Vikings were never the pure-bred master race white supremacists like to portray

[RandallS]

"The word “Viking” entered the Modern English language in 1807, at a time of growing nationalism and empire building. In the decades that followed, enduring stereotypes about Vikings developed, such as wearing horned helmets and belonging to a society where only men wielded high status."

Read the entire article

[Edited to fix broken link code - SP]

[Altair]

"The word “Viking” entered the Modern English language in 1807, at a time of growing nationalism and empire building. In the decades that followed, enduring stereotypes about Vikings developed, such as wearing horned helmets and belonging to a society where only men wielded high status."

Read the entire article

When I was in Iceland--where they're pretty much all descended from Vikings--they pointed out that the vast majority of Vikings, the ones that settled there, anyway, were farmers.

(BTW, the link isn't working; not for me, anyway)

[Edited to fix iteration of same broken link code - SP]

[SunflowerP]

(BTW, the link isn't working; not for me, anyway)

It didn't for me, either. I solved it by typing 'vikings' in the search box provided, which easily turned up the article at a URL indistinguishable from the one Randall gave... oh. <re-scrutinizes the one Randall provided, peering at every possible jot and tittle>

Try this link, which doesn't have a Randallized period inside the link code.

<goes to edit OP accordingly>

Incidentally, Altair, the article contains a response of sorts to your main comment here.

Sunflower

[RandallS]

Try this link, which doesn't have a Randallized period inside the link code.

Opps. Sorry about that. Thank you very much for fixing it.

[Hariti]

"The word “Viking” entered the Modern English language in 1807, at a time of growing nationalism and empire building. In the decades that followed, enduring stereotypes about Vikings developed, such as wearing horned helmets and belonging to a society where only men wielded high status."

Read the entire article

[Edited to fix broken link code - SP]

Vikings were also not a culture, they were a profession. Raiders and traders were the only people known as Vikings at the time when they actually existed. The rest were simply Nords/Norsemen/Scandinavian people with other jobs.

[Sefiru]

Vikings were also not a culture, they were a profession. Raiders and traders were the only people known as Vikings at the time when they actually existed. The rest were simply Nords/Norsemen/Scandinavian people with other jobs.

I recently read a book on the Lewis Chessmen (which are of Norse/Icelandic origin, probably) and was quite interested to learn that Icelandic leaders in medieval times could be renowned for their crafting skills rather than for fighting.

[Yei]

I recently read a book on the Lewis Chessmen (which are of Norse/Icelandic origin, probably) and was quite interested to learn that Icelandic leaders in medieval times could be renowned for their crafting skills rather than for fighting.

I think this affects many different 'barbarian' people, throughout the world (and probably not just them). The Celts for instance. I don't know a huge amount about Celtic culture, but I do know they had a history of skilled ironworking, complex political systems, and extensive trade networks. Oh, and bards. But is that how they are remembered? No.

Same can be applied to basically any pre-Columbian civilisation that isn't the Inca.

[Hariti]

Same can be applied to basically any pre-Columbian civilisation that isn't the Inca.

Are you saying that the Inca are not misremembered/misrepresented, or that they never had craft and trade skills?

I am not sure that you are correct, either way. The Inca are indeed often portrayed as "barbarians," at least in my experience, and has being uncivilized but they were actually VERY sophisticated craftspeople and mathematicians. I have visited Cuzco and at least 1/4 of the city's modern buildings still have Inca-era foundations, to say nothing of their amazing work at Machu Picchu royal countryside estates. As far as I can tell, their presentation in popular culture is very inaccurate and misleading.

The pre-Columbian civilization that tends to get the least amount off misrepresentation, in my experience, are the Maya. They seem to either get treated as *totally* peaceful philosophers, or as bloodthirsty cannibals.

The reality of their complex society, which produced great cities, intricate glyph writing, and the Popol Vuh often gets overlooked by many scholars. The people who do pay attention to Maya achievements, on the other hand, tend to whitewash the behaviot K'uhul Ajaw and their practice of human sacrifice, and the fact that their excess warfare and political infighting likely contributed to the Maya collapse.

[Yei]

Are you saying that the Inca are not misremembered/misrepresented, or that they never had craft and trade skills?

Neither. I was saying that they were one of the few pre-Columbian civilisations that most people consider a state-level society automatically, regardless of their general knowledge of Inca culture and society.

I am not sure that you are correct, either way. The Inca are indeed often portrayed as "barbarians," at least in my experience, and has being uncivilized but they were actually VERY sophisticated craftspeople and mathematicians. I have visited Cuzco and at least 1/4 of the city's modern buildings still have Inca-era foundations, to say nothing of their amazing work at Machu Picchu royal countryside estates. As far as I can tell, their presentation in popular culture is very inaccurate and misleading.

I disagree. In my own experience, the Inca are generally regarded as a 'proper' Empire, i.e.: one Europeans would approve of. For example, I don't recall them ever being described as a 'tribal' culture, even when other complex societies such as the Maya and Nahuas are described as 'tribes' as a matter of course by non-experts, without regard to how their societies were actually organised. Not than any of these societies are well represented in the first place.

The pre-Columbian civilization that tends to get the least amount off misrepresentation, in my experience, are the Maya. They seem to either get treated as *totally* peaceful philosophers, or as bloodthirsty cannibals.

I disagree, the Maya get quite a bit of misrepresentation, such as what you point out. However, they are also the victim of many other myths. For example, many people think that the Maya all died out (obviously they didn't). Others think they believed in the (2012) apocalypse. Their social positions are often described with inappropriate, or at least potentially controversial, language, such as Maya 'shamans.'

The reality of their complex society, which produced great cities, intricate glyph writing, and the Popol Vuh often gets overlooked by many scholars. The people who do pay attention to Maya achievements, on the other hand, tend to whitewash the behaviot K'uhul Ajaw and their practice of human sacrifice, and the fact that their excess warfare and political infighting likely contributed to the Maya collapse.

I agree.

[Hariti]

Neither. I was saying that they were one of the few pre-Columbian civilisations that most people consider a state-level society automatically, regardless of their general knowledge of Inca culture and society.

I disagree. In my own experience, the Inca are generally regarded as a 'proper' Empire, i.e.: one Europeans would approve of. For example, I don't recall them ever being described as a 'tribal' culture, even when other complex societies such as the Maya and Nahuas are described as 'tribes' as a matter of course by non-experts, without regard to how their societies were actually organised. Not than any of these societies are well represented in the first place.

I disagree, the Maya get quite a bit of misrepresentation, such as what you point out. However, they are also the victim of many other myths. For example, many people think that the Maya all died out (obviously they didn't). Others think they believed in the (2012) apocalypse. Their social positions are often described with inappropriate, or at least potentially controversial, language, such as Maya 'shamans.'

I agree.

Perhaps my experience with people maligning Inca social complexity is atypical. Many Peruvians certainly extol their virtues (perhaps even more than is fair), but most Americans I have met, outside of the historical or anthropological professions, tend the be unaware of their achievements and to view them as little more than a large chiefdom, rather than the Roman-scale empire that they actually were.

That's the problem with anecdotal evidence; my experience does not necessarily reflect the norm.

Also, there are some cultures which most people in the US haven't even heard of at all, such as the Moche and Nazca, despite the fact that they had city states similar to the Maya in complexity. In general, common knowledge about complex pre-Columbian societies is very poor, I think we can both agree. Even groups from the USA, such as the Mississippians, aren't widely understood and are thought of as tribal in the general public.

[Yei]

Perhaps my experience with people maligning Inca social complexity is atypical. Many Peruvians certainly extol their virtues (perhaps even more than is fair), but most Americans I have met, outside of the historical or anthropological professions, tend the be unaware of their achievements and to view them as little more than a large chiefdom, rather than the Roman-scale empire that they actually were.

That's the problem with anecdotal evidence; my experience does not necessarily reflect the norm.

Also, there are some cultures which most people in the US haven't even heard of at all, such as the Moche and Nazca, despite the fact that they had city states similar to the Maya in complexity. In general, common knowledge about complex pre-Columbian societies is very poor, I think we can both agree. Even groups from the USA, such as the Mississippians, aren't widely understood and are thought of as tribal in the general public.

I suspect that your experience is simply a reflection of the fact that general knowledge about pre-Columbian societies is relatively poor. Even when compared to other, not well known, cultures.

[Zlote Jablko]

"The word “Viking” entered the Modern English language in 1807, at a time of growing nationalism and empire building. In the decades that followed, enduring stereotypes about Vikings developed, such as wearing horned helmets and belonging to a society where only men wielded high status."

Read the entire article

[Edited to fix broken link code - SP]

One could make the case that people living far north or near the poles tend to be more isolated. Major migrations tend to stick to more-or-less similar lattitudes, or in some cases from colder to warmer climates. I think it’s historically more rare for people to mass-migrate to much colder places.

[ehbowen]

One could make the case that people living far north or near the poles tend to be more isolated. Major migrations tend to stick to more-or-less similar lattitudes, or in some cases from colder to warmer climates. I think it’s historically more rare for people to mass-migrate to much colder places.

"The word “Viking” entered the Modern English language in 1807, at a time of growing nationalism and empire building. In the decades that followed, enduring stereotypes about Vikings developed, such as wearing horned helmets and belonging to a society where only men wielded high status."

Read the entire article

[Edited to fix broken link code - SP]

To be perfectly frank, I would be more surprised if you could point me to virtually any culture which remained "a pure bred race" more than three generations after being exposed to outsiders from the opposite sex.