Earlier quoted context omitted.
I love that idea. "Man, this is just like back home, let's go boys."
Newiceland
Niceland.
Evidence for European presence in the Americas in AD 1021
391–400 of 408 posts
Re: Evidence for European presence in the Americas in AD 1021
#392Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I can imagine an indigenous woman having a fling with a viking and just rasing the kid in her village. No one the wiser. Except everyone who saw the kid?
In Northern Spain sometimes you could even distinguish if someone who crossed behind you was an Spaniard, Portuguese, French or half-German over the day. Heck, I can put several people in a photo from the North, the inner Castilles, the Eastern Mediterranean, Andalusia and Canary Islands and you could never, ever say every one in that photo would be from Spain. We have been invaded over so many times from European tr…
Couldn't agree more. Human migration and mixing has always happened. Look at any trade route and you'll see it clear as day.
Concepts like race are a fantastical vanity construct (things that should never have taken a foot hold during the Enlightenment period). Really it's tribalism.
Our view of what a viking looked like is a very romanticized image of a "blond blue eyed" person: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/16/science/vikings-DNA.html
Just like what an Asian looks like or an African or an American (both North, everything in between and South :) ) ... and than funny word Caucasian
Re: Evidence for European presence in the Americas in AD 1021
#393"Our new date lays down a marker for European cognisance of the Americas" Is "cognisance" really the right term here? I didn't really follow the whole article and it seemed mostly unrelated to my question anyway, so sorry if I missed something. It just seems to me that for there to be any European awareness, there would have to be proof of a return voyage, no? Is this not really just talking about "European presence"…
The existence of Grönländinga Saga -- specifically, the bits in it about Vinland and Markland and Helluland -- is in itself proof of European cognisance of the Americas. And yes, obviously at least some of them must have made it back, or their exploits would never have been recorded in the saga(s?). There's a couple of timelines in the article, reconstructing the sequence of events both from the artefacts and from th…
Thank you for the very informative reply. I think that basically resolves my confusion about this.
Re: Evidence for European presence in the Americas in AD 1021
#394Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok then fuck the Vikings too. Do you realize how much violence and destruction they wrought? At least keep your shit logically cohesive. While you're at it do a little research on "indigenous" culture and how they treated each other. I assure you it wasn't butterflies and kisses before Columbus got here. > how did he discover America if there were people there already He discovered it in relation to Europeans who did…
Do people credit the Vikings for discovering Ireland? The fuck they do. And I don't know why the fuck you're putting "indigenous" in quotes but man it looks kinda racist. As does the idea that "discovering things" is by default actually "discovered in relation to Europeans".
I'm putting "indigenous" in quotes because no one owns rights to a place by virtue of being there first. It's a ridiculous silly idea when you actually understand what has happened throughout history. Are you going to start calling Europeans indigenous when you go to Europe? I didn't think so.
Stop throwing the r word around so nonchalantly or people might start realizing you don't really care about racism and just want sjw internet points.
The funny thing is you people throw that word around so much that I don't even care if you call me one. White's are inherently racist by default anyway right? I guess there's nothing I can do about it since I have a certain skin color. My bad, I'm sorry you hate my skin color.
Just a tip- name calling makes it look like you lost the debate.
Re: Evidence for European presence in the Americas in AD 1021
#395A few of the other comments had me curious, but while it's widely known that diseases brought over from Europe were devastating to the native populations of the Americas, are there any notable examples of transfer in the other direction - i.e. new diseases the Europeans encountered in the Americas that got brought back to Europe?
Aha! A chance to plug one of my favorite CGP Grey videos that explores this very question: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEYh5WACqEk
That's a super interesting video. Thanks!
Re: Evidence for European presence in the Americas in AD 1021
#396Earlier quoted context omitted.
They didn’t find out what was going on until the 20th century… Before that they thought it was God’s judgment on the heathens or something.
They sent blankets used by infected people. They didn't understand germ theory, but they understood contagion.
You should probably know that there is literally not one fully confirmed case of this ever happening.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3qslhq/where...
Re: Evidence for European presence in the Americas in AD 1021
#397Earlier quoted context omitted.
... Good. Listening to the story in school it was obvious there was some stuff being glossed over; like, how did he discover America if there were people there already? ... And those people just gave their land to Europeans because ... ? And, in the years since grade school, the answer to those questions have led to darker questions, with dark answers. And oh shit, we're actually still pulling this shit. So again - g…
Ok then fuck the Vikings too. Do you realize how much violence and destruction they wrought? At least keep your shit logically cohesive. While you're at it do a little research on "indigenous" culture and how they treated each other. I assure you it wasn't butterflies and kisses before Columbus got here. > how did he discover America if there were people there already He discovered it in relation to Europeans who did…
> This is one of the dumbest things I've read today. Your take would mean literally nothing could be discovered.
Guess what was one of the dumbest things I've read today.
Their take would mean nothing could be "discovered" again, after it already was discovered by someone else.
Can't really see any big problem with that... Except for bullying Johnnie-come-latelies who've been used to thinking of nothing as discovered until it's been "discovered" by them. Big boo-fucking-hoo.
Re: Evidence for European presence in the Americas in AD 1021
#398I've never understood the significance of this. The vikings were in North America for a few years and then went back to Europe. They brought back (almost?) nothing, left a few scattered settlements, and completely forgot about it. So what.
There are some who think that if the First Nations weren’t “the first”, that diminishes modern day claims and grievances, making it easier for modern day Canada and the USA to ignore legitimate claims, and treat us as they’ve always wanted to treat us. So, this sort of research is important for many.
Huh? You seem to be getting shit wildly mixed up.
Everyone agrees Native Americans / First Nations / Indigenous population have been in the Americas for over ten thousand years. The Vikings went there about -- or, according to this discovery, exactly -- a thousand years ago.
Absolutely nobody thinks proving the Viking journeys can in any way deligitimize the native's claim to primacy. Well, absolutely nobody who isn't totally befuddled.
Re: Evidence for European presence in the Americas in AD 1021
#399Earlier quoted context omitted.
> considering the basic spelling errors ("jaws" for "yaws") Missing a single erroroneous instance of a word that won't get caught by spell check may be embarrassing, but it's hardly material. > ("Española Island…a part of the Galápagos Islands") https://www.galapagos.org/about_galapagos/about-galapagos/th... What is the error here?
There are several islands in the world that have had the name Española. The one that is relevant to the discussion about syphilis is now more commonly known as Hispanola, home to Haiti and the Dominican Republic. Columbus visited in 1492/3 and supposedly brought back Syphilis in 1493. The Galapagos islands are in the Pacific, and were never visited by Columbus.
Ah, yeah that make sense. I just looked at the immediate sentence, rather than question which island it referred to. I'm assuming that's the cause for the error too - just someone wanting to reference location and popping the name into Google -, though it's certainly a much more serious error than the spelling mistake.
Re: Evidence for European presence in the Americas in AD 1021
#400Earlier quoted context omitted.
And they had no base nearby to launch from. Go back home and stock up? Noo.. home was Greenland, there's no riches there, and they went to Vinland to try to stock up.
Greenland wasn't a frozen wasteland back then. The climate was warmer. Climate change is a large part of what drove the Norse out of Greenland.
Wasn’t this during the Little Ice Age?