No, I'm not. The very first sentence in the WP article you cite:
"In Finnish history, Finland under Swedish rule refers to the historical period when the bulk of the area that later came to constitute Finland *was an integral part of Sweden."*
Integral parts of countries are not "colonies". That was exactly my point: What is now Finland was an integral part of Sweden, like any other. Calling it a colony is exactly like calling the current region of Dalecarlia a colony of Sweden, or calling Ostrobothnia or Päijät-Häme colonies of Finland. It's absurd on the face of it.
Are you saying it would be correct in a future where they are independent countries to retroactively say Ostrobothnia-now and Päijät-Häme-now were "colonies of Finland" back in the twentieth century? If not, then Finland wasn't a "colony of Sweden" either.
The rest of the article is liberally sprinkled with
A) Tendentious phrasing like "Finland was annexed as part of the Western Christian domain" ("annexed" to a religion?), and
B) Grammatical mistakes typical of Finnish-speakers with a bad grounding in Germanic languages like Swedish and English.
So... No. If you think the bigoted view on history some parts of that WP article espouses are to be taken seriously, it is you who are wrong.
That should have been a clue.
> You’re very wrong.
No, I'm not. The very first sentence in the WP article you cite:
Integral parts of countries are not "colonies". That was exactly my point: What is now Finland was an integral part of Sweden, like any other. Calling it a colony is exactly like calling the current region of Dalecarlia a colony of Sweden, or calling Ostrobothnia or Päijät-Häme colonies of Finland. It's absurd on the face of it.Are you saying it would be correct in a future where they are independent countries to retroactively say Ostrobothnia-now and Päijät-Häme-now were "colonies of Finland" back in the twentieth century? If not, then Finland wasn't a "colony of Sweden" either.
The rest of the article is liberally sprinkled with
A) Tendentious phrasing like "Finland was annexed as part of the Western Christian domain" ("annexed" to a religion?), and
B) Grammatical mistakes typical of Finnish-speakers with a bad grounding in Germanic languages like Swedish and English.
So... No. If you think the bigoted view on history some parts of that WP article espouses are to be taken seriously, it is you who are wrong.