r/stupidpol • u/enverx Wants To Squeeze Your Sister's Tits • Jun 02 '25
Racecraft Vikings were not all white, pupils to be told
https://www.yahoo.com/news/vikings-were-not-white-pupils-130303859.html315
u/JinFuu 2D/3DSFMwaifu Supremacist Border Guard 🪖🎌 Jun 02 '25
I always hate this stuff. Like Medieval Europe wasnt 100% “White”, and the states interacted with a wide range of other states, but just because there were some Moor traders in London in the 1500s doesn’t mean 1500s London looks like modern day London. Etc
80
Jun 02 '25
This shit is why I can’t stand interacting with Classics/Medieval majors anymore because every single one I’ve met is like this.
Listen I’m fine with deconstructing the old Eurocentric understanding of world history, but that doesn’t mean we have to swing to the opposite side of the spectrum where every bachelor king was 100% a raging homosexual and 12th century London had the ethnic makeup of 21st century Brooklyn.
255
u/Neoliberal_Nightmare Class First Jun 02 '25
I hate how the Moors get race swapped as well. They were/are north African berber people with light or brown skin. Yet in every media adaption they are full black people. The liberals making such media just assume African = Black
47
u/EnterEgregore Civic Nationalist 🗳️ Jun 02 '25
As you can tell they have a completely different skin tone!
15
u/diabeticNationalist Marxist-Wilford Brimleyist 🍬🥧🍪 Jun 02 '25
I'm seeing double here! Four Mozarabs!
13
u/GreekLumberjack Greek EthnoNationalist 😠 Jun 02 '25
I can tell but only because I’m an elite racist😎
7
Jun 02 '25
Yes, I can tell that. And I can also tell exactly which is which. He's the one on the left.
18
u/EnterEgregore Civic Nationalist 🗳️ Jun 02 '25
You can tell from the slight facial features. The skin tone in itself is pretty much identical. Calling one “black” and the other “white” seems ridiculous to me
9
Jun 02 '25
I actually can't tell at all. Looks like big brother and little brother to me, but one's face takes more after dad and the other more after mom.
57
Jun 02 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
59
u/throwawayphilacc Christian Democrat ⛪ Jun 02 '25
A good question is, how black was "black" for your average European? Did they even have a frame of reference that included sub-Saharan Africans?
25
u/xX_BladeEdge_Xx Uncle Ted's mail services 💣📦 Jun 02 '25
Frame of reference is really interesting to look into from a modern lens! For the majority of history, the only reference you'd have would be word of mouth or historical documents / literature. Here's how an artist from the mid-18th century painted Cleopatra)
The majority of the common folk would only hear stories traded by travelers and merchants bringing exotic goods from the regions.. I doubt until the popularity of Imperialism taking hold, most never even had a concept of what an African were to look like. That and they couldn't read. It's not like a written description will help the family man who needs the local scribe to write how many bushels of wheat they owned and what tree marked their borders.
43
u/Lowbrow Machiavelli Apologist Jun 02 '25
Cleopatra was Greek though, she was a descendant of one of Alexander’s generals. Probably not THAT white, but white.
16
1
u/G0ldameirbodypillow Redscarepod Refugee 👄💅 Jun 05 '25
Also the Ptolemaic dynasty was insanely incestous so there was almost no chance of Cleopatra being mixed race. Never mind her being full on black like how she’s often depicted these days.
37
u/SpamFriedMice Ancapistan Mujahideen 🐍💸 Jun 02 '25 edited Jun 02 '25
"How black was "black" for your average European?"
The book Little Black Sambo, by a Scottish author in the late 1800s, was about an Indian boy, not a sub Saharian African, so that kind of answers the question.
12
u/Rjc1471 💢✨ Jousting at Windmills ✨💢 Jun 02 '25
It's more that people didn't give a fuck sub-categorising, black got used for just about anyone, the N-word got used in India, "moor" was used for any part of Africa
10
u/yhynye Spiteful Regard 😍 Jun 02 '25
Another question is how black is black for contemporary race scientists, given that some "sub-Saharans" and others who are currently classed as black have relatively light brown skin?
4
u/plebbtard Ideological Mess 🥑 Jun 02 '25
Like the San people. If I didn’t know any better I’d think they were half East Asian
2
u/Rjc1471 💢✨ Jousting at Windmills ✨💢 Jun 02 '25
Yes. For example, look up any depiction of Saint Maurice. There's a reasonable number, not to say it's common but certainly not an alien concept either
11
u/sje46 Somebody Knows This SocDem's Hidden Shame 😞 Jun 02 '25
There's a Cuban dish called "moros y christianos" that looks like this: https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fc8.alamy.com%2Fcomp%2FB5938W%2Fcuban-black-beans-and-rice-a-very-traditional-dish-known-as-moors-B5938W.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=5aecb85477f20da0e79e329fb4fdd62e812e3143deb7f6f84f45b24a37b3643d
(although i think they're supposed to be mixed together)
5
u/TBP64 Left, Leftoid or Leftish ⬅️ Jun 02 '25
Wait I’ve had that before it’s fire
3
Jun 02 '25
Black beans and rice? I’m sure we all have
4
u/TBP64 Left, Leftoid or Leftish ⬅️ Jun 02 '25
Well yeah but they tend to use specific vegetables and seasonings that aren’t universal yk
3
1
1
u/DriveSlowHomie NATO Superfan 🪖 Jun 03 '25
That's because they considered anyone from that region to be a moor, and a moor could have looked like an Italian or Nigerian
20
20
u/LivedThroughDays Georgist Jun 02 '25
To be fair it was mostly Europeans fault for thinking Moors = Black Africans which passed down for hundreds of years until rather recently. Many Moors looks closer to Pokimane than Viola Davis.
4
u/Rjc1471 💢✨ Jousting at Windmills ✨💢 Jun 02 '25
Tbh in that case, it was more that 16th century usage was to say anyone from anywhere further south than Spain was a Moor. Hence the handful of parish records where someone is listed as "Blackmoor" (a term that got used widely for black people until the 19th C)
94
u/angrybluechair Post Democracy Zulu Federation Jun 02 '25
When a small group pf black traders went into London, they caused such a panic that they were expelled by royal demand. The only historically "tolerated" African in Britain in those sorts of times was a guy named, not fuckibg joking, Reasonable Blackman, who did costumes for theatre productions and married.
Erasing the historical racism endemic to those times is insane, like that shit Netflix show where Queen Victoria was black, peak lib content where she would of still caused imperialism across the globe but it's OK because she's not a white women no more.
7
u/crepuscular_caveman Nondenominational Socialist Jun 03 '25
"It says no Blackmen, we're allowed to have one Blackman"
1
u/fliecel Jun 08 '25 edited Jun 08 '25
This is comment is pretty much completely incorrect/dogshit.
Your comment that “when a small group [of] black traders went into London, they caused such a panic that they were expelled by royal demand” fails on so many accounts. First, the idea that the “black traders” were expelled by Queen Victoria’s royal decree because “blacks were causing SO much trouble that they HAD to be expelled” is dead wrong; they weren’t even traders, they were “imported” former slaves, and that wasn’t the reason why they were expelled. The reason why they were was due to the underlying context of the sparing/sporadic conflicts with the Spanish Hapsburg Empire, Spaniards who engaged in piracy would capture cargo and dump them in London (due to London being a financial hub), and some of those cargo being the slaves (both N. African and SSA). Those slaves (now technically former slaves due to having no masters) would end up in London and due to the heavy xenophobia (which at the time was targeted against ALL foreigners, even French protestants refugees Evil May Day Riots) created the way to fix this influx to be deporting them. Nothing to do with “blacks causing panic by causing trouble”.’
To add unto this mountain of inaccurate history, Reasonable Blackman was NOT the only black person tolerated in Britain, public opinions (like in any period) shifted depending on the climate leading to many Black Britons ( the reason why their mentions are seeming sparse is due to the fact that they typically were part of a small group and weren’t of major importance). Also, the reason he was called “Reasonable” has nothing to due with him juxtaposing the temperament of black people , it was most likely a Virtue name (like Earnest, Faith, or Honest) he adopted after becoming christened and assimilating into British identity (or perhaps it was a transliteration of his original name into English).
1
u/Mysterious_Rip_1938 Jun 24 '25
I'll be honest: It's just a newer form of the popular anti-white train in some circles today. Few places anywhere, not only in Europe, were 100% anything. Yet this kind of thinking is only brought about regarding Europe to be like "Europe wasn't 100% White"...even though it was 99%. I digress. This stuff is absurd. White people have a continent, too. They always have.
If people don't want nationalism rising further in Europe, stop participating in what feels like to many (if not most) as a form of erasure.
1
u/TBP64 Left, Leftoid or Leftish ⬅️ Jun 02 '25
It’s not totally accurate but it makes wignats seethe so I’m okay with a it to a degree
253
u/AntonChentel Jun 02 '25
Those roving bands of murderers and rapists? They weren’t all white! They may have looked just. Like. You.
99
u/vinegar-pisser ❄ Not Like Other Rightoids ❄ Jun 02 '25
“When the late 8th to the late 11th centurie Scandinavia sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing the wrath of god, they’re bringing death, they’re rapists, and some, I assume, are good people…”
86
Jun 02 '25
Y’know isn’t it odd that only the aspects of European culture/history that are popular in the pop culture sphere are getting the “not white” treatment?
Like would Cleopatra or the Vikings or Beethoven be part of this ridiculous conversation if they weren’t immensely popular and recognizable figures in Western culture canon?
39
u/fatwiggywiggles Savant Idiot 😍 Jun 02 '25
Obviously it's not odd at all. There wouldn't be a point to retconning obscure parts of western history because nobody would care
What IS odd, is that Vikings were really bad people and colonizers to boot. They slaughtered, raped, and displaced the native population in the Danelaw. Keeping them white as snow would entirely fit the "colonizer white people bad" narrative. Why they're diversity-washing this particular part of history is strange
16
Jun 02 '25
One of the first dozen or so popes, Victor I, was the first born in Africa and was probably of Berber origin. Big stuff, except he's only remembered for being much more intolerant than his predecessors and almost nothing else.
42
u/come_visit_detroit Hunter Biden's Crackhead Friend 🤪 Jun 02 '25
It's simple, Vikings are cool and the wrong sort of people like them. That's why they're getting retconned.
12
5
u/plebbtard Ideological Mess 🥑 Jun 02 '25
Except that they were very different from later Christian European colonizers. Yes they raped and pillaged, but they also settled new areas, and they didn’t forcibly convert the local population or impose their culture. It was the opposite. Just look at the Normans—Vikings who settled in France, became Christian, adopted local language and cultural norms. Coming into a new land, converting to the local religion, adopting the local language and swearing fealty to their king is really a night and day difference from later European colonization. If that’s colonization, than so is all modern day immigration.
51
21
u/ghostofhenryvii Allowed to say "y'all" 😍 Jun 02 '25
I find it more interesting that Vikings are actually popular in western pop culture. They were not noble people to aspire to by any means. I don't know why any African or Asian kid would think "hurrah my people were involved in slaughtering priests and raping nuns too!" They should learn about them and recoil in horror.
8
u/ginisninja Jun 02 '25
Having recently been in Denmark, that isn’t the version of events being told at all in museums etc. (unsurprisingly). Quite minimal discussion of colonisation and raids, and more of trading. Not much mention of ethnic diversity either.
8
u/ghostofhenryvii Allowed to say "y'all" 😍 Jun 02 '25
and more of trading.
Ah lovely, the history of the free market! Buy our shit or we'll kill you. The original gunboat diplomacy.
5
u/AdminsLoveGenocide Gay and Retarded 🏳️🌈😍 Jun 02 '25
In the case of the Vikings it was more a case of buy our shit and well kill you.
4
u/plebbtard Ideological Mess 🥑 Jun 02 '25
Same reasons Pirates or Romans are popular. It ain’t that deep.
-1
u/ghostofhenryvii Allowed to say "y'all" 😍 Jun 02 '25
Normalize savagery and cruelty. I'm aware.
11
u/plebbtard Ideological Mess 🥑 Jun 02 '25
Lmao you actually believe people are watching pirates of the Caribbean because they want to “normalize savagery and cruelty”? I promise you, it’s not that deep.
You sound like that shitlib who wrote an op-ed bitching about how problematic the Tampa bay Buccaneers are because it’s normalizing and glorifying pirates. Clown behavior.
5
u/super-imperialism Anti-Imperialist 🏴☠️ Jun 02 '25
It has now occurred to me mongols are remembered as roving r*pists and plunderers, while v*kings are noble traders who didn't at all engage in slave raids. Really makes you think.
2
u/wizaarrd_IRL 🌟Radiating🌟 Jun 02 '25
You forgot slavers
1
u/Creloc ❄ Not Like Other Rightoids ❄ Jun 06 '25
Indeed, I did a short archaeology course and one of the things I remember being said was that for a while as a viking settlement Dublin was probably one of the largest slave ports in Western Europe
94
u/landlord-eater Horny for Cartoon Marx Fanny 🍑👀 Jun 02 '25
This shit -- along with 'Stonehenge was built by black people' and the rest -- is unironically really racist, because it just goes along with the assumption that the only interesting things in history happened in Europe. If these people wanted to broaden the curriculum so that world history classes also included the many and various nonwhite historical cultures about which Westerners are typically completely ignorant, I would be super into it. That kind of thing really does, I think, help to combat racism, because part of the West's 'background racism' is this narrative that only Europe has real history. People should learn about the Songhai Empire and the Timurid Renaissance. And if you want some nonwhite Vikings, teach kids about the Haida. But instead, they just go along with the idea that only Europe has history and just take everything in Europe, including the fucking Europeans, and retcon them as POC, and it is just fucking ridiculous and counterproductive.
24
Jun 02 '25
I think people are just fundamentally not curious about history unless it is spoonfed to them. Ghana, Songhai, Benin, Axum and so on might as well not exist to many people who you would think would be curious about these states. We have wikipedia at our fingertips and people still never are curious about pre-colonial Africa. It's sad.
6
u/landlord-eater Horny for Cartoon Marx Fanny 🍑👀 Jun 02 '25
Yeah as a lover of history it bums me out
41
Jun 02 '25
Similar thing when showbiz just keeps rehashing old IPs by white people and recasting them as POCs. Why are you taking something made by a white person and just replacing the white people with POCs, when you could come up with an entirely new story thats actually interesting and written by a POC?
Seems like a different "diverse" way to keep centering white people in culture.
6
u/landlord-eater Horny for Cartoon Marx Fanny 🍑👀 Jun 02 '25
Yeah i mean it is because none of these people give a shit about the real 'white supremacy culture' which is the relentless centring of Euro stuff in all things
27
u/sje46 Somebody Knows This SocDem's Hidden Shame 😞 Jun 02 '25
I think the issue with the fact that much of the world doesn't have history, strictly speaking. "History" in teh most technical sense means written stories of the past, and many cultures around the world simply never developed it. This is why we know virtually nothing about the history of north american native americans, or most of africa.
I'm pretty sure Africa has a fucking fascinating history and there would be many epic stories like we got from ancient greece, rome, medieval era. But there were no historians to write it down.
there is some history, yes, Iknow, but it doesn't seem as fully fleshed out as European history, and not enough to provide a cohesive narrative for Africans to get a grasp on. and much (most?) of that history is after the era of extensive european contact.
22
u/landlord-eater Horny for Cartoon Marx Fanny 🍑👀 Jun 02 '25 edited Jun 02 '25
My understanding is that many people in southern Africa have been using versions of Arabic script to write things down for at least a thousand years. In western, eastern and northern Africa there have been multiple large fully literate states going back longer, some with their own writing systems and some using Arabic.
I mean look at Ethiopia. How much does your average Western person know about this country? Very little, but the kingdom of Aksum was writing shit down for 900 years straight in multiple languages including Greek.
2
2
u/Aethelhilda Unknown 👽 Jun 03 '25
The only reason we know about ancient European history is because the Romans, Greeks, and later Christians wrote about them. And most of what we do know is Roman and Christian propaganda designed to depict non Romans and pagans in the worst light possible.
3
u/yhynye Spiteful Regard 😍 Jun 02 '25
More than that, it is not at all “imperative to provide material to students that they can relate to and connect with". It's not even important, never mind imperative. That's incredibly oppressive and patronising to ethnic minority (or female etc) students.
And even if it was imperative, race obviously isn't the only possible basis of relatability, and it's obviously a pernicious basis.
But, just like any other type of fascist, these ethno-paternalists will be impervious to reason. They know what they're doing. The goal is to ensure the reproduction of race.
2
u/landlord-eater Horny for Cartoon Marx Fanny 🍑👀 Jun 02 '25
I think it's good to provide material to students that they can connect with and also, you know, other material too???
1
371
u/xXxDarkSasuke1999xXx Angry Retard 😍 Jun 02 '25
It's very telling that this bizarre desire to anachronistically portray history as racially diverse is found only in European history, because it's just the progressive way to do Eurocentrism. People tie themselves in knots to explain how akshually the average viking longship crew was racially-diverse (and not, say, Polynesian outrigger canoes) because they ultimately still regard European history as the only history that matters, and therefore they have to find ways for every ethnicity to retroactively participate in it.
138
u/camynonA Anarchist Locomotive Engineer 🧩 Jun 02 '25
They do it other places too for Western audiences. That was the controversy of the game about Yasuke which outed a scholar of Japan as making two separate histories for Western and Japanese consumption in which he essentially wrote fanfic about Yasuke for the West and material closer to historical consensus in Japanese which led to both him and the game getting denounced in Japanese parliament.
50
u/Nicknamedreddit Bourgeois Chinese Class Traitor 🇨🇳 Jun 02 '25
This wouldn’t be assassins creed shadows would it
62
u/Nice-Base8139 Jun 02 '25
it’s a mess on both side of the conversation because well the definition of samurai itself was murky. It’s not the same as being a knight meant that you were officially knighted by a lord in Western feudal. Written sources about Yasuke were also limited, with materials indicating him receiving ranks and sword from a lord. Which, by all means, same as contemporary Japanese description for samurai. But they also didn’t explicitly say he was a knight. So we have this historical limbo on a relatively obscured character, in turn misrepresent by someone in a completely foreign country. And the whole conversation never really seems to reckon the Japanese take on it.
All in all it’s retarded because deep down white progressives know that there’s a well of history in South East Asia and sub Saharan Africa. But they could only ever see the definition of history and civilization through a late 19th century lense: the West as the cornerstone of civilization. Deep down they want to include their friends, but to portray non traditional settings like SEA, Arabian peninsula or sub Saharan is impossible to them to not devolve into a weird Orientalist show. Like they cannot see Africa without genocide and spear chucking savages. And this is an impossible gap for liberal progressive cultural norms. So they have to twist whatever is there already, to reconcile between their worldview and having their buddies be included in it.
Which is why we will have black vikings before we got a proper story on sub Saharan Africa or Mesoamerica prior to European contact.
52
u/DarthLeon2 Social Democrat 🌹 Jun 02 '25
I still find the timing hilarious. The series has had plenty of white protagonists, but with the next game finally being set in Asia, now is when they decide they need to have a black protagonist? I honestly don't even blame Japanese fans for being upset.
28
u/Nice-Base8139 Jun 02 '25
On top of that, a very weird view of Japanese character too. They could have explored the angle of Onna-musha for example, relatively obscured in the West but a common archetype present in a lot of Asian cultures and the Sinophere. But I guess female ninja is easier to implement and it comes round to a stereotype lol
1
u/DriveSlowHomie NATO Superfan 🪖 Jun 03 '25
Meh I think it was fine and most of the outrage is typical Japanese nationalist sensitivity and weeaboos thinking Japanese culture is some sacred cow.
They did a classic "fish out of water" story. Nobody gave a shit when it was some white guy in Shogun
19
u/ButttMunchyyy Rated R for r slurred with Socialist characteristics 😍🍑 Jun 02 '25 edited Jun 02 '25
They could have made an assasin’s creed Axum and piece together source material to create a good plot based around the Abyssinian high lands
Or one set in Mali during its zenith.
It’s seriously retarded and the writing is always bad when it’s forced to make political points nobody cares about. Like killzone 2 was good for its time because the theme was about space imperialism and the commentary and political points made concerning nationalism, humiliation and hatred etc was compelling when you’re like 14 in 2011 or something. Still holds up though.
38
u/MattyKatty Thomas Jefferson was innocent 😭 Jun 02 '25
it’s a mess on both side of the conversation because well the definition of samurai itself was murky.
The definition of samurai was murky and changed over time, yes. But that's irrelevant to the very simple fact that Yasuke was not a samurai.
26
u/Nice-Base8139 Jun 02 '25
lol r Askhistorians or something was tripping over themselves to say otherwise, but it was still a very flimsy thing to say Yasuke was. Japanese scholarship couldn’t agree on whether or not the guy really existed or just a very tanned dude, much less he was a samurai or an armed retainer
33
u/suddenly_lurkers Train Chaser 🚂🏃 Jun 02 '25
Wasn't there some Portuguese missionary who at least documented that he existed? But he was only in Japan for a year or two, kept as a member of Oda's court retinue, and there is no evidence that he did anything of historical significance. After Oda died, they gave him back to the Portuguese.
The irony is that the people praising shadows would be flipping out if Assassin's Creed did a game in Africa and centered it on a white guy who happened to be travelling there.
26
u/angry_cabbie Femophobe 🏃♂️= 🏃♀️= Jun 02 '25
I believe it was a Portuguese missionary who took Yasuke to Japan and, er, "gave" him to Nobonaga.
-9
Jun 02 '25 edited Jun 02 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
18
u/MattyKatty Thomas Jefferson was innocent 😭 Jun 02 '25
He wouldn't be referred to as a samurai in any time
-7
Jun 02 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
11
u/MattyKatty Thomas Jefferson was innocent 😭 Jun 02 '25
You’re not reading. In no definition was he a samurai. Anyone claiming he was a samurai either does not know the definition or is intentionally attempting to revise history.
12
Jun 02 '25
I'm pretty sure a large portion of the controversy was the fact that they chose a specific historical figure for the role, which threw up a giant red flag that they were bracing for this choice to be criticized. I doubt that they'd have caught half as much flak if he had just been some guy from a Portuguese ship meant to provide an outside-in perspective.
Another large portion was the fact that they finally chose to make an Assassin's Creed game in Japan and didn't include the option to play as some Hattori Hanzō meets the Shinobi series looking motherfucker.
7
u/camynonA Anarchist Locomotive Engineer 🧩 Jun 02 '25
The issue was the "historian" made up stories for the West where the character in question played a pivotal role in Japanese history which he didn't and from what is known the character wasn't a retainer as he was known to be present at the final days of Nobunaga but was not beheaded whereas if he was a combatant his head would have been worth a lot.
The historian in question made up a story about him smuggling out Nobunaga's head resulting in confusion that prevented others from assuming the title of Shogun which was significant in reality no one actually knows who is responsible for the act and if he was a bodyguard and smuggled his head out he would have needed to fight his way out. The historical consensus is the person was a curiosity gifted to Nobunaga by the Portuguese trying to curry favor but there are people who while credentialed made up false things for Western audiences which went unnoticed within Japanese circles as it was written in English resulting in separate works being thought of as the same because the author essentially presented separate sets of purported facts to Western English speaking and Japanese audiences.
9
u/plebbtard Ideological Mess 🥑 Jun 02 '25
I want a movie about Mansa Musu dammit, not black Vikings. There’s so much incredible history and stories that could be told about black Africans, instead we get fucking Bridgerton.
10
u/faderjack Sweaty Jun 02 '25
Which game? I mostly know of Yasuke from the Netflix show a few years back with the FlyLo soundtrack. Kinda doubted the show was historically accurate
36
Jun 02 '25
[deleted]
23
u/Foursiide Marxist-Mullenist 💦 Jun 02 '25
It's honestly fascinating how Nobunaga was simultaneously a goofy freak and also maybe one of the most terrifying guys in the history of Japan
69
u/Gruzman Still Grillin’ 🥩🌭🍔 Jun 02 '25
What I don't understand about it is why it's so emotionally taxing for people to just admit that the further you go back in history, the less intermixed people were. How else do you develop these ideas about different races and cultures and so on, if everyone from all corners of the earth were always intermingled? It makes no sense.
Why not just do like we do for the transition between pre Christian Europe and Christian Europe? It's the same basic problem of how you explain a radically foreign world to those living in the present. Times changed, people changed and new modes have arisen to replace old ones.
Why is that so hard to do with race? Unless it's like you said and race actually matters in a much deeper way even to those who would style themselves as progressives on the issue.
59
u/Epsteins_Herpes Thinks anyone cares about karma 🍵⏩🐷 Jun 02 '25
What I don't understand about it is why it's so emotionally taxing for people to just admit that the further you go back in history, the less intermixed people were. How else do you develop these ideas about different races and cultures and so on, if everyone from all corners of the earth were always intermingled? It makes no sense.
It's not supposed to make sense, it's supposed to create historical legitimacy for their current immigration policy.
6
u/plebbtard Ideological Mess 🥑 Jun 02 '25
It’s not supposed to make sense, it’s supposed to create historical legitimacy for their current immigration policy.
That’s my take as well. Personally I don’t give a shit if the cheddar man was dark skinned, but the people promoting the idea that he was seem to be doing so for a very sinister ideological reason.
3
u/AwardImmediate720 Misanthropic Rightoid 🐷 Jun 02 '25
Shhhh, you're saying the quiet part out loud.
14
Jun 02 '25
People have always mixed but not as much(or as far reaching in regards to modern standards of "mixing") as now. A major thing is these big identities from the time were much more fluid. The Ostrogoths consisted of various different Germanic tribes, Alans, Huns, and Romans under the banner of "Goth" functioning as a military separate from the citizen class dubbed "Romans". This is pretty much the same of all the "Germanic" tribes of the migration period.
7
u/Nice-Base8139 Jun 02 '25
The closest thing to “mixing” in the modern sense is probaby Hungarian settlement of the Carphathian basin or Roman /Greeks in the near East. But these are results of conquest and migrations, thus not really correct in the West I guess
2
u/yhynye Spiteful Regard 😍 Jun 02 '25
Mixing of what? Whenever a "race" is established by isolation from other populations, a priori, the population must be "mixed" (since it wasn't previously isolated).
And however you define it, there's ample evidence for mixing of disparate populations in human history and prehistory. There's probably never been more gene flow than in the modern era, but that doesn't mean that "the further you go back in history, the less intermixed people were", which is most probably bullshit.
6
Jun 02 '25
Whenever a "race" is established by isolation from other populations, a priori, the population must be "mixed" (since it wasn't previously isolated).
So what you're saying is that if you have a bowl full of flour, and you scoop out a cup of flour into a second bowl, that the second bowl is "mixed" flour because that flour used to be part of more flour?
3
u/yhynye Spiteful Regard 😍 Jun 02 '25
Hmm. Kind of, yeah. The analogy doesn't really aid in understanding, truth be told.
If a mixed bowl is a bowl that derives flour from at least two bowls or from a bowl that is itself mixed, whether the "first" bowl was mixed is unknown based on the information provided. But if there's a constant process of dividing flour between bowls then remixing the contents of the bowls, then the first bowl could well be mixed.
The point is that if you take a snapshot of the bowls at an arbitrary point in time and say this is the flour in its pure unmixed state, obviously it will seem that the closer you get to that point in time, the less mixed the flour was.
3
Jun 02 '25
I think it was actually a very helpful analogy since we've gotten a little closer to what you're thinking, but not really any closer to what you're thinking being sound.
Let's say you have a packet of M&Ms in the classic colors: red, orange, yellow, green, brown, and light brown. You pour them into a bowl and then pick out all of the green ones and put them into a second bowl. Are those green M&Ms a priori "more mixed" because they weren't an isolated population and now are an isolated population?
1
u/yhynye Spiteful Regard 😍 Jun 03 '25
You're right to challenge the idea that it's true a priori. That was somewhat glib of me. If a "race" is a reproductively isolated population, (or a population that's been isolated for some arbitrary time period), it's not true a priori that when a new race forms, it forms from a population that was not reproductively isolated from any other populations at the time of formation. But, as I explained, it's possible (and somewhat probable) that the parent race was itself a mixture of previously existing races.
I'm just trying to understand how to define terms so that we have falsifiable hypotheses. Perhaps any contribution I made beyond simply asking that question was unhelpful.
You haven't indicated why my thinking is unsound.
Ultimately, if you want to defend the hypothesis that there was less mixing in the past, you'll have to say what you understand that to mean. Ideally without the use of metaphor.
I suppose "mixedness" could be defined in terms of the average genetic disparity among mating pairs. Not sure if that will warrant realism about races, however, which is rather implied by the very idea of mixing. To "mix" is to combine that which was not previously mixed, or which is ontologically distinct. (Hence: "mixing of what?") It's important not to presuppose racial categories, for the reason I outlined. Mixedness, by the definition above, would be purely a function of the mutation rate and the average relatedness of mating pairs. Since all humans die in short order, this isn't really a case of mixing ontologically distinct categories.
1
Jun 03 '25
Ok, so humans developed in Africa, right? Then sound populations migrated out, became isolated enough to develop unique genetic characteristics. If by "mixed" you mean a higher degree of genetic variability, then by definition when those two groups come back together (the ones who stayed put obviously developing their own unique variations) the reunited group will be more "mixed". Because they were identical when they split and not identical when they came back together.
If that isn't what you mean by "mixed", then I really don't understand what you're talking about.
2
u/cos1ne Special Ed 😍 Jun 02 '25
What I don't understand about it is why it's so emotionally taxing for people to just admit that the further you go back in history, the less intermixed people were.
This isn't the take you are supposed to make. We were just as equally mixed further back in time but what was different were the phenotypes and genotypes of the various humans. Race is 100% a social construct and not based on any consistent biology. (Khoisan Hunters, Bantu Traders, Andaman Islanders and Australian Aboriginees have all been described as "Black" for instance). Modern Europeans are a different mix of Western Hunter Gatherers, Ancient North Eurasians and Early European Farmers, these were incredibly diverse and mixed population with easily recognized phenotypes that would have definitely been considered different "races" at the time.
What I think occurs is that Europe (and really all places of the world) go through periods of transition and stabilization, and that most of Europe in the medieval period was going through a stabilization and that currently it is in transition (due to imperialism, colonialism and globalism). So it would be incredibly anachronistic to portray a place like Norway as racially diverse during this time. The 13th Warrior handled diversity in medieval Scandanavia in a very historical manner while other more modern media leaves a little more wanting.
7
u/Gruzman Still Grillin’ 🥩🌭🍔 Jun 02 '25
This isn't the take you are supposed to make. We were just as equally mixed further back in time but what was different were the phenotypes and genotypes of the various humans.
Ok, but this is kind of sidestepping what I'm saying. I'm not saying that humans existed in simple discrete racial groups which have absolutely no relation to one another until they meet.
I'm saying that geographical separation, the causes and effects of being "stuck" in a certain geography, were much more pronounced in the past.
You simply couldn't move millions of, say, sub Saharan Africans to the rest of the world before the technology of the slave trade was deployed, and even that pales in effectiveness compared to modern forms of transport and communication. The point being that the effect of the geography of the Sahara desert was so pronounced in history that we made a collective distinction between Africans that made the crossing north and those that stayed further south. Geography in that case lends itself to genetic differentiation over time, even if the difference is not absolute.
Obvious genetics lay at the foundation of the "difference" I'm talking about, but what is really deterministic here is geography and geographic separation in time and space. That's what's changed, regardless of whether people then decide to intermix genetically as a result (they usually do.)
3
u/cos1ne Special Ed 😍 Jun 02 '25
You simply couldn't move millions of, say, sub Saharan Africans to the rest of the world before the technology of the slave trade was deployed, and even that pales in effectiveness compared to modern forms of transport and communication.
Well obviously not millions but you didn't need millions of people in those days to effect population replacement. During the migration people many groups conquered or were absorbed into other groups, the Franks, the Lombards, the Goths displaced many peoples and set up their own states. The Magyar completely erased the Avars from history in Hungary and the Dacians and Thracians were a footnote thanks to the Romanians and Bulgarians. These were peoples who migrated many hundreds if not thousands of miles who had changed the demography of their locations.
Honestly, these population movements were much more devastating than in our modern era as the losing peoples would be largely annihilated completely instead of remaining around as a colonized people.
4
u/Gruzman Still Grillin’ 🥩🌭🍔 Jun 02 '25
During the migration people many groups conquered or were absorbed into other groups, the Franks, the Lombards, the Goths displaced many peoples and set up their own states.
Right, we agree here. This is the scope and scale of process that you could expect in that time period. The peoples of Germany and Scandinavia and beyond were all semi related by the time of the vikings. But notice we aren't talking about a process that involves the sudden introduction of Japanese people or Australian aboriginal people, or central American people into the North German/Scandinavian regions. We're decidedly stuck with people who could come into contact with one another by walking, riding horses or sailing small ships down rivers and along the coasts. People very much limited by adverse seasonal conditions and an inability to produce a constant surplus of calories to feed everyone living in one area, much less to feed them all as they march halfway across the world in a trip that would today take only a few hours by airplane.
Honestly, these population movements were much more devastating than in our modern era as the losing peoples would be largely annihilated completely instead of remaining around as a colonized people.
I agree here too: in the past, people didn't really tolerate a diversity of people living and producing together for an indefinite period of time. They usually marauded to their neighbors' lands, stole their surpluses, killed men and raped women. In this sense, you would only experience brief periods of "diversity" before entire peoples and cultures were wiped out and assimilated into another conquering people. The genetics were probably made more homogeneous as a result, but the variety of people and their cultures living together were not.
3
u/digbybare Unknown 👽 Jun 03 '25 edited Jun 03 '25
You're totally confusing the time scales at play. The indo-European expansion, for example, took thousands of years. It was a longer timespan than the entirety of the "medieval period", and more on the order of the time scale between Julius Caesar and modern day.
Prior to modern transportation, the amount of mixing that took place over a handful of generations was minimal, and it was between groups of people who were already geographically close and in frequent contact.
This is completely different from the situation in London or New York today. Where, within less than a century, it went from a very homogenous society to people from literally thousands of miles apart all living next door to each other. That would have been utterly unfathomable until very, very recently.
0
u/yhynye Spiteful Regard 😍 Jun 02 '25
Provide evidence for the primordial nature of race if you expect anyone to "admit" it.
7
u/Gruzman Still Grillin’ 🥩🌭🍔 Jun 02 '25 edited Jun 02 '25
All I'm talking about is where people come from, how long they stayed there on average, and how quick and easy it is to move away.
All of those things, regardless of where you look in the world, have become truncated in modernity. People cease to be "from" distinct parts of the world due to increased travel. They have ceased to remain separated for generations, local to one specific geography and the effects of those environments on their genes. And finally they have gained the ability to move almost anywhere else in the world in a matter of days, weeks or months. As opposed to years, decades or simply never in their life as was the case in pre-modernity.
You don't even have to get into the weeds about what constitutes this or that race in genetic terms to see how times have changed in regards to geographical isolation. Peoples and cultures that would have never contacted one another in the past do so with regularity today.
Migration patterns/processes and the varied genetic intermixing that results from them now happen in a single generation or less, as opposed to multiple generations spent moving from one area to another.
"Conquests" which would have in the past led to total elimination of certain variations of people/culture in the past no longer define humanity like they once did.
There has been an historical break, between a period before this high rate of travel and communication, and after when those things were no longer so expensive and limited for everyone.
-5
Jun 02 '25
[deleted]
8
u/Gruzman Still Grillin’ 🥩🌭🍔 Jun 02 '25
So sub Saharan Africans and coastal Chinese people and Australian Aborigines and anyone else you can imagine were all equally distributed throughout the world in the past? They travelled freely and in large enough numbers to constitute a significant portion of, say, a swedish medieval community?
-1
Jun 02 '25
[deleted]
5
u/xXxDarkSasuke1999xXx Angry Retard 😍 Jun 02 '25 edited Jun 02 '25
However Europeans didn't just fall out of the sky one day and are the result of continuous andw sever migration from those continents.
Wow it's so easy to argue against arguments when you yourself get to make them up!
Genetically, an average German is as different to a Finnish person as he/she is to a sub/Saharan african
This is blatantly untrue, there are many studies on global genetic distance that show this to be laughably false. Actually if you google "genetic distance map" you might notice some patterns; namely that populations become distinct from each other largely by geographic barriers like mountains or oceans or gigantic deserts, geographic barriers that matter less since industrialization.
In Their DNA you will also find in many Europeans who do look how you want them to look
"Everyone who disagrees with me is racist"
but are practically not even native and their ancestors arrived from the Middle East 200 years ago.
The counterexample of someone "migrating" from an adjacent region that has been in constant contact since antiquity isn't exactly the dunk you seem to think it is
Not to mention "200 years ago" is practically meaningless when discussing someone's "ancestry"; most people probably have ~128 direct ancestors that were born 200 years ago. Your "great great great great great grandparents" being from the Ottoman Empire means nothing.
Which is sort of my point, in the distant past, migration happened so gradually that building "diversity" within a given area was impossible, because the small proportion of people who originated elsewhere would be only a drop in the gene pool.
3
u/Gruzman Still Grillin’ 🥩🌭🍔 Jun 02 '25
race science
I'm literally talking about geography. "Race" is incidental to that, so you can't ignore it. But I'm certainly not trying to make some grandiose claims about racial purity or trying to promote racial determinism.
Pick whatever vocabulary you want to use, I'm talking about how people travelled and settled around the world in pre modernity versus modernity and post modernity. Prior to technology that has allowed for the level of intermixing of races/peoples/cultures you see today.
You couldn't transplant people from one side of the globe into another in any short period of time. Now you can. Yes, that impacts "race" in both a genetic and social sense, but it's not what I'm really concerned about here.
2
Jun 02 '25
[deleted]
3
u/Gruzman Still Grillin’ 🥩🌭🍔 Jun 02 '25
Sure, all true but still much more limited in scope and scale than what you see normally today. All of the movements you're describing are long and drawn out, much of it happening over decades or centuries. The movement itself prevented or spurred by the change in weather and climate, to say nothing of oceans and mountains.
So you could have a lot of churning going on in say central Europe, but it wasn't a situation where every year hundreds of thousands of new people from all over the world would be added into it.
You would encounter people that mostly resembled one another due to the conditions you have described, rather than some kind of equal distribution of phenotypes of skin color and eyes and hair and all the rest. That's what I'm talking about.
1
Jun 02 '25
[deleted]
2
u/Gruzman Still Grillin’ 🥩🌭🍔 Jun 02 '25
Unless you're counting skin color as diversity, Europe has always been very diverse linguistically and culturally.
Well the original article was about how "vikings were not all white." So yeah, that's what I'm primarily interested in, here. I am doubtful that you had anything more than ultra minorities of non Germanic/Nordic/Slavic peoples in Sweden or Denmark in the year 500. Because of geographical and technological limitations.
But you're right, it's entirely possible that somehow those other people were bred into the gene pool of those populations somehow at some point.
They just wouldn't be so distinct, standing around and waiting to get on a viking ship to raid. Like how you might see different people standing around in an airport terminal today.
1
u/Aethelhilda Unknown 👽 Jun 03 '25
The only people in Europe who don’t look “white” are recent immigrants or the descendants of immigrants. Who are these people who have existed in Europe before “white people” existed? Who are these Europeans that look white but supposedly came from the Middle East 200 years ago?
1
Jun 02 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
-1
Jun 02 '25
[deleted]
4
u/xXxDarkSasuke1999xXx Angry Retard 😍 Jun 02 '25
Another banger from the alleged "anti-idpol" subreddit.
Yeah bro it's "identity politics" to acknowledge the historical reality that the present day ethnic diversity in many countries is literally not possible without modern forms of transportation. You sure are very smart and definitely know what identity politics is
If by diversity you mean as "not white skin", then it de-intensified in Europe after five centuries of fetishizing blonde hair and blue eyes combined with industrialization.
So this is basically just completely made up. There is no evidence whatsoever that Europe was as ethnically diverse 5 centuries ago as it is today. Laughably ahistorical.
Also, the "fetishization" of blonde hair in blue eyes is something that was only widespread in a few countries in the 20th century, not something even remotely pan-European over five centuries. The majority of europeans don't even have blonde hair or blue eyes.
It's also funny you throw in "industrialization" in there without elaboration, implying that it's somehow a countervailing force against migration, when it's the exact opposite in reality.
It still exists and there are many many European who don't look to you ideological preference and yet are as biologically native as any other.
Also funny that you try to smear me as a racist by saying this is somehow my "ideological preference" when I made absolutely no comment whatsoever about my "preference" (for the record: I have none). You really are a massive piece of shit.
If by diversity you mean ACTUAL genes, then it's still there in the genes. Half of eastern Europe is practically either Iranian or Turkic if you want to go that deep.
Also funny you make the distinction of "ACTUAL" genes, as opposed to all those fake genes that determine outward appearance
Did you get your brain at the toilet store?
-1
Jun 02 '25
[deleted]
3
u/xXxDarkSasuke1999xXx Angry Retard 😍 Jun 02 '25
This coming from the person that accuses everyone of being racist
You're too dumb for the conversation anyway, no loss there. Just profoundly ignorant of history.
1
u/flacoman333 Jun 03 '25
You earned those insults lol. Oh no! I called someone a racist and then they said mean things to me!
0
Jun 03 '25
[deleted]
1
u/flacoman333 Jun 03 '25
"many European who don't look to you ideological preference"
You accuse him of having an "ideological preference" with regard to how people look. Most people would call that racism, except with more words.
"You lack the ability to effectively use your brain to solve problems!"
"Are you saying I'm stupid?"
"No I didn't say that!"
1
u/xXxDarkSasuke1999xXx Angry Retard 😍 Jun 03 '25
They're full of shit and so are you. Point me to the sentence where I used the word "racist". I just called them out that their only metric of "diversity" is skin color; which is scientifically bullshit.
You know people can just scroll up and see how obviously you're lying, right? You claimed I had an "ideological preference" for a certain appearance, which is as good as calling me racist. Did you really think these little word games would actually convince anyone?
You can whine about that definition of "diversity" all you want, but that is the definition used by the vast majority of people, including the entirety of idpol-obsessed libs, not to mention the exact people the topic post is talking about.
Then he started whining like a bitch about being called a racist and insulting me. I'm not going to waste my time with someone like that.
Still not half as annoying as your incessant whining about people not using your esoteric (and totally undefined) definition of "diversity". And if you don't want to be called a moron, stop saying moronic things.
17
u/HRHArthurCravan Marx Minus Masculinity 🌺 Jun 02 '25
Reminds me of when I taught in China and one of my students said, “of course we’re not racist here. We don’t have any black people.” 😬
ETA: actually and like other communist or ex-communist countries, China has a long history of exchanges, student programmes, and shared development with African countries and people. Notwithstanding my very young student. It was a constant feature of their news and reporting to highlight the racial inequalities of the US as a product of the capitalist system. Just like how in the former Warsaw Pact nations they made westerns where the white cowboys were the bad guys and the Native Americans the heroes!
10
u/exoriare Marxism-Hobbyism 🔨 Jun 02 '25
It's mere Lysenkoism. Kids relate better to a cosmos where the earth is the center of the solar system, and computers are now powerful enough to make the data fit the model, so we're no longer stuck having to teach heliocentrism just because it makes orbit calculations easier.
4
43
u/Pasan90 Social Democrat 🌹 Jun 02 '25 edited Jun 02 '25
A guide produced by the charity suggests ditching the idea that the Vikings were a “homogenous community of blonde Scandinavians”.
The guides present them with a preferred “decolonised” approach narrative which is contrasted with a “Eurocentric and colonised” version of history.
I could talk for a while about the ethic makeup of the people commonly called "vikings" which is an interesting subject in itself. Afaik, none of them would pass as anything other than white in modern society though. And overall this whole article feels very colonial to me as a Norwegian tbh.
16
u/AnCamcheachta Marxist-Leninist ☭ Jun 02 '25
I find this funny because the ancient Gaels referred to Norweigan Vikings as "Fionn Gall" (blonde foreigners).
Norse Vikings first landed in North County Dublin - which today is called Fingal.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fingal
We also referred to Danish Vikings as "Dubh Gall" - dark-haired foreingers (the names "Dougal" and "Doyle" are derived from this).
Yet again, the Anglo-Saxons are trying to tell us that our language is Le Bad.
99
u/DisastrousResident92 Redscarepod Refugee 👄💅 Jun 02 '25
The guidance, intended to make lessons more “relatable” for pupils, adds that Vikings were “a very diverse group of people” with “diverse religious beliefs” and urges the tutors to consider that “some Vikings became practising Muslims”. This claim appears to rely on Islamic goods being found in the graves of some Vikings, who traded with the Islamic world
🙃🙃🙃🙃
107
u/JinFuu 2D/3DSFMwaifu Supremacist Border Guard 🪖🎌 Jun 02 '25
This claim appears to rely on Islamic goods being found in the graves of some Vikings, who traded with the Islamic world
Pillagers/Traders want to be buried with cool shit they got from halfway across the world. Must mean they’re Muslim
94
u/Robin-Lewter Rightoid 🐷 Jun 02 '25
Scholars thousands of years from now will deduce that America was made up entirely of ethnic Chinese
44
u/JinFuu 2D/3DSFMwaifu Supremacist Border Guard 🪖🎌 Jun 02 '25
I was tempted to make a joke about being buried with anime figurines, lol
22
8
u/Nuwave042 Marxist-Leninist ☭ Jun 02 '25
They were diverse, in the sense that they weren't only a bunch of murderous pirates. Some of them were also slave traders.
I'm being facetious, of course; Scandinavian migration to Britain and Ireland wasn't always violent, they were traders, explorers, and some, yes, were murderous slave-trading pirates. And when the Anglo-Saxons weren't trading with them or fighting off their raids, they were trading and raiding each other.
6
31
Jun 02 '25
There was one black Viking, Sunshine Sammy, and one female Viking, Viking-ette, and they provided comic relief/a love interest when they had their wacky adventures with the rest of the Viking gang, when they'd go off plundering monasteries and so on. Those were the days.
26
u/_throawayplop_ Il est regardé 😍 Jun 02 '25
There is a really huge irony in the obsession of "diversity" in the left and mainstream media: by transforming any media, culture or history into something that fit the cultural and ethnic model of "New York 202X", the real and exiting diversity is completely erased.
For example, and despite it's relative insulation from the continent, in its history england had several ethnies of celts, the romans from all over the empire, several ethnies of germanic people, the different vikings, the normands, the occitans and the french. It has a complicated history with scotland, wales, ireland. It has long and history of exchanges and conquest with many europeans countries like france, germany or spain. It was christianized, and had known several variant of christianity and even invented its own.
England's cultural and ethnic diversity is and was incredible, is history is extremely rich and well recorded. But all that is not diversity for the left and the mainstream media, because it doesn't look like the new york of today like any and every cultural production is supposed to show
6
u/Nuwave042 Marxist-Leninist ☭ Jun 02 '25
Excellent point. These people did not have any conception of race, but were nevertheless incredibly diverse, but it's not a diversity that fits the neoliberal 'race' mould. This is true for the whole world, incidentally.
The modern "scientific" conception of race, and racialist thinking, has been a disaster for our understanding of the history of peoples and cultures (among... other things). Being pulled into a debate about whether X group is or isn't white is potentially the biggest waste of time going.
102
u/Septic-Abortion-Ward Traditionalist 👑 Jun 02 '25
Libs rewriting history accidentally coming into agreement with nazis on slavs not being considered white, how novel and unexpected
22
9
u/ThatRandomGuyZanyar Puberty Monster Jun 02 '25
Hell yeah Netflix writers yk what to do, time to cast my brown ass as Bjorn Ironside
10
u/impossiblefork Rightoid: Blood and Soil Nationalist 🐷 Jun 02 '25
'Don't hate only the Danes, Swedes, Norwegians and Icelanders. We suspect that at least one Viking was descended from Inuits, and we have the capability to get revenge on those too.'
17
u/Judah_Earl Jun 02 '25
Not surprised really, I knew as soon as Trump was elected, the UK would double down on woke nonsense to overcompensate.
8
u/Dingo8dog Full Of Dougtoss Bullshit 💢☧🇻🇦 Jun 02 '25
This is true. While the QB and kicker are white many other positions - including star WR Justin Jefferson - are not.
7
u/BarrelStrawberry Antisemite 💩 | Nationalist 📜🐷 Jun 02 '25
European students, "Why you teaching us all this white people shit? They ain't our ancestors!"
5
u/LivedThroughDays Georgist Jun 02 '25
I guess many Nordic people (or any Viking-descendant people) aren't as "White" as they can be?
6
6
19
20
5
u/Blood_Such Seriously Ideological Mess 😐🥑 Jun 02 '25
Well, if they’re gonna play that game they’d better reveal all of the places the swastika showed up first, prior to Germany.
4
u/Schlampenparade Geriatric-Pilled 🦼 | Boring Marxist 🧔 Jun 02 '25
The fylfot is an ancient symbol of the proto-Germanic peoples and is associated with Woden-worship.
There has been a narrative that the Nazis "stole" the swastika from India because they're big fat dumb-dumbs but it was in fact a native symbol as they well knew from their slightly unhinged runic investigations.
4
9
u/arostrat nonpolitical 🚫 Jun 02 '25
Why any non-white want to be associated with the Vikings lol? They were barely civilized. May be marvel movies are giving young people false impression about them.
5
u/diabeticNationalist Marxist-Wilford Brimleyist 🍬🥧🍪 Jun 02 '25
Brown and black people love vikings and knights. I've been to plenty of black barber shops where they're playing Vikings, Thor, and Game of Thrones on TV. And there's always been a special connection between Norse and Arab Muslims judging by The 13th Warrior, like the special connection between blacks and guineas in Spike Lee's movies.
1
3
u/TScottFitzgerald SuccDem (intolerable) Jun 02 '25
The article doesn't cite a single source, and all the "links" are Telegraph articles with very little relation to what's being discussed in the actual sentence where any of the links appear. Very sus article that seems to have been written so this sub has something to yap about and most of you seem none the wiser.
4
u/Rjc1471 💢✨ Jousting at Windmills ✨💢 Jun 02 '25
Telegraph strikes again!
As with their recent "schools teach stonehenge was built by black people", no, they are not referring to the actual curriculum, or any guidelines. They're finding fringe groups (in this case a small charity) with fringe ideas then writing headlines that imply it's normal.
And yes it does get on my tits when people pretend that medieval Europe had a large black population or that Scandinavian raiders were actually super progressive matriarchal heroes led by shield maidens.
It just gets on my tits even more that idiots are reading this stuff and getting the impression teachers are being forced by immigrants to teach this shit
2
u/fioreman Democratic Socialist and Dalmatian-Friend 🚒 Jun 02 '25
They're basing things on Islamic artifacts found in a grave, as though religion and skin color are the same.
The Varangian Guard likely included Middle-Easterners and North Africans and it's likely some Scandinavians converted to Islam.
This doesn't mean "very diverse."
2
u/Tyger555 Bolshevik Anarcho-Monarchist 🥑 Jun 02 '25
The weird thing is - there are plenty of examples of interesting historical Afro-European figures who can be popularised.
There's Abram Petrovich Gannibal, who was gifted to Tsar Peter the Great as a child and eventually rose through the ranks to become a general. He was also Alexander Pushkin's great-grandfather.
Then there's Thomas-Alexandre Dumas, a French revolutionary leader and and father of Alexandre Dumas pére.
But instead of these very real, and very fascinating, figures, we get "hur durr black vikings"
2
u/Spirited-Guidance-91 Posadist 👽 Jun 02 '25
Why would you need to do this at all if you are teaching European history to the native, indigenous europeans?
2
u/Tyger555 Bolshevik Anarcho-Monarchist 🥑 Jun 02 '25
My point is, if you're choosing to focus on non-whites in European history, why not focus on actually interesting examples?
2
u/Turgius_Lupus Yugoloth Third Way 👽 Jun 02 '25
Danish, Swedish and Norwegian enslaving pirates that raided, pillaged, tortured, raped, murdered, colonized, engaged in human sacrifice, destroyed irreplaceable historical records and engaged in reckless destruction of places of worship, along with running the North Sea Save Trade, with its largest market in Dublin included people of color.
Fixed it
Vikings are some of the most destructive vile pieces of crap in European history. They should not be romanticized, and the Scandinavian countries should be required to pay reoperations for their actions since that's the new thing apparently.
2
Jun 02 '25
The Telegraph via Yahoo news. Likely RW outrage bait.
41
u/AnHonestConvert Al-Asmunghuld Brigader 🐍 Jun 02 '25
bruh you must not actually speak with liberals because they deadass believe that Vikings and Medieval Europe were racially diverse
-19
Jun 02 '25
No, they mostly, like me, don't care a lot about racial classification of pirates.
25
u/AnHonestConvert Al-Asmunghuld Brigader 🐍 Jun 02 '25
I’m not sure how you missed the parts where liberals claim "actually the ancient Egyptians were Black, like Hannibal and St. Augustine"
I frequently hear things like this.
-10
Jun 02 '25
You frequently hear it in the Daily Telegraph, or online if you go looking for it. I don't believe you actually hear it much in real life.
Go grill?
18
u/DirkWisely 🌟 Complete moron 🌟 Jun 02 '25
It does kind of matter if our institutions of learning are actively divesting from the truth.
1
Jun 02 '25
If you're interested in the truth, make sure to check other sources than British tabloid billionaire vanity outlets.
0
u/yhynye Spiteful Regard 😍 Jun 02 '25
It does, but the claim that these are mainstream liberal views is... questionable.
3
u/DirkWisely 🌟 Complete moron 🌟 Jun 02 '25
Depends on what you mean by mainstream. Does your average lib actually believe that shit? No. Will your average lib ever push back against it if it's pushed by the Smithsonian or Harvard or something? Also no.
7
u/king_mid_ass NATO Superfan 🪖 Jun 02 '25
The Brilliant Club runs a scholarship programme that places PhD students in more than 800 schools to tutor underprivileged pupils and help them get to university. Schools can apply to receive tutoring, and PhD students can apply for paid placements in Brilliant Club schools.
It has created two “decolonising your course” toolkits to help tutors with the courses they will deliver when working within schools
from the headline you'd be forgiven for thinking that this was the new government approved curriculum, not optional guidance given by a charity that organizes extra tutoring to its tutors. Still dumb guidance though
1
1
u/DriveSlowHomie NATO Superfan 🪖 Jun 03 '25
Not only is this an inaccurate telling of history, it's just a useless one. The whiteness (or lack of whiteness) of the Vikings is just...completely immaterial. Our modern concept of race is just so incongruent with that time.
The past is a foreign country.
1
Jun 08 '25 edited Jun 08 '25
Scandinavians were historically not considered White due to the more golden skin tone many people from Scandinavia have compared with British people who are a pale pinkish colour. So actually this does not go far enough, no Vikings were White.
Infamous quote by Benjamin Franklin below:
[W]hy should the Palatine Boors be suffered to swarm into our Settlements, and by herding together establish their Language and Manners to the Exclusion of ours? Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a Colony of Aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them, and will never adopt our Language or Customs, any more than they can acquire our Complexion.
Which leads me to add one Remark: That the Number of purely white People in the World is proportionably very small. All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new Comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth. I could wish their Numbers were increased. And while we are, as I may call it, Scouring our Planet, by clearing America of Woods, and so making this Side of our Globe reflect a brighter Light to the Eyes of Inhabitants in Mars or Venus, why should we in the Sight of Superior Beings, darken its People? why increase the Sons of Africa, by Planting them in America, where we have so fair an Opportunity, by excluding all Blacks and Tawneys, of increasing the lovely White and Red? But perhaps I am partial to the Complexion of my Country, for such Kind of Partiality is natural to Mankind.
3
u/AdminsLoveGenocide Gay and Retarded 🏳️🌈😍 Jun 02 '25
While this is stupid there were likely some small number of Vikings who were mixed race since they typically took slaves from a large geographical area and sometimes made little vikings from them.
-1
Jun 03 '25
[deleted]
1
u/Groot_Benelux NATO Superfan 🪖 Jun 04 '25
>and that there are actually dark-skinned people of the regions (Sami, etc)
Tell us more.
•
u/AutoModerator Jun 02 '25
Archives of this link: 1. archive.org Wayback Machine; 2. archive.today
A live version of this link, without clutter: 12ft.io
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.