Making a Better Life: The Finnish Immigrant Generations in Canada
According to studies, the main motives behind decisions to emigrate have been economic. Common poverty, unemployment, poor housing, missed opportunities to improve one’s living conditions, and even hunger have been the push factors of the Atlantic overseas migration movement, with better salaries, the unlimited demand for labour, democracy, and the spirit of free entrepreneurship being the attraction of the USA and Canada (Toivonen 1963; Kero 1996).
The members of the Finnish community in Thunder Bay shared these motives when asked about the original aims of migration, regardless of the generation:
| Informant: | My grandparents escaped the overall poverty of the early twentieth century. You know, there was a huge shortage of land and here they seemed to have opportunities for a better life. (M 1920s, Thunder Bay, Canada) |
| Informant: | Post-War Northern Ostrobothnia was a relatively poor region, you know. We just had a tiny piece of rented land and a small cottage. We sold all we had and came here to look for a better life. (F1920s, Thunder Bay, Canada) |
The locals have adopted the idea of the good life as an explanation for the original act of migration but also as a measure that can be used in a comparison between the two countries of Canada and Finland. One question was presented to every informant regardless of his or her age, social background, or first language: what did he/she think the reasons were for the great grandparents, grandparents, parents, or him/herself leaving Finland? This question automatically led the conversation to comparisons between the quality of life in Canada and the hypothetical life-course in Finland. The researcher was often asked to make comparisons between these two countries, past and present.
As migration has normally been seen more as a process—a chain of decisions and events rather than a singular act—it also came out in these discussions that it was still a topical question whether the original decision to migrate to Canada had been a wise one in the informants’ family negotiations. Even the third-generation Canadian-Finns could call into question the decisions of their grandparents and consider the idea of a possible return. Of course, this is not simply a question of the good life; this negotiation is part of a continuous identity construction, and it has also been noted among Finns in Australia (Lammervo 2009, 68–69). The conflict was not only between generations but also—at least in some cases—between parents. Like the above-quoted female born in the 1960s stated, the first years in Canada were the hardest, and she still reflected on the decision to migrate daily. Her husband was more satisfied with his life. For the first-generation immigrants, this kind of disagreement seems to have been typical, and it resulted from the different positions in the labour markets of the sexes.
The concept of the good life was emphasised by the informants because of the real or imaginary contrast between the countries, times, and generations. However, the concept remained quite abstract when the interviewer asked about concrete comparisons. In this context, the problem of the good life became a part of identity construction work. However, it also had practical meanings. When talking with the informants from the same age groups in Canada and Finland, no important differences were found when discussing the meanings of the good life. This is understandable because of the many similarities between the two countries, such as the standard of living, welfare systems, democracy, religion, and the way of life.
The values making up the good life of the three generations discussed above are illustrated in the Table 3.2.