[ End of article ]

Urban American and the Finnish Communities of Detroit and Chicago

Keijo Virtanen

Ethnicization or assimilation?

In investigating the topic stated in my title from the perspective of ethnic culture, I have encountered one of the fundamental problems of historiography in very concrete form. Engagement with the past as it really happened is an impossibility; all that we can do is to reconstruct a representation of it, on the basis on the one hand of the available source material, and on the other of the historian's own methodology, experiences, and world view. To investigate ethnic culture from outside the ethnic community in question is difficult, for the understanding in depth of its mentality depends on experiencing it personally. In his analysis of social change in immigrants' children vis-á-vis their parents, P G Hummasti comments, highly relevantly, in his first footnote: "Being a third-generation Finnish-American I have known, in addition to my parents, many members of the second generation. I base much of what I say here on my observations of their experiences".1

Personal involvement provides a basis for the retrospective understanding of current scholarly debate on ethnicity, in which ethnicity is seen as a cultural construct determined by historical development, and in which American society is seen as consisting of ethnic components rather than social classes.2 From a historical point of view, however, there is no need to discard earlier perspectives on the idea of Americanism. Ever since the beginning of the 19th century, American society and culture have been explained on the basis of the assumption that there is such an entity as American man and American culture, in spite of the fact that the nation consisted of many distinct ethnic groups. Arthur Schlesinger Jr is still optimistic as regards the strength of the 'One Nation' American ideal over against the 'ethnicity cult'.3 Eugen Weber has noted: "No community can exist as a community without common references. In a modern nation they come from history".4

As a scholarly approach, the invention of ethnicity emphasizes collective consciousness over earlier individually-oriented approaches.5 I would argue, however, that both approaches are justified: even if the approach is individually-oriented, this does not justify the unquestioned presumption that individuals embark on assimilation from the moment of landing in the country. It is equally likely that they may resist such assimilation - whether consciously or subconsciously - possibly to the end of their lives. Elsa Heino, for example, who arrived in Chicago in 1913, never took out US citizenship, and even in the 1970s stated that she intended to return to Finland, where a suitable senior citizens' home had already been chosen.6

What contribution can be offered by the scholars in the migrants' country of origin? In an important article, Kathleen Neils Conzen et al. have argued that a crucial phase in the process of 'ethnicization' is reached when the second immigrant generation reaches adulthood. The younger generation challenges its elders, in relation both to their ethnic tradition (i.e. to their country of origin), and to their future (i.e. to American society). This challenge is evidenced in terms of relations to voluntary associations, language, employment, etc.7 And this interface between the generations is a point at which scholars from the societies of origin may also have a valuable contribution to offer, since their mentality incorporates one of these temporal polarities, the tradition of origin: they are familiar with 'Finnishness', and with Finnish emigration, its causes and motives; they are familiar with Finnish society, and with the profound changes that had occurred in that between the 1880s and the early 20th century. They are thus in a position to identify those features in the immigrant community's collective consciousness which can be explicated in terms of the tradition of origin, and those which cannot.8

It is on these grounds that I would argue that the scholar from Finland has valuable insights to offer, not only into the history of the first generation of immigrants (many instances of this can be found), but also into the threshold of experience between the first generation and the second. Over a longer span of time and generations, on the other hand, it is difficult - perhaps impossible - to achieve deep insights into the 'ethnic American' community, especially into its collective consciousness, unless the scholar is personally involved in one-way or another with the community herself or himself. For this reason, I wish to limit the scope of my scrutiny fairly precisely. One such restriction is spatial: I shall examine two cities with Finnish communities, Detroit and Chicago. Cities naturally created very different conditions for assimilation, and for the formation of immigrant communities, from rural society.9

Encounter between the first and second generations

During the 1920s, dated by Hummasti the period when intergenerational problems began to emerge clearly in the Finnish community in America,10 Detroit (with 1814 Finnish immigrants) was the seventh largest center of first-generation Finnish-American settlement in the United States, and Chicago eighth, with 1577.11 Whereas the largest number recorded of persons born in Finland and resident in the United States as a whole occurs in the 1920 Census,12 the peak in Detroit and Chicago is not reached until ten years later,13 which indicates a flow of internal migration from rural settlements to the city.

There are also some significant differences in development between the patterns of Finnish settlement in Chicago and in Detroit. In Chicago, which early emerged as a transportation center, and where the first Finnish seamen arrived in the 1860s,14 by the end of the century the number of Finnish settlers had reached 416, and ten years later had risen to 1191.15 Up to that time, Chicago was for many Finnish immigrants their first home after arrival in America.16 In Detroit, on the other hand, at the time of the 1910 Census there were still no more than a handful of Finns: 59 persons.17 The subsequent development of the Finnish community in the city was entirely dependent upon the breakthrough of the automobile industry, for within another ten years the Finnish community in Detroit had overtaken that in Chicago. The automobile meant so much to Detroit that in 1940, for instance, nearly half of the city's labor force gained its livelihood in manufacturing, which in Detroit's case is virtually synonymous with the automotive industry. The rate of growth in Detroit during the second and third decades of the 20th century was many times the mean rate for cities in the United States.18

The prime reason why the clash between the first and second generations of immigrants did not occur until the inter-Wars period was that the majority of the Finnish immigrants landing in the early years of the century were young and single, and married only after having settled in America. Furthermore, the introduction of the Quota System in the 1920s soon equalized the numbers in the first and second generations.19 It is thus interesting to note that (as far as the Finnish ethnic community is concerned) the community construction phase was very brief, if measured in terms of the ratio between the first and second generations: the peak numbers for Finnish-born persons resident in the United States as a whole was reached in the 1920 Census, and even in Chicago and Detroit only ten years later in 1930; yet by the 1940 Census, the peak for second-generation Finns had already occurred.20

Finntown, the Finnish concentration which grew up on the north side of Chicago, flourished in the 1940s, but thereafter the Finnish community began to break up as people moved to the city outskirts, evidence of improved living conditions and increasing prosperity.21 Exactly the same trend also applied to Woodrow Wilson, the corresponding area in Detroit. Michael Loukinen has described how by the end of the 1940s the Finnish-Americans were beginning to complain about urban decay, and the second generation were moving away to bring their children up in the suburbs.22 In both cities, the Finns make up such a small number that attempts to identify them in terms of collective ethnic consciousness become extremely difficult, especially by the third generation. In a smaller town, a Finnish community of several thousand might be highly prominent, but not in a city the size of Chicago or Detroit, and they are consequently not even mentioned as a distinct grouping in the multicultural surveys for either city.23 For Finns in urban America, therefore, the process of the individual's assimilation and integration into American culture evidently continues to be a relevant focus of analysis.

Reminiscence as a source of information in comparing the generations

Interview material offers one of the best opportunities for studying and comparing the lives of first and second generation immigrants. The use of reminiscence has long been discounted in historiography. This criticism derived from a positivist view of scholarship, in which written original material was seen as a scholarly absolute, and criterion for truth. As the focus in historiography has shifted towards everyday life and the history of ordinary people, however, increasing use has been made of the research methodology of other disciplines, in respect both of methods of investigation and of sources of information. From the perspective of source criticism, reminiscence is just as valid as a potential source of material as any other source, for all traces of the past necessitate critical evaluation. Naturally, the use of reminiscence raises its own special problems, which the scholar will need to weigh in each specific case.24

For interview material for the first and second generations, the timing of the interviews is of course crucial. The material which I have at my disposal dates from the 1970s and 1980s.25 This means that a very considerable time had elapsed since the actual date of migration, and even several decades since the second generation grew up. It also needs to be borne in mind that interview questions about visits to Finland, for example, - a potentially important factor in the preservation or rejuvenation of ethnic traditions, - give very different results in the late 1980s from those obtained in the early 1970s, for trans-Atlantic crossings are nowadays far more of a routine occurrence than they were two decades ago.

Similarly, this material can be no more than suggestive, since only a fraction of the total immigrant community was interviewed. Moreover, it might well be hypothesized that those Finnish immigrants who have integrated totally into American culture, and their descendants, are inaccessible to the investigator. Where there are no clues to their Finnishness, e.g. through activity in ethnic associations, it becomes impossible to track them down. The most fruitful time for collecting interview material would have been at the intersection between the first and second generations, in the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s; interviews carried out at that time would have made it possible to explicate the contradictions between contemporary phenomena crucial for assimilation, e.g. between the renaissance of voluntary association activity and shame over immigrant origins.

Setting reminiscence into a wider context, by making use of other material, other investigators' findings, and theoretical and methodological approaches to ethnic communities, can however help us to understand the Chicago and Detroit Finnish communities' own analyses of these problems. We know, for instance, about phenomena occurring at the intersection between the first and second generations such as increased involvement of parents in cultural activities and the like, e.g. Finnish-language schools, in order to bind their children more firmly into the ethnic community.26 These decades also saw the establishment of many new associations, both in Chicago27 and in Detroit.28 Michael G Karni reports that certain institutions, such as the Lutheran clergy, the co-operative movement, and the labor organizations were at least partly successful in recruiting from the second generation; on the other hand, he also records (and this is borne out by later interview material) that it was common for many of the immigrants' children born in the inter-War period to conceal their origins. What made this possible was the second generations' better command of English in comparison to their parents:29 e.g. "We spoke Finnish at home, but English outside, since otherwise we'd have been taken for gypsies".30

On the other hand, with the passage of time, the Finnish migrant community's children also contributed to the process of integration for their parents. The children attended English-language schools, made contacts outside the ethnic community, and eventually began to marry members of other communities. This meant a disintegration of the ethnic communities on two planes: the decline of activities concentrated in the ethnic associations, and the binding of the parents, through their children, more firmly into the American mentality.31 With the aid of the interviews and other material, let us take a look at how this happened.

Language and marriage as agents of integration

The preservation of the language of the country of origin, vis-á-vis the adoption of the language of the host country, are recognized as highly significant indicators of cultural transition at the threshold between the first and second immigrant generations.32 It has been pointed out by Peter Kivisto that many other European immigrant groups, like the Finns, experienced a drastic decline in proficiency in their languages of origin during the period following 1940. Since the Finns, owing to their language background, were slower than other language speakers to learn English, this process may have occurred somewhat more slowly than in other ethnic groups. Kivisto identifies school as the environment where the Finnish children learnt English, and states that they were uninterested in maintaining their parental language.33

In a corpus of several dozen interviews carried out in Chicago during the 1970s, Finnish clearly emerges as the dominant language of the home among first-generation immigrants, but English almost without exception for the second generation.34 Nonetheless, some kind of command of Finnish was widespread in the second generation as well, since among 16 second-generation Finns interviewed in Detroit, only two stated that they neither spoke, wrote nor read Finnish; for Chicago, the corresponding figure was two out of 21.35

A crucial factor in terms of language retention was the degree of closeness of the immigrant community. In smaller Finnish communities, such as those in northern Michigan, Finnish continued to be used for Sunday school and for confirmation classes longer than in the large cities. In cities the size of Chicago or Detroit, however, the Finns found themselves in constant close contact with members of other communities, as is evidenced by the considerable proportion of first-generation immigrants who modified their forenames into a more 'American' form.36

Entering into marriage with a member either of one's own national community or from some other ethnic background provides another factor in explaining the degree not only of language maintenance, but more generally of continued identification with the ethnic reference group. The US Census material provides relatively little reliable information on this question. In his article, Kivisto has explored some of the problems involved. He comes to the conclusion that over half of the 615872 persons recorded as Finnish in the 1980 US Census were of mixed ancestry.37 Despite the small size of the interview material from Detroit and Chicago, it does allow us to explore this question somewhat more fully.

Table 1. Marriages contracted by first and second generation Finns in Detroit and Chicago, by nationality of spouse.38
 

City:

Detroit

Chicago

Generation:
 

1st
 

2nd
 

1st
 

2nd
 

Finnish

9 (60 %)

5 (36 %) 27 (79 %)

10 (37 %)

American

2

5

5

4

Canadian

1

-

-

-

English

-

2 -

2

Irish

1

- -

-

Welsh

-

1 -

-

Norwegian

1

-

-

-

Swedish

-

- 2

1

German

-

- -

5

Lithuanian

-

1

-

-

Belgian

1

- -

-

French

-

- -

1

Italian

-

- -

1

Yugoslav

-

-

-

1

Indian (S Asia)

-

-

-

1

'foreign'
 

-
 

-
 
-
 

1
 

TOTAL

15

14 34

27

The interviews show that well over half (60-80 %) of the first-generation Finnish immigrants had been married to another Finn, whereas in the second generation the proportion is reversed (just over one third of those interviewed). The important question is not to analyze the nationalities chosen as marriage partners by the Finns; this is not important, and the material is too small to allow any conclusions to be drawn. What is important is to see how even by the second generation, the Finnish city community is beginning to disintegrate. Equally, it is inevitable that with a small Finnish community in a large city, this process of disintegration will continue in the third generation, for by this time the ethnic composition of the families is increasingly mixed.

Rising education and white-collar employment

Both Chicago and Detroit attracted immigrants and their descendants, especially from the Finnish settlements in the north. This move to the city was in itself a factor promoting more powerful affiliation to American values. Even though the immediate motive for the move was often economic, it implied an entire shift in lifestyle. Loukinen has shown how for the second generation the Finnish farms, for example in Pelkie in northern Michigan, were unable to offer any economic future, which made the idea of moving to work in the expanding motor vehicle industry in Detroit an attractive alternative. The shift to Detroit took on the features of mass migration: "My friends were there", people would say, or "Everyone was going".39

There are astonishingly close parallels between the migration from northern Michigan to Detroit, starting in the second decade of the 20th century, and the migration from Finland to America. Within Finland, especially in Ostrobothnia, the situation in the late 19th and early 20th century was that the farms could only offer a future for one of the children, normally the eldest son; the rest of the children therefore had to move elsewhere, and for many of them this meant leaving for America. As this migration gathered momentum, it developed into a mass movement: where the pioneers led, others followed.40 In this sense, the loss of population to the industrial centers further south by the small towns in northern Michigan or northern Minnesota was a replica of the process in Ostrobothnia.

Detroit attracted in-migration from first-generation as well as second-generation immigrants. For many, the only employment available initially was manual labor, as their previous work had been; gradually, however, - starting in the 1920s and 1930s, according to Hummasti, - the American school implanted the idea that the road to success lay through access to white-collar jobs, which in turn required further education and therefore meant moving away from small towns and rural areas. The ambitions of the first generation had been to become successful miners, fishermen, or farmers; in the second generation, and even more clearly in the third, these ambitions were pushed aside.41

A comparison of the occupational structure among first and second generation immigrants in Detroit and Chicago provides clear evidence of this white-collar shift, even though in the second generation there are still cases in the interview material of those who moved south from one mode of manual labor to another, e.g. from farms into the automotive industry.

It needs to be borne in mind that these interviews were carried out during the 1970s and 1980s; many of those interviewed had held several different occupations, and the 'housewife' status may well refer to a late stage in life. Nonetheless, the trend is clearly recognizable both for Detroit and for Chicago: in the first generation, the occupational distribution is concentrated in the upper half of Table 2 in traditional immigrant jobs, whereas in the second generation there is a shift towards the occupations in the lower half of the Table, with their higher educational requirements.

Table 2. Occupations of Finns in Detroit and Chicago.42

City:

Detroit Chicago

Generation:
 

1st
 

2nd
 

1st
 

2nd
 

factory labor

6

1

-

-

construction

1

-

7

-

domestic service

6

-

8

1

skilled labor (e.g. mechanic, electrician)

-

3

5

1

office worker

-

4

2

3

nurse

-

1

2

-

small businessman, foreman

1

-

-

1

engineer

-

2

-

-

teacher

-

4

-

1

physician

1

-

-

1

minister of religion

1

-

-

1

housewife
 

-
 

2
 

12
 

2
 

TOTAL

16

17

37

11

The interview material suggests in fact a relatively high educational level among the second generation, although the interview material does not provide information on the educational level for all secondgeneration immigrants interviewed. Six of the sixteen persons interviewed in Detroit had completed a Master's degree, or at least studied at university; all of them had attended high school. In Chicago, seven of the twenty interview subjects had studied either at university or at a college of technology or the arts; the remaining thirteen had all studied at high school.43 It may be interesting to note that many of those interviewed in Finnish translate 'high school' literally into Finnish, as 'korkeakoulu', a term which actually means 'college' or 'university' - evidently at least in part in order to boost their educational prestige.44 It is also not always clear from the material whether those attending high school had graduated. Despite these reservations, the evidence supports Hummasti's thesis concerning the central role and prestige of education in the immigrant community.

The new educational conditions thus offered greater opportunity for dissociation from the ethnic peer-group, and the opportunity was utilized. In any case, pride in one's ethnic origins did not not come into vogue in America until considerably later, in the 1960s; but by that time, collective awareness of Finnishness had missed its chance. None of these factors in themselves - neither the loss of Finnish, nor education, nor change of occupation - necessarily raised insuperable obstacles to the maintenance of a vigorous immigrant community even in the second generation. The really crucial factor was one of attitudes, and of the pressures for integration exercised by the surrounding environment on a small ethnic community. Nonetheless, second-generation Chicago Finns probably read papers in their ethnic language to a greater extent than did second-generation Chicago Italians.45

Finns, ethnic Finns, or ethnic Americans?

This paper concentrates on the threshold between first and second generation Finnish immigrants in a city environment, placing the emphasis on the perspective of the individual immigrant. Certain aspects, such as a comparison between the situations of women and men, have remained outside the scope of scrutiny here. While gender unquestionably plays a crucially important role on the individual plane, however, it is of less importance in regard to the maintenance or loss of ethnic identity in the urban environment. In the first generation, women undoubtedly enjoyed better opportunities for assimilation into American society than the men did, but by the second generation this situation would appear to have evened out, with regard to the acquisition of English, education, occupational status and choice of marriage partners. The problematicization of gender is therefore not nearly as crucial in relation to the maintenance of ethnicity for the second and later generations as it is for the first generation of immigrants. In this context it is worth noting Loukinen's finding that at least half of the second-generation Finns moving from Pelkie during, the 1920s and 1930s were women, despite the fact that the main tide was to Detroit, seen as a 'male' motor industry city.46

The small size of the Finnish population meant that the threshold between the first and second generations, a crucial stage in relation to the possible survival of vigorous ethnic communities, meant in practice the beginning of the end. As has been seen above, this can be dated most concretely to the 1940s and 1950s. While the children were rapidly emerging as Americans, their parents remained immigrants-with-citizenship.47 Despite rising educational levels, this did not necessarily immediately mean any very great difference in standard of living between the generations;48 what it did mean was the reorientation of models and peer-groups.

It is also worth pointing out that a strong sense of Finnishness could also survive, not only in a small-town environment, but also in the city. Since the 1950s, Finntown in Brooklyn has attracted new immigrants, thanks to the location of New York as the Atlantic gateway to America. Anja Olin-Fahle has shown, however, that the Finnish residents in the 1970s and 1980s have formed a new community, and they do not necessarily see themselves as carrying on the traditions of the older Finnish settlement in Finntown. Their vision of the world is wider and more cosmopolitan than that of the old-timers with its reliance on immigrant tradition and locality.49

In chronological terms, the rise of this new community also relates to a new mode of ethnicity. The rise of the new ethnicity has created the conditions for a new sense of group and societal unity, involving interaction with other ethnic groups as well. Conzen et al. argue that the understanding of ethnicity as a collective consciousness necessitates the analysis of interaction between different ethnic groups in the US today; only in this way, they suggest, it is possible to understand what it means to be 'American' in the 1990s.50 But in earlier decades too, e.g. in the Finnish community, contacts with other ethnic groups were everyday reality, whether in Chicago or on the Iron Range of northern Minnesota. Such contacts produced both friction, and a sense of togetherness; the significance of this phenomenon of regional mixed ethnicity in relation to assimilation at the threshold between the first and second generations calls for scrutiny, but unfortunately there is no space to do so here.51

For the Finns in urban America, however, the situation in Brooklyn's Finntown is not duplicated elsewhere. The 'empty' decades after the Second World War undermined the basis for Finnish ethnicity, irrespective of the continued activities of Finnish-Americans thereafter, of which the completion in 1974 of the Finnish Cultural Center in Detroit is a good example: the Finnish revival in the 1970s and 1980s is however probably most accurately seen in terms merely of the preservation of Finnish cultural tradition,52 in which collective ethnic consciousness has no more than a marginal role to play.

This is not to say that Finnish ethnicity has disappeared; on the individual level, however, 'ethnicity' cannot mean the same today as it did for the first-generation immigrant women and men, whose life in the New World was largely dependent upon the sense of group identity. In an interesting article, Michael G Karni has described his own awakening to ethnicity, like that of many others in the third generation. It was not until the Vietnam War that he began to question his own 'Americanness', and to ask where he had come from, and what his own background was53 Nonetheless, his own Americanness has hardly been diminished, and his sense of Finnishness may in fact considerably depend on a feeling of nostalgia and even the exotic.

In these closing comments, I find myself using 'maybe' and 'probably', largely because (as noted earlier) the third immigrant generation presents serious problems for the non-immigrant, non-American historian. In the interview material I have been using, there are very few references to the third generation, but each time it is stated that these, the grandchildren of the original immigrants, will never learn Finnish.54 We are dealing, therefore, with a process of disengagement from the ethnic identity, a process given a sharp boost by the counterprocess of Americanization in the second generation. Karni and his like are true exceptions in this regard, inasmuch as they have shown an active will to learn and maintain Finnish, and to study the tradition.

Finnishness is not therefore disappearing from America, but it is realized today in a totally different manner and scale from the years of heavy immigration. Moreover, it needs to be borne firmly in mind that 'Finnishness' is also undergoing change within Finland, and may not bear a very close resemblance any more to the characteristic mentality taken with them to America by the migrants at the end of the last century. It is, for example, a question of world view and interpretation how much credence should be given to the superhuman qualities of sisu (determination) and talkoohenki (collective solidarity) attributed to the immigrant generations;55 certainly they do not appear to be particularly applicable as a feature distinguishing the present generation of Finns in Finland from other nationalities - but that is a different story.

1. P. G. Hummasti, "Children and Social Change: Thoughts on the Second Generation of Finnish Americans", in Finnish Identity in America, ed. Auvo Kostiainen. Turku 1990, p. 93 note 1.

2. Kathleen Neils Conzen - David A. Gerber - Ewa Morawska - George E. Pozzetta - Rudolph J. Vecoli, "The Invention of Ethnicity: A Perspective from the USA", in Altreitalie, aprile 1990, p. 38.

3. Arthur Schlesinger Jr., "The Cult of Ethnicity, Good and Bad", in Time, July.8, 1991, p. 26.

4. See Paul Gray, "Whose America?" in Time, July 8, 1991, p. 21.

5. Conzen et al. 1990, pp. 37-38.

6. Interview of Elsie Heino in Chicago, July 1971 (interviewed by Marja-Liisa Pyöli-Vainio, transcribed in 1990 at the Dept. of History, University of Turku, Finland); see also Keijo Virtanen, "Immigrant Adaptation to New Environments: A View from the Sending Country", in Finnish Americana IV, ed. Michael G. Karni. New York Mills. 1981, pp. 107-108.

7. Conzen et al. 1990, p. 43; see also Hummasti 1990, pp. 85-86.

8. See for example Keijo Virtanen, Settlement or Return: Finnish Emigrants (1860-1930) in the International Overseas Return Migration Movement. Helsinki 1979, passim.; Reino Kero, Suomalaisina Pohjois Amerikassa. Siirtolaiselämää Yhdysvalloissa ja Kanadassa. Turku 1997, passim.

9. Conzen et al. 1990, p. 43; Virtanen 1981, p. 109.

10. Hummasti 1990, p. 87.

11. United States Census 1920; see also Matti Kaups, "Finns in Urban America: A View from Duluth", in Finnish Diaspora II: United States, ed. Michael G. Karni. Toronto 1981, p. 64.

12. United States Census 1920; see also Keijo Virtanen, "The Influence of the Automotive Industry on the Ethnic Picture of Detroit, Michigan, 1900-1940", in Publications of the Institute of History, University of Turku. Finland, Nr 9, eds. Vilho Niitemaa and Keijo Virtanen. Turku 1977, p. 78.

13. United States Census 1930.

14. Esa Arra, Illinoisin suomalaisten historia. New York Mills 1971, p. 1; Marja-Liisa Pyöli-Vainio, Chicagon suomalaisasutuksen synty ja kehitys. Asutushistoriallinen tutkimus Chicagon suomalaisista vuosina 1870-1970. Unpubl. MA. thesis at the University of Turku, 1975, p. 4.

15. United States Census 1900 and 1910.

16. E.g. interview of Elsie Heino, 1971.

17. United States Census 1910. - However, the first Finns came to Detroit as early as in 1852 (see Armas K. E. Holmio, Michiganin suomalaisten historia. Hancock 1967, pp. 258-263; Virtanen 1977, p. 78).

18. See Virtanen 1977, pp. 72-74 and sources cited there.

19. Hummasti 1990, pp. 87-89.

20. United States Census 1920, 1930, 1940; see also Michael M. I.oukinen, "Second Generation Finnish-American Migration from the Northwoods to Detroit, 1920-1950", in Finnish Diaspora II: United States, ed. Michael G. Karni. Toronto 1981, p. 110.

21. Pyöli-Vainio 1975, pp. 87-99, 151.

22. Loukinen 1981, pp. 111, 121, 123-124.

23. E.g. Detroit, ed. Melvin G. Holli. New York 1976; The Ethnic Frontier. Essays in the History of Group Survival in Chicago and the Midwest, eds. Melvin G. Holli and Peter d'A. Jones. Grand Rapids 1977; Ethnic Chicago, eds. Peter d'A. Jones and Melvin G. Holli. Grand Rapids 1981.

24. In detail, see Keijo Virtanen, "Oral History and the Study of Finnish Overseas Return Migration", in Emigration from Northern, Central and Southern Europe: Theoretical and Methodological Principles of Research, ed. Andrzej Brozek. Krakow 1984, pp. 77-87.

25. I have made interviews in the Finnish community of Detroit in 1975 and 1988 and to a lesser extent in Chicago in 1988. I have also benefited from the interviews performed by Marja-Liisa, Pyöli-Vainio in 1971 in Chicago; these interviews were transcribed for this article in 1990. Finally, I have used the questionnaire collection of the Department of History at the University of Turku, Finland, collected in the late 1960s.

26. Hummasti 1990, p. 91.

27. Arra 1971, passim; Pyöli-Vainio 1975, pp. 63-99.

28. Holmio 1967, pp. 251-492, 515; Virtanen 1977, p. 80.

29. Michael G. Kami, "The Legacy of the Immigrant Finns", in Finnish Identity in America, ed. Auvo Kostiainen. Turku 1990, pp. 102-104.

30. Interview of Siiri Hottinen in Chicago, July 1971 (interviewed by Marja-Liisa Pyöili-Vainio, transcribed at the Dept. of History, University of Turku, Finland).

31. Virtanen 1981, p. 109.

32. E.g. Conzen et al. 1990, p. 43.

33. Peter Kivisto, "From Immigrants to Ethnics: The Problem of the Third-Generation Revisited", in Finns in North America. Proceedings of Finn Forum III, eds. Michael G. Karni, Olavi Koivukangas and Edward W. Laine. Turku 1988, p. 92.

34. See Pyöli-Vainio 1975, pp. 141-142.

35. Based on the material described in note 25.

36. According to my interview material, 10 out of 23 Detroiters and 10 out of 37 Chicagoans changed their first name at some point; see also Hummasti 1990, pp. 89, 91.

37. Kivisto 1988, p. 93.

38. Based on the material described in note 25.

39. Loukinen 1981, pp. 113-115; compare Virtanen 1977, pp. 80-81. - In Pelkie out of every four children, three left that rural community in the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s; 59 % of them migrated to Detroit (Loukinen 1981, p. 113).

41. Hummasti 1990, p. 92.

42. Based on the material described in note 25.

Published in Pitkät jäljet. Historioita kahdelta mantereelta. Professori Reino Kerolle hänen täyttäessään 60 vuotta 2.3.1999. Ed. by Eero Kuparinen. Turun yliopiston historian laitos julkaisuja 49, 1999, p. 386-401.

© Keijo Virtanen

[ Beginning of article ]