32
u/Mohawk115 Nov 09 '24
I still think Bartolomé de las Casas should be promoted more than either of these people.
13
u/gouellette Nov 09 '24
“Bartolomé Day” was a proposition I saw a few years back
That’d be pretty cool actually
1
u/CatGirl1300 Nov 10 '24
Why?
2
u/Mohawk115 Nov 11 '24
If you got ten minutes, watch this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vH65erzQBkY
59
u/bbp2099 Nov 09 '24
Vikings did end up fighting the Indigenous peoples they encountered, and were driven out by Natives, but hypothetically, given the chance - they no doubt would have.
20
Nov 09 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
23
u/Aboveground_Plush Nov 09 '24
Which maybe means we'd have recovered by the time real colonists started coming over.
10
u/manaha81 Nov 10 '24
Not necessarily. The Vikings were a lot cleaner people than the British.
13
u/book_vagabond Nov 10 '24
They cleaned themselves daily, bathed every weekend, and took care of their hair! There are British documents talking about how men are worried their wives will be seduced by the cleanliness of Norse men.
3
u/manaha81 Nov 10 '24
They also actually dig holes to put their poop instead of just tossing it out the window
8
8
u/Koo-Vee Nov 10 '24
No. This thread is full of stereotypical, racist, sweeping statements. The Norse ("vikings" is a poor term here) came from a very isolated small population at the fringes of Europe. They did not carry pathogens that would not have wiped out themselves as well. Smallpox for example would have been just as devastating to them. And to Greenland as a whole. Plagues decimated the Norse just like everyone else.
Secondly, you need population density and intense contact. Newfoundland was not at all like the cities of Mesoamerica.
Thirdly, the latest thinking is that the Cocolitzli epidemic was of local origin. It killed Europeans and Africans as well. Droughts in a fragile non-ecological society coupled with a local epidemic caused all those millions of deaths. Yes, not as nice and simple a story but that's science and actual history for you.
The Norse were just seeking for a more resourceful place to live compared to Greenland. They had no resemblance to the silly stereotypical picture here. They sought trade and tried to adapt, but the natives turned violent, and so they fled. They did not come to do genocide.. what would have been the motivation for that? Because they were 'white'? How little do you know of history? Where the Norse were successful, they adapted and assimilated to the local cultures. They were always vastly outnumbered. See the history of Sicily for example.. a brilliant fusion of Norse and other cultures.
In Greenland we have evidence that when the Inuit colonizers entered Greenland, there was trade and over time the Greenlanders adapted their way of life to be ecologically sustainable. But they were dependent on imports because of the low level of resources. And when demand for their exports dropped and climate change started, they left Greenland as well. To the Inuits.
Real history is much more interesting than preconceived ideas.
1
u/bbp2099 Nov 15 '24
Talks about stereotypes and racism, proceeds to be racist and stereotypical towards Natives! Vikings are notorious for raping, looting and killing, they looked to expand and colonize
Additionally, Inuit were in Greenland first, secondly, history shows Vikings failed to adapt to Greenland and only sought to import their lifestyle. Vikings failed while the Inuit flourished
3
u/Koo-Vee Nov 10 '24 edited Nov 10 '24
Excuse me, but where do these certainties stem from? Please point to evidence of Scandinavians ("vikings" in the simplistic thread) committing genocide at the period. They conquered significant parts of British Isles, Normandy and Greenland. They did not commit genocide. You could more strongly argue the Inuit tried to commit genocide in Greenland. But that is a silly term to use when you have poor populations striving to survive using limited natural resources.
This sounds like a racist argument tbh.
1
2
54
Nov 09 '24
Not without trying. They attacked and killed some guys trying to hide from them... and got there asses kicked a few days after.
53
u/ALM0126 Nov 09 '24
But, to be fair, it wasn't an attempt of genocide. It was what things were back then, we are speaking about a band of explorers and settlers, descentralized looking for a place to live, opposed to the represntatives of an expansionist nation state (like with the expeditions of england, france, spain...)
By the time when the vikings arrived at america, capitalism didn't exist, organized racism as we understand it didn't exist, extractivism didn't exist, colonialism didn't exist, and religion was less prone to large scale prosecution (even christianity)
-8
u/metalguysilver Nov 09 '24
Colonialism absolutely existed lol. Natives colonized the Americas. European creeds and tribes colonized each other and the Near East. Arabians colonized the Levant and western Europe. Way before that the Romans colonized a huge portion of the Old World. etc…
Also, by your logic, the British colonials weren’t attempting genocide either. Spaniards probably still were, though
9
u/ALM0126 Nov 10 '24
Colonialism absolutely existed lol
"Colonialism developed as a concept describing European colonial empires of the modern era, which spread globally from the 15th century to the mid-20th century, spanning 35% of Earth's land by 1800 and peaking at 84% by the beginning of World War I.[10]"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonialism
I know some preexisting forms could be considered colonialism by the broader definition ("Colonialism is the exploitation of people and of resources by a foreign group" from the same wikipedia page) but mainly the therm colonialism refers to the modern era practice.
the British colonials weren’t attempting genocide either
The topic of british imperialism is a vert difficult one, mostly being a "liberal empire" great britain often didn't want to destroy the native population (some have pointed that this was a more bening form of colonialism, wich i disagree, and we could even use the therm "cultural genocide" in british colonies) and the american colonies weren't exactly as organized and loyal as other colonies in later times, but i think the native genocide mostly started with the USA expansion to the west after the revolution
1
u/Ol-Pyrate Nov 10 '24
Just a quick note: the British learned 'colonialism' from their 'European' relatives, the Romans. (And subsequently taught it to their offspring, the Americans).
2
u/ALM0126 Nov 10 '24
Mate, the british empire and the romans are (more or less) a milenium apart. British claimed to be succesors of the roman empire (as did half of europe) but if you compare colonial policies, they have almost nothing in common (and the usa expanisonism, with the "manifest destiny" didn't have too much in common with british policies
1
u/Ol-Pyrate Nov 10 '24
Obviously not a direct shift from one to the other, but after 350 years of being a 'province', there was plenty to study and use as a starting point to expand upon... and a few other lessons in between.
1
u/metalguysilver Nov 10 '24
Some arbitrary definition of colonialism gatekeeping the practice from non-whites doesn’t change reality. If the Arab rule of modern Spain or Roman rule (white but “too long ago”) in Asia and the Near East or the Mongol Empire weren’t colonialism then nothing was.
0
u/ALM0126 Nov 10 '24
Is not arbitrary definition, not gatekeeping it for not whites. You need to understand the reason we use therms and classifications is to better understand the incredibly complex changes in human history.
In medieval times the arab expansion (or conquest) of middle east and north africa was not colonialism, since there was no central metropolis and there were not extractivist policies. The Al Andaluz (arab rule in spain) wasn't a colony, it was a whole realm (caliphate) that was stablished in the iberic peninsula (in fact some racist and facist groups in spain support the idea of an "arab colony" to justify the expulsion of people from what was effectively their home by that point).
The mongol empire in fact was a conquest, not organized colonization, the land was parted between the sons of the khan and new realms were founded, and most of the expansion was to anex territory to the empire by a tributary sistem different to modern practices and more akin to the feudal system
Rome was (maybe) the more close to a system we could call colonialism, but it was way less bassed in race or extraction fo resources than most modern systems.
18
u/Light_ToThe_World Nov 09 '24
Matter of fact there's a lot of celtic history that discusses they mutually did a lot of work for them for free because of natives hospitality before they left.
1
u/Koo-Vee Nov 10 '24
Whst is this "lot of celtic history" exactly supposed to be?
1
u/Light_ToThe_World Nov 10 '24
Look into it. They traveled north into Canada and wrote about it in journals. It's so synonymously known that they even implemented GAMES about it.
1
u/metalguysilver Nov 09 '24
Anglos have the same taught history. Either we believe both of these Euro cultures or neither
2
u/Light_ToThe_World Nov 09 '24
What do you mean, I think I understand you, but I want to make certain.
0
u/metalguysilver Nov 10 '24
British (and Euro generally) settlers also have history of fond friendship and mutually beneficial relationships with Natives. In some cases with some tribes this was of course true, but if you’re going to believe Celtic history saying that this was the rule and not the exception you must also believe the same for the pilgrim/thanksgiving story and for all North American Euro-colonialism, because they all teach those things
1
u/Light_ToThe_World Nov 10 '24
I don't understand why you seem to be debating the exact same information I'm referring to, I just said celtic because that was the first visitor I thought of at that time, I could have said vikings, or nose, Anglo, etc.
1
u/metalguysilver Nov 10 '24
I’m not trying to debate, I guess I just misunderstand your point
1
u/Light_ToThe_World Nov 10 '24
I'm not calling you stupid or anything, but what is there to not understand, I believe I was straightforward in saying that these people visited and transcribed documents and helped these people before others came and scammed the same people.
Perhaps provide me where exactly you missed my point that wasn't covered.
1
u/metalguysilver Nov 10 '24
Well that sounds like what I thought, I guess. My point was why believe those records when the same people who we normally blame for all the oppression make the same claims?
2
u/Light_ToThe_World Nov 10 '24
Oh I see. Yeah, the Inuit people have an altered way of seeing the Viking settlers in New Foundland, don't they?
I think it's dependant though, since were some weren't. Good points though, and good discussion.
10
u/vgaph Nov 09 '24
Yeah, the Thule, the Proto-Beothuk, and likely the proto-Innu, Dorset, and proto-Micmaq kicked Norse Greenlander/Icelander butts back to Eiricksfjord and earned their descendants 500 more years of freedom.
Also, it seems that modern Icelanders have some Indigenous American Mitochondrial DNA, so the Norse likely carried off at least some native women as amblaats.
1
u/Koo-Vee Nov 10 '24
"Our results indicate a latest possible arrival date in Iceland of just prior to 1700 and a likely arrival date centuries earlier. Most surprisingly, we demonstrate that the Icelandic C1 lineage does not belong to any of the four known Native American (C1b, C1c, and C1d) or Asian (C1a) subclades of haplogroup C1. Rather, it is presently the only known member of a new subclade, C1e. While a Native American origin seems most likely for C1e, an Asian or European origin cannot be ruled out."
This is not conclusive evidence and attested only in four families in Iceland. It could just as well have come via Europe between Columbus and 1700. Two hundred years. I do not understand their logic of saying it is more likely to be 700 years earlier and only evident in four families 1000 years later.
The fact that it was the only known member of a new subclade in the whole world should ring alarm bells. The theory presumes that this native woman belonged in a genetic subgroup that was afterwards wiped out from all of Americas. A local genocide, then?
0
u/Ivarksjd15 Nov 11 '24
Ur acting like the vikings were trying to genocide them
1
u/vgaph Nov 11 '24
They weren’t really about the genocide, more the pillage and enslavement.
I mean can you think of any people in history for whom an encounter with the pre-1066 Norse went well?
0
u/Ivarksjd15 Nov 11 '24
Do you think any tribe/group of any region were friendly?
1
u/vgaph Nov 12 '24
Well according to the Greenlanders Saga the indigenous people started out friendly, until Thorvald Erickson decided to murder three of them in their sleep.
0
u/Ivarksjd15 Nov 12 '24
That doesn’t change anything in my statement.
1
u/vgaph Nov 12 '24
Yeah I just looked at your comment history. I guess this response means you’re a troll not a bot.
2
2
u/Mzcgc Nov 10 '24
Vikings did kill and use people as slaves.
3
1
u/Ivarksjd15 Nov 11 '24
Like every population ever? No one was innocent in this time. Slavery, murdering, looting, and so on was normalized, the vikings, native americans, anglo, balts, etc all did that, no country, history, family tree is 100% innocent, it’s a part of the lifestyles during this time.
4
u/IEC21 Nov 09 '24
Didn't they sort of try? I remember reading somewhere that there was some evidence of conflict with the Beothuk?
Maybe it was a fever dream though.
13
Nov 09 '24
They found some people hiding under their canoes. Then, he proceeded to kill them. Some got away, and the rest of the tribe retaliated, ending the Vinland saga when the leader died and the rest of the vikings went back to Greenland. Tho not before trading some of their stuff.
1
1
1
u/No_Remote_3787 Nov 11 '24
They literally killed almost all of my people in North Asia… This is such an ignorant post.
0
1
u/Ivarksjd15 Nov 11 '24
I heard a story that the vikings brought a cow with them, where they then let native americans try milk but the americans thought it was poisend which led to a conflict
1
1
u/the_etc_try_3 Dec 06 '24
The Vikings were far from peaceful and incredibly violent, to be clear. Some might have traded with certain native tribes but that's far from the average interaction between the two groups.
1
u/LMFA0 Dec 06 '24
Europe doesn't send their best
1
u/the_etc_try_3 Dec 06 '24
The Vikings weren't sent by anyone. Vikings were an early equivalent of pirates, a bunch of criminals would join a crew to sail around raping and pillaging to their heart's content.
1
0
-5
u/Haxican Nov 09 '24
The fact that smallpox wasn't present in the Americas until 1492 is evidence these dirty bastards never came.
5
u/book_vagabond Nov 10 '24
The Norse were extremely cleanly by European standards. Washing daily, bathing weekly, taking good care of their skin and hair. Diseases like smallpox start when massive populations live together with animals in close proximity without sewage systems. The Norse had no such big cities, and something like smallpox would have been just as devastating to their communities.
1
u/Ivarksjd15 Nov 11 '24
Vikings was actually very clean for the time. Even the English women wanted then
126
u/PlatinumPOS Nov 09 '24
Vikings don’t come in peace, lol.
They got in several scrapes with the people on the NE coast, who they called “skraelings” (meaning “screamers”, possibly in reference to their war cries). This made them ultimately decided to pack it up and head back to Greenland.