A Transnational and National History
The German term ‘Transfergeschicthe’ denotes the circulation of culture and cultural products between national spheres (Saunier 2013, 180). In this chapter, it refers to transfers between families, local societies, and children, but it should be noted that in Sami history, ‘local society’ is not necessarily framed by the nation state and it is not necessarily one fixed place.
The state borders between the three countries in question are of fairly recent origin (between 1751 and 1826), and seasonal border crossings were common in the twentieth century among nomadic reindeer herders in Norway and Sweden and also among the settled population along the Tana River (Lantto 2010, 543–556). Thus, the Sami participated in the circulation of culture and cultural products across the borders while at the same time operating within their own local societies. We shall see that already in the first part of the twentieth century, the Sami in Norway and Sweden inspired each other in issues of language and schooling, while from the 1950s, Nordic Sami conferences served as a cross-border meeting place for Sami activists, politicians, and scholars. Today, the channels are manifold, from a common Nordic Sami Parliamentary Board to the Nordic Sami news channel, Oddasat, to transnational Sami blogs. Thus, even though the Sami live in several countries, national borders in all respects have not divided them; in some geographical areas in some periods, they have developed their culture across borders, unbound by nation states. Since the 1980s, the organised Sami have also developed their culture within the frames of the international movement of indigenous peoples (Minde 2008, 49–86).Despite this transnationalism, Sami experiences, practices, and values have not been the same throughout the twentieth century; they have changed with time and differed both within each country and across the region.
Regarding the national level, the Sami differ according to gender, occupation, class, and place of residence, just like any other people. Gender might have formed the school experience in ways common in many societies: for example, boys were more likely to be regarded as ‘difficult’ than girls were, and they were more prone to punishment (Ostlyngen 2000, 225–231; Westfjell 2005). Occupation and place of residence are important, as these factors were decisive for whether the children went to a boarding school or a local school and the extent to which their parents’ livelihoods differed from those of the majority population. The place of residence also influenced the children’s command of the official school language. The place of residence both served to create linguistic barriers among the Sami, as there are seven Sami languages, and to connect them since all the languages in the Nordic countries except Inari Sami are cross-national (Rasmussen and Nolan 2011).Finally, there is reason to believe ethnicity held different meanings in different periods and different places. In some cases, it was a boundary not to be overstepped; in other contexts, ethnicity was anything but fixed (Gaski 2000). Selle, Semb, and Stromsnes (2013) take note of the blurred boundaries today, while Thuen (2012) problematised ethnic boundaries in a historical context. We might thus assume some Sami children had a less troubled school history than others did because they were familiar with both cultures and could adapt to both.
Since the Sami are citizens of four states—Russia, Finland, Sweden, and Norway—there are also four official national policies towards the Sami. Leaving Russia aside as I do in this chapter, we still have three countries and three different policies; in recent decades, Sami claims and—to a certain extent—national policies have converged. However, the twentieth century saw several shifts in official school policies towards the Sami.