person, but still he or she does not have the same
presumptions in life.
Bagihole therefore suggests three different definitions of equality:
Equality of opportunity
-is the provision of equality of access to institutions and social positions among relevant
social groups.
To illustrate Bagihole gives the example that there are no formal rules that prohibit
women from entering the university. However, it is only very recently that women have
entered higher education in the same number as men.3
Equality of condition
-is equality not only of access but also in the circumstances of life for different social
groups. Like in the example before merely allow equal access does not resolve the
unequal chances of achievement. 4
Equality of result
-is a way of trying to ‘making a wrong, right’ so to speak. For example use positive
action in favour of women entering higher education in offering them access courses to
disciplines where they are severely under-represented, such as science or engineering, in
order to compensate for inequality of condition, such as the lack of relevant qualification
due to inappropriate choices at earlier levels of education.5
Ethnic minorities
-definition
3
Bagilhole1997:32
Bagilhole1997:32
5
Bagilhole1997:33
4
“Ethnicity has something to do with the classification of people and group
relationships6,” claim social anthropologist Thomas Hylland Eriksen. Further he argues
that “the term ‘ethnicity’ refers to relationships between groups whose members consider
themselves distinctive.” 7
In the Wikipedia encyclopedia ethnicity is defined as“the cultural characteristics that
connect a particular group or groups of people to each other.”8
Minority is defined as “a sub-group that is outnumbered by persons who do not belong to
it. Minority only makes sense in the context of a unified society or group. This can be
used to refer to people of a differen language, nationality, religion, culture, lifestyle or
any characteristic, provided these people are accepted as part of the referent group.”9
On the basis of these definition we can conclude that an ethnic minority is a group whose
members consider themselves distinctive and are outnumbered by people who do not
belong to the group, as they do not share a language, nationality, religion, culture,
lifestyle or any characteristic.
The Sami people
The Sami are an indigenous people who form an ethnic minority in Norway, Sweden and
Finland. There is also a small population on Russia's Kola Peninsula. In more recent
history, i.e. from about the sixteenth century, Sami have inhabited nearly all the areas of
the Nordic countries where they now have permanent settlements. The size of the Sami
population has been reckoned at somewhere between 60,000 and 100,000.
According to the Act No.56 of 12 June 1987 relating to the Sami Parliament and other
Sami legal issues (The Sami Act), a Sami is a person who:
•
has Sami as his/her first language, or whose father, mother or one of whose
grandparents has Sami as their first language, or
•
considers himself/herself a Sami and lives in entire accordance with the rules of
the Sami society, and who is recognized by the representative Sami body as a Sami, or
6
7
8
9
Eriksen1996:28
Eriksen1996:30
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnicity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minority_group
•
has a father or mother who satisfies the above-mentioned conditions for being a
Sami.
Before the emergence of social Darwinism in the 1800s the Sami people were pretty
much left to themselves. Afterwards, however, radical changes occurred. Reforms were
introduced, starting with the schools. At the end of the 1800s teachers were instructed to
restrict the use of the Sami language in the schools. From 1902 and onwards, it was
forbidden to sell land to anyone who could not speak Norwegian. The process of
"Norwegianization" had started, and in the period between the two World Wars the
policy was practiced quite aggressively. The Sami people were regarded as inferior,
cultureless, lazy and filthy people.10
Official Norwegian policy is now based on the principle that although the Sami are
Norwegian subjects, they constitute an ethnic minority and a separate people.
The legal status of the Sami improved considerably during the 1980s. In 1980 two
committees were appointed, one to look into cultural issues in relation to the Sami
(Samekulturutvalget) and the other to study legal aspects (Samerettsutvalget). Part of the
mandate of the first of these committees was to pave the way for the subsequent Sami
Language Act, and in the spring of 1990, the Government submitted a proposition to the
Storting on rules of law for the use of the Sami language. The aim of the new legislation
is to bring the Sami language onto an equal legal footing with Norwegian and to increase
the possibilities for using Sami in an official context. It came into force in 1992. 11
The committee dealing with legal matters had a wide mandate. It focused on the question
of constitutional rights for the Sami people and on the establishment of a body of
representatives for the Sami. The Norwegian Official Report concerning the legal rights
of the Sami - gives an account of these issues. The report contained a draft bill on a Sami
Parliament and other legal matters pertaining to the Sami. The next reports from the Sami
rights committee will deal with legal rights in the administration of natural resources in
the areas of Sami settlement. 12
10
http://www.senterpartiet.no/hovedorg/nyhetene/1578/index.shtml
http://www.yle.fi/samiradio/saamelen.htm
12
http://www.reisenett.no/norway/facts/culture_science/sami.html
11
In April 1988, Sami rights received national recognition when the Storting (the
Norwegian Parliament) adopted the mentioned new Article to the Constitution, Article
110a.
Further progress was made in 1990 when Norway ratified the ILO (International Labour
Organization) Convention No. 169, which deals with the rights of indigenous and tribal
peoples, and which was adopted at the 76th session of the international ILO conference in
1989.
There is now a special political adviser for Sámi issues at the Ministry of Local
Government.
Paragraph 110a in the constitution, together with the Same-law, states that the
government should adapt conditions so that the Sami people can secure and develop their
language, culture and way of living.
There has been set out 5 objective settings.
1. That the Sami- peoples themselves should through the Sámi ting and other relevant
organisations be part of the process of making laws and ensure Sámi- interests, together
with the government.
2. Make the Sami language more visible. The language should be used in official contexts
and on all official forms. The government does also aim to enable to language on
computers. All laws and directives will by 1. March 2005 is translated into Sámi.
3. More information and knowledge on the Sami people and their culture will counter
negative attitudes towards the Sami people. Through a project with Sami “guides” the
government will, together with other informational measures, seek to increase the
Norwegian peoples knowledge about the Sami- people. The guides will visit schools all
over the country.
The government wish to map out existing knowledge and research on reasons for
negative attitudes towards Sámi people and the Sámi culture, and how this is to be
avoided.
4. The government will safeguard and stimulate Sámi economical life. It is introduced tax
relief for all that work with reindeer.
5. Strengthen Nordic and international cooperation between indigenous people to ensure
the best possible Sámi policy. 13
In addition to this the Norwegian government has previously done other measures, like
subsidizing traditional Sámi work, giving Sámi students additional scholarships and so
on.
All the same, the largest percentage of Norwegian Sámi- lives in the capital Oslo in the
south of Norway, as Norwegians.
Does that mean that the Norwegian government has not done enough to secure the Sámi’s
culture? Or is the quest for equal opportunities uncompramisable with preserving the
Sami culture?
Has the Norwegian government perhaps gone too far in the quest for Sámi equal
opportunities? And equal opportunities according to whom? Is there still an ongoing
hidden or even well meaning “norwegianisation”?
One interesting fact that seems to be obvious for the Sámi people, but not for the
government, and not for the majority of the Norwegian people, is that there is no Sámi.
That is to say there is no one culture, with one common language that can be called Sámi,
according to professor in Sámi, Ole Henrik Magga, it is a question of many different
peoples. 14
How can one find the same equal opportunities for a number of different peoples that has
a different culture and different historical experiences?
It can be argued that doing this is not ensuring equal opportunities, and that the
Norwegian government is trying to fit the Sami people into a box where they do not fit.
This box may consist of the stereotypical ideas that Norwegians have of the Sami people,
upholding both positive and negative views.
13
http://odin.dep.no/krd/norsk/dok/regpubl/stmeld/016001-030013/hov002-bn.html
However, it is perhaps impossible not to generalize to some extent. And as of today there
are special arrangements, like extra subsidizing for Sami students in order to get more
Sami’s to go to University since previously the Sami’s have not done this to a large
extent. The government has also used measures like positive action to open for more
Sami’s in the university trying to ensure equality of condition and result.
Giving equal opportunities in the mentioned respect, however, does come with certain
consequences that are not ideal.
As mentioned the majority of Norwegian Sami’s live in Oslo. It can be argued that the
growing proportion of Sami’s in the cities can be linked with subsidizing of this sort. It
seems that the Norwegian government wants the Sami to keep their culture, but at the
same time they seek their advice and provide a proper education only if the Sami’s are
willing to leave for the city. This is a paradox and a conflict of interest. With this in mind
it can be said that the Norwegian governments unwillingness to budge on this point is a
form of “Norwgianisation.” And in this respect the Sami has not been provided with an
equality of opportunity as they geographically lives far away from any university or job,
other then the classic Sami ones. And whilst it in the respect of schools, especially
Universities measures like positive action has taken place, the same has not take place in
the job marked.
The extent to which the Norwegian people has been provided with knowledge about the
Sami people in order to promote acceptance and understanding for the Sami’s are yet to
happen on a large scale. This is part of the problem why extra offers like less taxes and
extra subsidizing and the discussion of giving vindication for the “Norwegianisation” that
used to take place, has also caused some envy among the Norwegian society.
Both “the Norwegian Conservative party” and the right winged “Progress party” write in
their party program that they do not want the Sameting (the Sami assembly) to have
property- or administration management and moreover wants to reduce the power of the
Sameting. 15
14
15
http://www.uit.no/ssweb/dok/series/n02/no/108magga.htm
http://www.hoyre.no/Saker/program/1042389882.8
In an article the “progress party” writes that if “the Sami get special treatment in relation
to their culture, other minority culture will and should expect to receive the same special
treatment- which is completely without current interest.” 16
These are just a few examples of how the Sami people are still to some extent the victim
of discrimination, which again mirrors the feelings of the Norwegian people. With the
consequence that a “norwegianisation” still takes place through socialization. Only a very
small number of the many Sami that move to the city maintain their culture on an
everyday basis.
All the same, there is no doubt that the Norwegian government has made a great effort to
give the Sami’s equal opportunities and make a wrong right. The question that does not
seem to have been answered however is how the Sami people themselves defines equal
opportunities, and how can the issue be resolved in the best possible way for all the
different groups and peoples that comes in under the category “Sami?” To what extent
has Norway already achieved it? And with which consequences? If the handlings of this
delicate matter have been the best possible is a question that is impossible to answer, as it
like equal opportunities itself, is a subjective matter. The struggle for the perfect solution
will most likely go on forever. What seems apparent is that there must be established a
dialogue between the “normal” Sami and not just their self-proclaimed spokesmen.
Another issue that needs to be put a lot more emphasis on in the future is all the different
peoples, and their different needs, that come under the joint category of “Sami.” There
also needs to be a goal to raise the awareness and provide the Norwegian people with
more knowledge of their indigenous people, as the Sami people for the average
Norwegian is as exotic as for the rest of the world.
Conclusion
In this essay I have set out to define the complex matter of equal opportunities with the
Norwegian Sami people as my case study. I have found that a great deal have been done
for the Sami people in order to achieve equal opportunities, but that there still are issues
to be dealt with. It is a problem that what one person would identify as equal
16
http://www.frp.no/article/?id=11262&q=samer
opportunities could be seen as cultural robbery from another. I have tried to focus on the
problems concerning the equal opportunities that have already taken place for the Sami,
as well as considering the lack of this in certain areas. Equal opportunities are to some
extent a subjective matter, which is what makes it so complex and in one respect
impossible. All the same it is important that the issue is dealt with in order to find best
possible solutions.
References:
Bagihole, Barbara (1997) “Equal opportunities and social policy: issues of gender, race
and disability”, London: Longman
Hylland-Eriksen, Thomas (1998) “Etnicitet och nationalism”, Nora:Nya doxa
Wikipedia (2004) ”Ethnicity.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnicity
Wikipedia (2004) ”Minority.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minority_group
Pedersen, Svein (2003) ”Regjeringens forslag til Finnmarkslov gir skuffelse og avmakt.”
http://www.senterpartiet.no/hovedorg/nyhetene/1578/index.shtml
YLE (1997) ”Sami- an indigenous people.” http://www.yle.fi/samiradio/saamelen.htm
Helander, Elina (2003) ”The Sami of Norway.”
http://www.reisenett.no/norway/facts/culture_science/sami.html
Stortinget(2001) ”Arsmelding fra Sametinget 2001.”
http://odin.dep.no/krd/norsk/dok/regpubl/stmeld/016001-030013/hov002-bn.html
Magga, Ole-Henrik (1998) ”Gjenreiseurfolks kulturelle identitet.”
http://www.uit.no/ssweb/dok/series/n02/no/108magga.htm
Hoyre (2003) ”Hoyres Sametingsprogram 2001/2005.”
http://www.hoyre.no/Saker/program/1042389882.8
Fremskrittspartiet (2004) Nei til Samefengsler.”
http://www.frp.no/article/?id=11262&q=samer