Elokuvaohjaaja Milos Forman totesi kesäkuussa 2008 vieraillessaan Sodankylän elokuvajuhlilla, että totuus on tylsä, koska se on totta. Forman peilasi kerronnallista ideologiaansa vapaudesta ja vastuusta vahvasti omiin kokemuksiinsa kommunistisessa Tsekkoslovakiassa ja Hollywood-Amerikassa, mutta oikeastaan varsin pitkälle samalla tavalla totuuden raadollisuudesta voidaan todeta Lapin maankäyttöön liittyvässä historiassa. Sitä on haluttu korostaa erityisenä, jopa monimutkaisen kiehtovana ilmiönä, johon on liittynyt myös runsaasti mielikuviin perustuneita tulkintoja. Lapin maanomistuksen ja asutuksen historia on ollut ikään kuin palapeli, jonka kuva on ollut perin hajanainen. Mutta kun runsaasta lähdeaineistosta analysoitu pitkän aikavälin kokonaisuus on koottu, todellisuus hahmottuu selväpiirteiseksi, ja Formanin ilmaisua käyttäen, suorastaan tylsäksi. Tietysti voidaan pohtia mitä tarkoittaa todellisuus tai totuus historiantutkimuksessa. Nykyaikana on muodikasta korostaa, kuinka jokaisella meistä on oma totuutensa, mutta yhtälailla voidaan painottaa, että harhaluuloilla ja myyteillä voidaan peittää vallinnut historiallinen todellisuus.%This article examines the problem of objectivity in historical research under the demands of various conflicting pressures which arise from objectives of both the present and the past. The focus of the article is on the history of settlement and land use in Lapland, from which it seeks explanations for today's strong socio-political attitudes, particularly in the question of land ownership. Relations between the Sami people and the majority population are an integral part of this theme. Thus, today's attitudes are also a question of the minority status and future of the Sami people. To be objective, the historical researcher must be able to reflect his/her own position and activity. The author of this article employs a tripartite model in which the researcher must first define the research, i.e. the methodological principles of conducting historical research and one's own position; secondly, the researcher must dig into the traditions connected to the topic area and above all understand the various conceptions which have steered research tradition and the roots of those conceptions; and thirdly, the researcher must use source material to determine historical reality that is as objective as possible. Thus, history reveals different layers: actual reality based on research results, information produced by research tradition and its reliability and downright mythical image-based conceptions of the past. Because of the requirements of objectivity, the article also deals with the question of the methodology used in studying settlement history: how can the settlement history of Lapland be studied? On one hand, traditional methods have excluded the development of settlement in Lapland from research because it has been thought that Lapland was not settled before the 1500s, when peasant settlement began to spread northward. Studies have treated Lapland as an area with a primitive aboriginal population. On the other hand, perhaps precisely due to a lack of overall knowledge, the question of Lapland as a target of colonialism has spawned many different interpretations. In connection with discussions about colonialism, some studies have even proposed that the majority population in the kingdom of Sweden settled Lapland according to the "American model" and forced the Sami people to retreat. It has mainly been a question of an awakening of political ethnicity and construction of an identity using ethno-political means, which is a typical characteristic of population groups' definition of their own position with respect to others. In Lapland this has been linked with aboriginality, where colonialism has also been emphasized. At the same time, however, the aboriginal population has wielded its own power to exclude certain characteristics as not belonging to their identity. In reality, not one of the families in old Lappish villages had to leave their traditional living areas; they were left in the possession of the families. The position of the inhabitants of Lapland was guaranteed through many privileges until the 1800s; for example, they were taxed lightly, they did not serve in the military and their administrative burdens were light. The government's objectives in Lapland were carried out on the conditions of the local population, hearing them and for their benefit. During the 1800s colonialism gradually began to appear as colonisation of the mind. Squeezed by the majority population, the Sami people's own cultural heritage became less valuable, even shameful and a target of ridicule. Nevertheless, the investigative gaze needs to be lifted up from Lapland to a more general level. That is, Lapland's controversies are not only a question of ethnical mobilization of a minority or an aboriginal population's ethno-policy. Correspondingly, throughout Europe there is a certain degree of regional movement among populations, i.e. special features of regionalism. Worldwide the phenomenon can be connected to the structural "state crisis" of the information age mentioned by sociologist Manuel Castells, where social movement creates alternative identities for nation-states or nationalities.
展开▼
