Silent Legacy (2025). Directors: Jenni Kivistö and Jussi Rastas, Finland

The movie Silent Legacy is a personal and intimate documentary about the life of dancer and choreographer Sibiry Konaté, based in Finland. Focusing on everyday life of Sibiry, the movie simultaneously presents intersections of identity, migration, dancing professionality, parenting, loneliness and friendship.

Most importantly, it invites us into the transnational life of Sibiry and unfolds tensions related to remittances – transfer of money or goods – back to Burkina Faso. Hence, the movie navigates on personal but also societal levels, revealing the silent legacy of monetary burdens connecting African diaspora members in Europe.

In the words of Sibiry: “It is a shadow of colonialism”. When you migrate to Europe, your position changes and what people see in you is money. This entails that you are expected to bring back money when you go to Western countries. As Sibiry notes: “Everybody relies on you so it’s a heavy burden”.

Behind the underlying burden of coloniality, the movie is visually beautiful, incorporating scenes from Tiene, Sibiry’s village in Burkina Faso. We see children dancing and playing, we hear the sounds of animals and can sense the dust in the sand.

These scenes are interwoven with Sibiry dancing in various contexts—against the white snow representing Finland, in an elevator, and in a white suit while spreading money—insightfully and sensitively illustrating how he navigates different spaces and positions in his transnational life.

Lost between two continents?

There is, from my white, Finnish, perspective a sadness in a legacy you cannot leave behind, a legacy that follows you around in your everyday life. This phenomenon is well pictured in the movie through voice messages from friends and family hoping for money.

Having lived in Finland for a long time, the sense of belonging to his village in Burkina Faso has changed. It becomes clear that the Sibiry who left Tiene is no longer welcome as the boy he once was, and that he is not able to go back living in Tiene as the Sibiry he was before moving to the West. Now, he is what he himself refers to as “a god from the land of white people”, everybody wants something from him.

There is, from my white, Finnish, perspective a sadness in a legacy you cannot leave behind, a legacy that follows you around in your everyday life. This phenomenon is well pictured in the movie through voice messages from friends and family hoping for money.

This movie contributes to unfolding various complexities in life, as Sibiry is partly an African decent migrant in Finland, struggling in a system with structural racism and partly a privileged European in the eyes of the Tienes relatives and friends. As he states:

“You’re lost between two countries, two continents”

In order to somewhat fulfill the request from friends and family, and perhaps also still the flow of requests of money, Sibiry plans to ship a van from Finland to Burkina Faso. In the burden of doing correctly, he ponders if sending a van can be perceived as showing off – or if the villagers will think the van is not good enough. We see how he negotiates on renovations of the van in Finland, packs the van full with necessities and then ships it to the African continent.

“This bus could bring big changes to Tiene”

Eventually the van does not make it to Sibirys’s village as due to various struggles and setbacks. In the movie, these moments and struggles are brilliantly filmed through the scene of the van, in a dark background, without its engine. Symbolically, the black hole where the engine once sat resonates with the feeling Sibiry might have; this is the thank you get for saving money to buy a van and shipping it to Burkina Faso – getting betrayed.

African remittance legacy

Situating the movie and Sibiry’s experiences in a larger perspective, Sibiry is part of the African diaspora in the Nordic countries. As noted by the United Nations, the amount of remittances to African countries has grown during the past years, due to a larger African diaspora but also due to mobile options for sending remittances.

Remittances from African diaspora members have a great impact on African economy, from macro structures such as larger companies to microstructures of households and neighborhoods. However, it appears that the report does not address the negative sides of remittances, the dark sides of monetary bounds that are well documented in the movie.

According to recent research, remittances also appear to increase conflicts in Sub-Saharan Africa. Looking at individual experiences of remittance senders, research highlights socio-cultural norms, such as ubuntu, creating tensions and pressure among migrants to send money “back home”, while simultaneously settling in the host country.

The amount of remittances to African countries has grown during the past years, due to a larger African diaspora but also due to mobile options for sending remittances.

In the movie, we see Sibiry working at Posti and as a cleaner, picturing the precarious situation when it comes to employment for migrants of African descent in Finland. Due to structural challenges in the Finnish job market, such as employment and recruitment discrimination or unnecessary high language requirements, working in precarious positions at low paid jobs is something many migrants end up doing.

Personally, I feel this is such a waste of Sibiry’s dancing talent and feel sad for living in a society not appreciating the dancing expertise Sibiry brings to Finland. Ten years ago, I took part in Sibiry’s afro dance classes and recalled thinking that he should be teaching experts. And so he has been, but still, I cannot but feel frustration against attitudes in the job market in Finland.

“I came here to dance”

“For me dancing is freedom”

From my perspective, it feels unreasonable and unequal that in addition to striving to get along economically and settle in a new host country, one would need to send remittances “back home”. These are exactly the global inequalities Jenni Kivistö and Jussi Rastas with their documentary movies want to illustrate.

The white gaze

This is not the first documentary movie made by Jenni Kivistö and Jussi Rastas. Previously, the couple has been internationally recognized and awarded for their documentary movie Colombia in My Arms. In a documentary series about creative couples at the streaming site Yle Areena, we can follow their journey highlighting global inequalities and unfolding colonial legacies.

In recent years, the lens has also turned towards themselves, raising a discussion about representation and them as white from the Global North making movies about the Global South. We hear them pondering about whether it actually matters if they are white, making a movie in Africa or if it is more important to highlight inequalities than to critically scrutinize them being Europeans and racially white.  

I would suggest that both matters, and that it definitively matters if you are racially white when making movies about colonial legacies. It matters what information, what spaces, what standpoints and what resources you might access. Likewise, it matters that I have a white gaze when writing this review, it positions me differently than if it had been written by an African decent researcher. Scrutinizing the structurally powerful position one has supports self-reflection related to individual encounters, but also power encounters between the Global South and North societies.

Scrutinizing the structurally powerful position one has supports self-reflection related to individual encounters, but also power encounters between the Global South and North societies.

The film demonstrates considerable sensitivity, and Kivistö and Rastas’ personal experiences of living and spending significant time in the Global South inform their understanding of global inequalities. However, recognizing how being white matters would allow the viewers to feel – for coming movies- that this is an ethically sound movie, where white privileges are made conscious – and perhaps contested.

Towards the end, I want to thank both Sibiry and the documentary makers for this important movie, highlighting intersections of transnational life. Openly sharing personal relations, joys and disappointments for a large public requires strength and courage, thank you for this Sibiry. I really wish this documentary movie would be viewed by politicians, researchers and students and I wish Sibiry, that you will be able to dance, freely.

Liselott Sundbäck is a postdoctoral researcher in social policy at Åbo Akademi University.

Silent Legacy (Directors: Jenni Kivistö and Jussi Rastas, 2025) is screened at DocPoint-festival 3.–8.2.2026.
Check the screening programme for showtimes.

Read all Politiikasta DocPoint 2026 reviews in english here.

All Politiikasta DocPoint 2026 reviews in Finnish here.

Article image: Silent Legacy (2025) / DocPoint

Julkaisu DocPoint 2026: “For me, dancing is freedom” ilmestyi ensimmäisenä Politiikasta.

In August 2023, Helsinki Regional Transport (HSL) launched an anti-fraud campaign featuring social media personalities Iba and Keinaan, who were chosen to promote the risks of using fake transit tickets. However, the campaign sparked significant controversy and public debate, as critics argued, that using two Black men in this context risked reinforcing negative stereotypes around race and criminality.

While some defended the campaign as a step toward greater visibility for underrepresented groups and dismissed the criticisms as overblown “woke” reactions that had turned an innocuous issue into another topic for the culture wars, others saw it as racially insensitive. In response, HSL initially pulled the campaign but later reinstated it. The transport authority believed that clarifying Iba and Keinaan’s roles as influencers would address the backlash and emphasize the campaign’s intent.

The controversy, though, revealed deeper issues with representation of minorities in Finnish society, institutional responsibility, and the social consequences of public messaging choices. Social media platforms became a major space for discussion, with people from various backgrounds sharing their concerns about the campaign. Many argued that HSL should have anticipated backlash, as a quick scan of HSL’s Facebook and Instagram pages shows few — if any — Black individuals in past positive messaging campaigns.

Finnish audiences are generally not accustomed to seeing Black individuals represented in HSL’s campaigns, which makes this casting choice a noticeable departure from its not-so-strong track record of diversity. The choice of lesser-known personalities over more recognizable Black influencers active in Finland, likely to save costs for HSL, added to the controversy, as most people saw Iba and Keinaan as mere campaign models.

Iba and Keinaan themselves expressed disappointment after the initial removal of the campaign from digital screens. In an interview with Iltalehti, they explained that they found it unfair for those outside the minority community to speak on their behalf, adding that, regardless of their involvement, they felt open to public scrutiny either way.

The Specter and Spectacle of Race

The real question is not about branding the campaign as racist or not; it is more about unpacking the sociopolitical implications and understanding the context from which it emerged. It is no coincidence that two Black individuals were chosen for an anti-fraud campaign in the Finnish context.

Unlike Sweden’s social-democratic roots, Finnish welfare policy has historically leaned toward protectionist and nationalistic orientations. In his doctoral dissertation, university researcher Niko Pyrhönen explains how a widely shared concern across the Finnish political spectrum about the welfare state’s future in a globalized era enabled neo-populists, such as the Perussuomalaiset (Finns Party), to frame immigration as a threat to welfare structures. Far-right political ideologies constructed a collective identity centered around “welfare nationalism”.

This so-called “blue-and-white solidarity” has crafted an exclusionary narrative that positions native Finns as the “real” beneficiaries of the welfare state, while casting “racial aliens” (a term used by the far-right in Finland for African and MENA immigrants) as outsiders from whom the welfare state must be “saved”. In other words, “the other” is located as both “traumatic” and “excessive”.

The real question is not about branding the campaign as racist or not; it is more about unpacking the sociopolitical implications and understanding the context from which it emerged.

This image of immigrants and their relationship with welfare structures has permeated mainstream Finnish discourse, surfacing almost daily in the public sphere. Immigrants are often accused of clogging public health service lines or are labeled “sossupummi” (a derogatory term for a perceived welfare client) on social media. To better understand this, we can turn to university Professor Li-Chun Hsiao’s distinction between the “specter” and “spectacle” of race. The “specter” of race refers to pervasive, often unspoken racial anxieties or biases that linger beneath society’s surface.

In contrast, the “spectacle” of race is race made visible and performative, often through exaggerated or symbolic representations in media and public campaigns. According to Hsiao, every spectacle is shadowed and haunted by the specter of race. In this context, the “spectacle” of two Black individuals featured in a campaign aimed at “saving” welfare structures from fraud reflects the deeper “specter” of race in the contemporary Finnish context.

“They themselves accepted it, so it’s fine!”

A common cliché used to dismiss controversies like this is the argument, “they accepted it, so it’s fine”. This flawed—and ideologically skewed! —understanding of agency deliberately ignores the power dynamics at play, shifting focus away from broader structural issues and reducing a systemic problem to individual preference. In this case, it refers to Iba and Keinaan’s interview comments about not perceiving the campaign as racist. This reasoning is as problematic as suggesting Donald Trump is not a racist politician because some Muslim leaders and Imams in Michigan endorsed him, or insisting Non-Black people must shut up about slavery because one of the largest slave-owners in U.S. history, John Carruthers Stanly, was Black.

This argument rests on the notion that participation by individuals from marginalized backgrounds inherently validates those structures as non-discriminatory or fair. Such thinking fails to consider the complex survival strategies, constrained choices, and internalized norms marginalized groups have to deal with within systems that remain biased.

Another naive argument often thrown around in cases like this is, “What problem do you have with the representation and inclusion of Black individuals in the public sphere?” Although this rather common question builds on the dynamics discussed in the previous paragraph and reduces the complexities of inclusion to a binary of presence versus absence, it deserves attention because it reflects a prevailing issue between symbolic representation and genuine inclusion—a challenge faced by many Western societies today.

Not every representation is a sign of inclusion, and we must be cautious when inclusion is tokenized and used as a shield against criticism.

To be more clear, I will provide an example.  Indigenous culture is often celebrated through traditional clothing, dance, or festivals, which are romanticized and consumed by the majority for aesthetic value. Yet, when Indigenous groups advocate for land rights, resist environmental degradation, or oppose corporate interests, they often face hostility, which reveals the limits of the “love” that exists only for aesthetic or symbolic purposes. The same holds true for celebrating black individuals in roles such as athletes, musicians, or entertainers, and Asian Americans as hardworking and non-confrontational.

Here, we see a phenomenon where members of marginalized or racialized groups are selectively embraced or celebrated when they conform to certain roles, behaviors, or stereotypes that are beneficial or non-threatening to the dominant group. To explain this phenomenon, American authors Frank Chin and Jeffrey Paul Chan coined the term “racist love” in 1972. In essence, racist love is a conditional love that creates an illusion of acceptance or inclusion as long as marginalized groups conform to stereotypes or roles that align with the dominant group’s expectations or interests. Therefore, not every representation is a sign of inclusion, and we must be cautious when inclusion is tokenized and used as a shield against criticism.

The Path to Authentic Inclusion

Reflecting on the controversy surrounding this campaign, one thing becomes clear: representation is a complex, layered issue, especially when it intersects with race and public messaging. The lingering influence of welfare nationalism, which emerged starkly in Finland’s recent general elections, and Finland’s repeated selection as the “happiest country in the world” should not lead to a fetishization of Finnish public institutions and services, stripping them of accountability and closing off avenues for public critique.

Rather than focusing solely on whether this campaign was “right” or “wrong” this incident points to the need for deeper discussions around inclusion and the responsibilities of public institutions in shaping public perceptions.

Rather than focusing solely on whether this campaign was “right” or “wrong” this incident points to the need for deeper discussions around inclusion and the responsibilities of public institutions in shaping public perceptions.

As political polarization is ravaging liberal democracies, it is becoming increasingly challenging to speak about racism and the different brands it comes in. As British journalist and author Reni Eddo-Lodge explains in her influential piece titled Why I’m No Longer Talking to White People About Race, Euro-ethnic populations historically never had to think about what it means, in power terms, to be white, so the majority believe that their life experiences, shaped by skin color, can and should be universalized.

This has turned racial discussions into a burden for people of color, as they are expected to educate others on the subject and prioritize white feelings in understanding structural racism. This is why we need a dialectical reversal in understanding racism and, for a first step, must challenge the neoliberal idea of diversity and multiculturalism, which is based on the commandment of thou shalt tolerate the other yet keep thy distance from ‘em…! The path forward is not arm’s-length tolerance and tokenism but understanding the otherness of the other.

Erfan Fatehi is a doctoral researcher in sociology at the University of Helsinki.

Article image: Jori Samonen / Pixabay

Julkaisu Racist Love? A Note on HSL’s Fake Ticket Campaign  ilmestyi ensimmäisenä Politiikasta.

A recent theme in western media involves the casting of younger generations negatively in contrast to older generations using clickbait news titles and surface level discussions. News headlines conveying that younger generations are having a hard time ‘adulting’, or that younger people simply like living at home, have become commonplace to the point of being parodied.

These stories often lack the nuance or detail that goes beyond simplistic narratives to accurately explain the behavior or views of younger individuals. News stories about the relationship between younger people and politics is equally susceptible to simplistic generalizations about their behavior. In Finland, this phenomenon has recently manifested itself in narratives about young people’s greater support for one of the country’s far right parties – the Finns party.

Finnish media, younger people, and Finns party support

The Finnish media has published several news stories highlighting a link between younger people and support for the Finns party. For example, a recent press release from a research organization highlighted by the media indicates that TikTok impacts the voting behavior of younger people, and that the effect is especially strong for voting for the Finns Party. Yle News published a related story where they indicated that one-third of young people who use TikTok would vote for the Finns party.

The article was mostly framed around how the Finns party has been able to attract youth support through the app. The article dedicated considerable attention to the strategies of the party’s posts. The narrative is that younger people on the platform are particularly receptive to the types of content that the Finns party disseminates. The story did not ask the obvious question – is it that the Finns party is using TikTok to attract young voters’ support or that the party has created a ‘meeting place’ for the young supporters they already acquired?

The story leaves us to posit why Finns party support is so strong among younger voters and whether TikTok is the cause? What these stories lack are nuanced explanations and systematic comparisons to other age groups and the support of competitor parties.

A more nuanced analysis of the relationship between TikTok and Finns party support was published in Helsingin Sanomat. This story highlighted that the Finns party is the most popular party among the youth, which has been discussed in additional news stories. However, the story pointed out that according to a recent study younger voters do not support the policies of the party. The story leaves us to posit why Finns party support is so strong among younger voters and whether TikTok is the cause? What these stories lack are nuanced explanations and systematic comparisons to other age groups and the support of competitor parties.

Additionally, the news has recently emphasized the results from the democracy education event (Nuorten vaalit). The “the youth elections” event is used as an educational tool where youth participants under the age of 18 vote for a candidate running in the Finnish presidential election. The result of the event was that Finns party candidate Jussi Halla-aho finished second in the voting and missed first place by just over 600 votes (out of 94,000 cast). The result has led some to ponder over whether the Finns party is especially attractive to young people.

What does the democracy education event results tell us?

The democracy education event results convey only some information to researchers. However, that information is unlikely to be the attractiveness of the Finns party to younger people. Instead, the results more likely indicate quite a bit about some of these younger peoples’ families.

Since the 1960s political scientists have uncovered that the family is one of the strongest ‘agents of socialization’ in democracies. Agents of socialization are those entities that impact an individual’s political attitudes through the socialization process, which includes family, social groups, school, religion, etc. Studies confirm that there is a strong connection between parental partisanship/vote choice and that of their children. The relationship is especially strong when individuals are younger.

A study in Finland by Gidengil, Wass, and Valaste in 2016 showed that the likelihood a young person even votes can be directly tied to their parents’ political behavior. The results from the democracy education event are more likely reflective of parental attitudes rather than an informed selection of a candidate based on their own ideological commitments. As the Helsingin Sanomat article mentioned above highlighted, there is an incongruence between younger Finns party supporters’ policy preferences and those of the party.

Since the 1960s political scientists have uncovered that the family is one of the strongest ‘agents of socialization’ in democracies. Agents of socialization are those entities that impact an individual’s political attitudes through the socialization process.

Alternatively, the democracy education event might convey little to no information about younger people. First, the participants are casting a vote in an event that has no real-world stakes. The purpose of the event is that it is an educational tool. There are no consequences for their vote choice, which is not the case for actual voters. Therefore, the incentive to be an informed participant is missing from the activity.

Second, and related, as previous participants are aware, the seriousness that individuals approach this type of event does not match that of a real election. There is always a handful of participants that cast their votes in a joking manner. Finally, the younger participants lack a cohesive ideological profile. It takes time to develop an individual’s comprehensive set of political orientations towards society. Therefore, the choices might not be based on policy preferences, but rather other non-political considerations such as a candidate’s appearance or media reporting.

Analysis shows the relationship is over-emphasized

To calculate the precise impact of age on vote choice, I conducted an analysis from a survey of around 3,000 Finnish respondents just prior to the parliamentary election. My analysis controls for a range of demographic variables, as well as attitudinal positions (views on the economy, environmental issues, LGBTQI+ rights, and immigration). When I plot the impact of age on vote choice in the figure, we see that age only has a small impact on vote choice for the Finns party.

Figure: The impact of age on vote choice

The first aspect of the figure to notice is that the probability of vote choice is never greater than 25 percent for any party for younger people. In fact, the difference in the probability of voting for the parties that came first through fifth in the 2023 parliamentary election is on average only a four percentage point difference for 20 year old respondents. The result indicates a lot of fragmentation in the youth vote – no dominant party among the youth.

The result is not surprising given that younger people have not developed partisan attachments. Again, the lack of partisanship is due to an unformed ideological profile. In addition, youth voters are not a monolithic group that has a dominant issue to rally around, such as older voters and an issue like pensions. Thus, we would expect the youth vote to be divided between several parties as these young people navigate through the early years of political socialization.

Youth voters are not a monolithic group that has a dominant issue to rally around, such as older voters and an issue like pensions.

Comparing younger people to older people, the figure points to only small age related differences in vote choice for the Finns party. An individual that is 20 years old is only on average 3.8 percent more likely to report vote choice for the Finns party when compared to a 50 year old. When comparing a 20-year-old to an 80-year-old the difference is around 10 percent. The differences are small but could still be meaningful. Does this mean the Finns party is more attractive to younger people? Not necessarily, in fact, the results point to another narrative.

The narrative does not involve the Finns party’s oversized attraction to younger people, but instead the extremely large amount of support for the Social Democrats among older people. The results show that the probability of vote choice for the Social Democratic Party increases drastically with age. An individual that is between 70–80 years old is between 35–40 percent more likely to vote for the Social Democrats when compared to a 20-year-old voter.

The small age-related gaps in Finns party vote are likely a product of older voters’ very strong attachment to the Social Democratic Party. The finding aligns with narratives that older people have a much stronger partisan attachment to the Social Democrats in the Nordic countries. The question the media should be asking is why are the Social Democrats failing to appeal to young people? Therefore, the real puzzle is explaining gaps in Social Democratic party appeal.

Media and a bandwagon effect: A warning

Several studies show a bandwagon effect related to elections where citizens cast a vote for a candidate that they perceive, through the publishing of favorable news stories or opinion polls, as popular. The people that are most susceptible to this type of bandwagon effect are individuals that are low information voters or pay less attention to politics, which tends to be younger voters.

Given the disproportionate amount of attention the link between younger voters and Finns party support has received in the media, there is the potential that the relationship becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. In other words, younger votes may express support for the Finns Party in the future because they believe their peers also support the party due to the media’s incomplete reporting.

Therefore, the perpetuation of the narrative that the Finns party has an oversized appeal among young people could have implications for actual election results. That outcome would be unfortunate because the reality is that there is no party that dominates support from younger people in Finland. Instead, it is the case that younger people are dividing their support among several parties. We could call this process “finding a partisan home.” In addition, there is not a large difference between younger and older people in support for the Finns party. In all, news stories attributing Finns party success to younger people are not providing a complete picture.

Ph.D. Michael A. Hansen is an Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Turku.

Article image: Elizeu Dias / Unsplash

Article updated 30.1.2024 at 15.05: Some minor typos corrected.

Julkaisu Young people’s support for the Finns Party: An incomplete story ilmestyi ensimmäisenä Politiikasta.