Hacker News Reader

Comment by INTPenis | Hacker News Reader

I am super fascinated with "norse" history, specifically the parts we don't talk about much. To me "viking" is only a period of heightened threat against christianity, but the northern european region had been a threat to the roman empire.

The east coast of England was dotted with roman forts, defended by fast moving Dalmatian cavalry against raids from the north sea. As soon as the romans left we see an invasion of people from Denmark and northern Germany.

So the word viking, and the period 800 to 1066, show a very limited view of the northern european history.

View on HN

> So the word viking, and the period 800 to 1066, show a very limited view of the northern European history.

I'm Danish and I think that it's cool that you like our history, but I would encourage you to be a little more inclusive as far as the word "Viking" goes. As I understand it the word has an origin in what the people around "Viken" called them selves in the period. This is the area around the Oslo fjord and Skagerrak, and it's actually a lot less "sexy" when you know that the word "vig/vik" means "bay". Anyway in Denmark, Norway and Sweden (and possibly more Scandinavian countries) we actually call the period vikingetiden (The Viking Age). I know that a lot of the popular culture (and even academic) focus on the age is on the BERSERKERGANG parts. Probably not too surprising considering ordinary life was really rather mundane, with around 95% of populations in Denmark/Norway/Sweden being regular iron age farmers. I don't think this should discourage you from using the word "viking", however, I don't know any Scandinavians who would think less of you at least.

What we dislike is the cultural appropriation by far right fools. Which has gotten so bad, even here, that I sort of need to wear a giant rainbow hat to signal that I'm "safe" to be around if there is a pride or whatever going on in my town because I look sort of evil to some people. I'd probably describe me as a biker dadbod + beard and tattoos.

> The east coast of England was dotted with roman forts, defended by fast moving Dalmatian cavalry against raids from the north sea. As soon as the romans left we see an invasion of people from Denmark and northern Germany.

This part is especially interesting to me personally. Maybe not so much what happened in England, but the consequences of the Romans leaving France with France subsequently getting rather serious about "being good at civilization". Which meant that they attacked as far as into Danish Sønderjylland, pushing the northern germanic and scandinavian people toward expansion elsewhere. Which is what lead to we now know as the "viking routes"

Anyway, don't let certain representations of "viking culture" (whatever they may be) discourage you from using the word "viking".

The appropriation of the Scandinavian norrøn viking lore by the extreme right/nazi-adjacent/nazi groups is so annoying. I'm from around Tønsberg (look it up) and we have a lot of people with a healthy, normal interest in the old medieval stuff. We also have a lot of people that use it for their nazi feelgood shit. Problem is, you can't tell 'em apart unless you can see their other, less visible tattoos :(

And the other problem is many people call anybody interested in native culture and its preservation a nazi. Which is bullshit especially since original nazis didn’t give a damn fuck about preservation of anything, but tried to build a new superhuman based on their fantasies.

I think nationalism/ white supremacy are more so the issue. While they might not be Nazis, and in fact a lot of them really don't like Germans, I personally encountered a lot of the Scandanavian White purity types. They often use ancient Scandinavian history as a source of pride and to justify that type of superiorty. In fact I often tell people that Sweden and Norway have the most closeted racist society I've been exposed to. This is saying a lot considering I'm American!

What’s the problem with nationalism? Coming from Central Europe, here nationalism is anti-imperialist and about nations self governing themselves to promote native cultures. And as far as I know Scandinavian nationalism is pretty similar with no imperialist ambitions.

There's nothing wrong with being patriotic (usually), the problem is when your national identity gets roped in with the color of your skin, which is certainly something I've seen many times over Norway and Sweden. While they have incredibly fair and polite societies they say some insane things behind closed doors.

Skin color is most visible proxy of a foreign color. Let’s not pretend that those people blend in local cultures very well. Nor do people with white skin, to be fair.

Scandinavians are even more against central Europe migrants. While racism card silences some people regarding other skin colors, they double down on fellow Europeans. And knowing folks who emigrated there… I can’t say I blame Scandinavians for not liking them.

What a small world. I was just looking for wallpapers/ paintings of Tonsberg landscapes/seascapes yesterday. Off topic but didnt Edvard Munch have a summer house there and thus a lot of his settings are there? I'm from the States but I got to visit Tonsberg a few times when I worked in Norway Lovely little town that I hope I can visit again!

More topically, I encountered a lot of the latter group in Southern Norway and quite a few people from Sweden that were obsessed with Viking culture in a way that came off as Masculine cope.

Don't encourage me, encourage the researchers. It's a well established opinion that the so called viking-age was from around 789 (Lindisfarne raid) to 1066 (Harald loses England).

Simply because those are the written sources we have. But us laypeople are allowed to romanticize and consider other variables.

Btw I'm swedish and I speak fluent danish. ;) Lived 20 years around the Øresund region.

I don't think it's appropriation if they're ethnically nordic, is it? Whether they have a rainbow or a swastika.

Why base it on ethnicity? I'm not sure the original peoples would have focused on that rather than, say, culture, for the in/out grouping. It's my understanding that the ethnic focus came much later with the rise of nationalism and even later with genetics.

Consider that these seafarers would have habitually mated with people from Britain, Ireland and even the Maghreb as we see here. Do you think they would have considered the offspring of such pairings as less Viking?

For my that culture is essentially gone and it's basically appropriation no matter your DNA.

I've only ever seen people cry cultural appropriation in the context of someone not being the "correct" ethnicity.

Are you sure ethnicity was always mentioned as the factor that determine the in/out group? It could be projection, an assumption from your own cultural milieu.

Just to add to this, people can define their in group by things like religion, cultural practice, geography, common leadership etc.

For cultural appropriation, sure. A person born in the USA to a racially Vietnamese family isn't going to get shit for wearing Vietnamese traditional garb despite being raised in America. An American that doesn't pass as Vietnamese sure would.

That ethnicity can sometimes be a factor doesn't mean A) it's always a factor or always the primary factor or B) that we can assume it's how Vikings a 1000 years ago would have thought about it.

Consider also the cases of Americans who, despite being able to show "Irish ethnicity," are laughed at in Ireland for calling themselves Irish. Or people from around the world who take Islam as their religion and are accepted into Mecca despite their disparate ethnic backgrounds. I'd also point to multi-ethnic nations such as the British nation where Cornish, Scottish, Welsh and Saxon are all seen as equally part of the nation.

As I said in my other comment there are a variety of things like religion, cultural practice, common leadership/political belief, geography etc which can and do play roles in creating in/out groups.

I'm not saying ethnicity never plays a role in these things, only that there's little reason to assume that genetics would have been the main playing point in the mind of Vikings.

(I can totally see an AI running amok post-Singularity being "stopped" by being "fed" an incongruous rainbow-swastica and having it collapse :)

Well this just shows what an issue right wing extremists are in Europe. The rest of us are very mad about them using runes in their marches. Because they're all about hate and exclusion.

I think it's best to just ignore them and use the runes as you see fit. The wider the adoption of runes, the less associated they will be with extremists.

I am fascinated by them as well. Let me know if you know any of interesting documentaries out there.

Coincidentally, I was watching this BBC documentary on the dark ages tonight and the last episode is about Viking art and culture in the dark ages. Entire series is worth a watch if you can find it.

https://docuwiki.net/index.php?title=The_Dark_Ages:_An_Age_o...

It's on youtube too, great show.

Ah, presented by Waldemar Januszczak. He's produced quite a few great videos and series.

Not a video, but I was enthralled by https://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-69-twilig... .

William the conqueror [1] is a direct descendant of a viking, Rollo, who made a deal with the king of France: territory in exchange for protection against the other vikings. The name of this territory is relatively well-known for other historical reasons: Normandy. The conquest of England by William "the conqueror", duke of Normandy, is why the English language has a significant number of French origin.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_the_conqueror

Reply on news.ycombinator.com