We waz Vikangz: The Myth that won't die

Mage

 
We know what you want to say - "The white people have no culture and history of themselves to be proud of. Only the Jewish faith of Christianity brought civilization and decency to the white savages. Therefore it is right that the colorful vibrant people with rich culture and history take over Europe and bring in more color and diversity"

Please kindly fuck off.
 
With the sort of evidence you have provided, by extension Tsarist Russia could never have been a patriarchy because Catherine the Great was one of the monarchs in that epoch.

Alternatively, the US Marines must have soldiers with semi-gender-equal skill sets because two women passed the advanced Marine Infantry course so far.

So, archaeologists found a couple of female warrior tombs and suddenly the Vikings were egalitarian and feminist? Give me a fucking break.

The most attested Viking battle we have - the Battle of Edington against Alfred's Saxons - mentions nothing of equality-minded sistas joining their menfolk in battle in anything close to significant numbers. So the Vikings responsible for the Danelaw outcome were importing their own Scandinavian women to England as frequently as they transported their men, let alone sending the women into battle?

Another example: the matrilineal line in Iceland is 2/3 Gaelic, while the patrilineal line is less than 25% Gaelic. If the Vikings who took Iceland were so egalitarian and gender-neutral, the Nordic lines of descent would be roughly equal patrilineally and matrilineally and we would expect the same for the Gaelic lines of descent. Why all the kidnapping and emigration of Gaelic women, evidently at two and a half times the rate of male Gaelic emigration to Iceland, if this gender hypothesis made any sense whatsoever?
 

Suits

 
Mage said:
We know what you want to say - "The white people have no culture and history of themselves to be proud of. Only the Jewish faith of Christianity brought civilization and decency to the white savages. Therefore it is right that the colorful vibrant people with rich culture and history take over Europe and bring in more color and diversity"

Please kindly fuck off.

In the same way that OP's decision to start this thread suggests that he has ulterior motives, this reaction of yours tells me that you have beliefs that you'd rather not speak plainly about, but you are fearful of any facts that may undermine your beliefs, (even if those facts happen to be true).

I suspect that the fear that you have may be generated by the knowledge that there are others that would like to twist facts (even true ones) to fit their own agenda.

What concerns me, is that based on posts like the one above, I'm far from convinced that you wouldn't do the same (twist facts to fit your agenda) if it served a purpose that you believed to be good.

My reason for having these thoughts is that fact that you seem to prefer that this discussion not take place at all, rather than that the discussion take place and the true facts become clear.

To me RVF has always been a great resource for men who seek better understanding and knowledge, because the discussion here allow the truth to become clear, as different members contribute from their experience and learning.

If you disagree with the fundamental facts on which the articles that OP posted are based, why not challenge those rather than attack the right of OP to start the conversation in the first place?

It's not like OP is some newbie without a solid rep count and who has failed to establish himself by meeting other members.
 

Thomas Jackson

Woodpecker
david.garrett84 said:
With the sort of evidence you have provided, by extension Tsarist Russia could never have been a patriarchy because Catherine the Great was one of the monarchs in that epoch.

Alternatively, the US Marines must have soldiers with semi-gender-equal skill sets because two women passed the advanced Marine Infantry course so far.

So, archaeologists found a couple of female warrior tombs and suddenly the Vikings were egalitarian and feminist? Give me a fucking break.

The most attested Viking battle we have - the Battle of Edington against Alfred's Saxons - mentions nothing of equality-minded sistas joining their menfolk in battle in anything close to significant numbers. So the Vikings responsible for the Danelaw outcome were importing their own Scandinavian women to England as frequently as they transported their men, let alone sending the women into battle?

Another example: the matrilineal line in Iceland is 2/3 Gaelic, while the patrilineal line is less than 25% Gaelic. If the Vikings who took Iceland were so egalitarian and gender-neutral, the Nordic lines of descent would be roughly equal patrilineally and matrilineally and we would expect the same for the Gaelic lines of descent. Why all the kidnapping and emigration of Gaelic women, evidently at two and a half times the rate of male Gaelic emigration to Iceland, if this gender hypothesis made any sense whatsoever?


Egalitarianism is certainly genetic, this is why we see Scandinavian countries being the most egalitarian today. The female warriors thing is completely exaggerated though.

The admixture with Irish is present in Iceland (esp women), but I've never seen that to be the case in the Sweden/Norway/Denmark so the "diversity" angle doesn't really make sense either.
 
Thomas Jackson said:
Egalitarianism is certainly genetic, this is why we see Scandinavian countries being the most egalitarian today. The female warriors thing is completely exaggerated though.

The admixture with Irish is present in Iceland (esp women), but I've never seen that to be the case in the Sweden/Norway/Denmark so the "diversity" angle doesn't really make sense either.

It works with the Anglo-Saxons and Normans, too.

Germanic invaders of the British Isles were a minority according to some (Sykes and Oppenheimer, for instance), as the Iberian element still dominated in numerical but not political terms, but the Germanic genetic contributions were more male than female.

We see it with almost every invasion or New World colonization - Brazil, Mexico, Puerto Rico. The new arrivals are overwhelmingly male and interbreed with local females.

The Métis mixed race tribe of Canada is another fine example: it came about because lonely whites in the wilderness took Native brides en masse.
 

MajorStyles

Pelican
Handsome Creepy Eel said:
I tend to agree with that thesis, but good luck fostering a reasonable discussion with titles like this:

Vikings were never the pure-bred master race white supremacists like to portray
https://theconversation.com/vikings...race-white-supremacists-like-to-portray-84455

:laugh:

Note how the author, Clare Downham, a senior lecturer at University of Liverpool. had to close the thread down when people were calling bullsh*t on her in the comment section. She'll have to go back the blackmailing her college freshman students, telling them to agree with her or else they will not pass the mandatory class.
 
Why don't you provide quotes if you want a debate?

Generally speaking, vikings were pragmatic people, if they met a more sophisticated culture, they usually assimilated.
 

Nowak

 
Mage said:
We know what you want to say - "The white people have no culture and history of themselves to be proud of. Only the Jewish faith of Christianity brought civilization and decency to the white savages. Therefore it is right that the colorful vibrant people with rich culture and history take over Europe and bring in more color and diversity"

Please kindly fuck off.

Christianity is mostly based off of Paganism and Platonist ethics, not Judaism.
 

Nowak

 
Thomas Jackson said:
david.garrett84 said:
With the sort of evidence you have provided, by extension Tsarist Russia could never have been a patriarchy because Catherine the Great was one of the monarchs in that epoch.

Alternatively, the US Marines must have soldiers with semi-gender-equal skill sets because two women passed the advanced Marine Infantry course so far.

So, archaeologists found a couple of female warrior tombs and suddenly the Vikings were egalitarian and feminist? Give me a fucking break.

The most attested Viking battle we have - the Battle of Edington against Alfred's Saxons - mentions nothing of equality-minded sistas joining their menfolk in battle in anything close to significant numbers. So the Vikings responsible for the Danelaw outcome were importing their own Scandinavian women to England as frequently as they transported their men, let alone sending the women into battle?

Another example: the matrilineal line in Iceland is 2/3 Gaelic, while the patrilineal line is less than 25% Gaelic. If the Vikings who took Iceland were so egalitarian and gender-neutral, the Nordic lines of descent would be roughly equal patrilineally and matrilineally and we would expect the same for the Gaelic lines of descent. Why all the kidnapping and emigration of Gaelic women, evidently at two and a half times the rate of male Gaelic emigration to Iceland, if this gender hypothesis made any sense whatsoever?


Egalitarianism is certainly genetic, this is why we see Scandinavian countries being the most egalitarian today. The female warriors thing is completely exaggerated though.

The admixture with Irish is present in Iceland (esp women), but I've never seen that to be the case in the Sweden/Norway/Denmark so the "diversity" angle doesn't really make sense either.

ROK agrees with me!

http://www.returnofkings.com/75464/masculine-strengths-weaknesses-in-germanic-tribes
 

Hannibal

Ostrich
Gold Member
The one article about "Allah" written into some clothes that were found at a Viking burial sounds like bullshit to me. The article states that "Allah" and "Ali" can be read from the clothes if you read their reflection from a mirror. What is it, the fucking Davinci code?

Here's the inscription
ring-1.JPG


Here's the ring they found a couple years back

ninth-century-ring.jpg


and this is the pattern they're claiming to also see "For Allah" in

Textiles-when-examined.jpg


Draw your own conclusion. The ring is obviously an inscription, but the pattern in the clothes I just do not see.

Were Viking and Muslim cultures in contact? Arguably, but it's not like the Norse were praying to Mecca five times a day. The Moors showed up in Spain in the 700's and the Vikings attacked about a century later, so it's not outside the realm of possibility that some ideas were borrowed. The Vikings were not terribly successful in Spain, nor did they spend a lot of time there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_raid_on_Seville

Given that all we know about Viking paganism was written by Snorri Sturluson centuries after that event, it's possible that ideas were taken from Islam.

I'm not sure what the point of this thread is.
 
I don't know why the presence of a female warrior would be a negative for "we wuz vikings".

If anything, doesn't it say, even our women can beat you up?
 

Nowak

 
Hannibal said:
The one article about "Allah" written into some clothes that were found at a Viking burial sounds like bullshit to me. The article states that "Allah" and "Ali" can be read from the clothes if you read their reflection from a mirror. What is it, the fucking Davinci code?

Here's the inscription
ring-1.JPG


Here's the ring they found a couple years back

ninth-century-ring.jpg


and this is the pattern they're claiming to also see "For Allah" in

Textiles-when-examined.jpg


Draw your own conclusion. The ring is obviously an inscription, but the pattern in the clothes I just do not see.

Were Viking and Muslim cultures in contact? Arguably, but it's not like the Norse were praying to Mecca five times a day. The Moors showed up in Spain in the 700's and the Vikings attacked about a century later, so it's not outside the realm of possibility that some ideas were borrowed. The Vikings were not terribly successful in Spain, nor did they spend a lot of time there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_raid_on_Seville

Given that all we know about Viking paganism was written by Snorri Sturluson centuries after that event, it's possible that ideas were taken from Islam.

I'm not sure what the point of this thread is.

The point of this thread is to kill the myth that the alt right and some in the manosphere believe that the vikings were something close to Godly, they were no better or no worse than others in Europe. They were certainly much more egalitarian culturally.
 
When the pre-WW2 nordicists (which were in all western countries) called Norse people the "master race", they meant it literally, not figuratively.

They considered the Mediterranean race to be culturally and artistically superior.

When they said nordics were the master race, they meant that the nordics were literally "by blood" meant to rule over other people. That when the mediterran race had the artistic ability, the nordics were simply the better, stronger, more organized leaders.

This for example when you read the russian founding myth, the quarreling slavs are in constant battle internally, so they invite the viking Rurik to rule over them. Rurik then founds Kiev-Rus or modern Russia.
 
Top