Iceland and its medieval past(medievalists.net)
medievalists.net
Iceland and its medieval past
https://www.medievalists.net/2020/09/medieval-past-present-iceland/
35 comments
>How are other Scandinavian countries less Viking? They were also 100% settled by Vikings at the same time because that is where the Vikings came from.
>‘Viking’ was a job description, not a matter of heredity, massive ancient DNA study shows
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/09/viking-was-job-descr...
>‘Viking’ was a job description, not a matter of heredity, massive ancient DNA study shows
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/09/viking-was-job-descr...
They also took Irish women as slaves to Iceland:
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/science/dna-study-reveals-fa...
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/science/dna-study-reveals-fa...
Of course I know all this, I was after all raised in Norway. However I use the term as it is commonly understood by people today, not as it was used in 900 AD.
"How are other Scandinavian countries less Viking?"
They are much more diverse and have interacted much more with the outside world. You can not compare Sweden with Iceland.
Sweden is a very progressive country and always have been in the modern age. Not being condescending but I perceived the people in Iceland very bold and and often interacting and dressing in a way that would be considered "low class". I also must say (downvote expected) that the Icelandic women by far do not live up to their reputation (looks).
Sweden had mining, coal, the industrial revolution etc. Iceland did not have mining, did not have coal, did not have gas, did not have an industrial revolution due to lack of natural resources. They were a poor area and stayed poor until recently when they were able to harvest energy from their volcanoes. In fact, it is now a society with one of the highest energy consumption in the world. Well set for the future due to cheap energy and easy cooling of servers.
It is true that the Icelandic society is much more coherent than others. In general I observed that if you look for a second passport, look in a small country. The smaller the better. (Incredibly difficult to get a passport in Liechtenstein, Andorra or Monaco). In big countries like Russia, USA, Brazil or China a citizen is mostly expendable.
They are much more diverse and have interacted much more with the outside world. You can not compare Sweden with Iceland.
Sweden is a very progressive country and always have been in the modern age. Not being condescending but I perceived the people in Iceland very bold and and often interacting and dressing in a way that would be considered "low class". I also must say (downvote expected) that the Icelandic women by far do not live up to their reputation (looks).
Sweden had mining, coal, the industrial revolution etc. Iceland did not have mining, did not have coal, did not have gas, did not have an industrial revolution due to lack of natural resources. They were a poor area and stayed poor until recently when they were able to harvest energy from their volcanoes. In fact, it is now a society with one of the highest energy consumption in the world. Well set for the future due to cheap energy and easy cooling of servers.
It is true that the Icelandic society is much more coherent than others. In general I observed that if you look for a second passport, look in a small country. The smaller the better. (Incredibly difficult to get a passport in Liechtenstein, Andorra or Monaco). In big countries like Russia, USA, Brazil or China a citizen is mostly expendable.
>harvest energy from their vulcans
By mind-meld?! Clearly far more advanced than Swedes! As long as they controlled their powerful emotions and focused on logic!
Oh, you mean volcanoes...
By mind-meld?! Clearly far more advanced than Swedes! As long as they controlled their powerful emotions and focused on logic!
Oh, you mean volcanoes...
"For a long time, this volcanic island was one of Europe’s poorest countries, as only a small portion of the land is suitable for agricultural use and Iceland possesses virtually no natural resources. Thus, Iceland never developed into an industrial nation – the prosperity it achieved toward the end of the 20th century was due to the country’s booming services sector."
https://www.erih.net/how-it-started/industrial-history-of-eu...
Do you know the thinnest books in the world?
Swiss Humor
Italian heroes
German lovers
English cuisine
Icelandic industry
Do you know the thinnest books in the world?
Swiss Humor
Italian heroes
German lovers
English cuisine
Icelandic industry
Sorry about the weak attempt at Trekkie humor. I happen to think highly of Iceland! Particularly their punishing of bankers back in 2008. I thought about citizenship solely because of that.
Well, for starters they have loads of energy. And fishing.
Regarding the overall tone of your two post, you should refer to the site guidelines.
Regarding the overall tone of your two post, you should refer to the site guidelines.
Ok. But you have not read my post. Yes, they have energy but only recently. They skipped coal and gas and the industrialization that goes with it.
bangers!
It is nonsense anyway. There's been lots of studies (eg by the University of Iceland) showing that the original inhabitants were about 25%-50% Irish/Scottish [1]. Why? Because the norse who settled Iceland kidnapped and enslaved thousands of women from the coasts of Scotland and Ireland and took them to Iceland.
So, Iceland is less Norse pureblood than the rest of Scandinavia, and secondly, the "Iceland has had the benefit of developing free from the guilt of having displaced native inhabitants" statement of the article is also total rubbish in the sense that there were plenty of forcibly displaced inhabitants, it is just that they were native to elsewhere.
[1] https://www.irishtimes.com/news/why-people-in-iceland-look-j...
So, Iceland is less Norse pureblood than the rest of Scandinavia, and secondly, the "Iceland has had the benefit of developing free from the guilt of having displaced native inhabitants" statement of the article is also total rubbish in the sense that there were plenty of forcibly displaced inhabitants, it is just that they were native to elsewhere.
[1] https://www.irishtimes.com/news/why-people-in-iceland-look-j...
This whole “displace natives” narrative is such American thinking. This applies to most of Europe. What European go around having guilt about displacing natives in their home countries? Are the descendants of Normans in Britain riddled with guilt over having taken power from Saxons and Anglos? Are the Saxons guilty about displacing celts?
This Americanized way of viewing history falls flat on its face when applied to Europe.
This Americanized way of viewing history falls flat on its face when applied to Europe.
This map shows that there's a lot of guilt to go around!
https://youtu.be/UY9P0QSxlnI
https://youtu.be/UY9P0QSxlnI
Interestingly, there is also some research suggesting that Vikings might have brought back Native American people to Iceland from their travels to Vinland.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ajpa.21419
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ajpa.21419
Does anywhere actually show much "guilt of having displaced native inhabitants"?
I don't know where you live but for the last few years, every public event or performance in Vancouver, Canada, has been preceded by a land acknowledgement statement. It happens at political events, at Hockey games, at plays and performances.
It's just a brief statement along the lines of "We acknowledge that this event is taking place on the unceded territory of (list of indigenous tribes who inhabited the specific region)"
There are debates about its merits as an actual tool of reconciliation, but I don't think it's possible to argue that it isn't an expression of guilt by the cultural majority.
It's just a brief statement along the lines of "We acknowledge that this event is taking place on the unceded territory of (list of indigenous tribes who inhabited the specific region)"
There are debates about its merits as an actual tool of reconciliation, but I don't think it's possible to argue that it isn't an expression of guilt by the cultural majority.
Yeah but most countries are not newly settled countries like t he US, Canada, Australia etc. Europeans don’t think like this. Doubt Asians or Middle easterners think like this either. Singling our Iceland as a special case is bizarre. The US and Canada are the special cases, not Iceland.
I'm a Scot and the Declaration of Arbroath (1320) is pretty clear about the point:
"The Britons they first drove out, the Picts they utterly destroyed, and, even though very often assailed by the Norwegians, the Danes and the English, they took possession of that home with many victories and untold efforts"
Not very apologetic!
"The Britons they first drove out, the Picts they utterly destroyed, and, even though very often assailed by the Norwegians, the Danes and the English, they took possession of that home with many victories and untold efforts"
Not very apologetic!
Don't forget the guilt of the "native" inhabitants displacing the prior native inhabitants.
It's a rabbit hole.
It's a rabbit hole.
There's some in Canada now.
Can we please stop with the fetishization of Iceland and its culture.
There are many positive qualities in modern day Icelandic society, but there are also an equal amount of negative aspects that rarely make it into the international headlines. And most of the positive attention is often based on the delutional ideas Icelanders themselves have as being superior to others (direct lineages to vikings, fighting the elements for generations, having that special spark that can't possibly exist elsewhere on a planet of 7 billion people.....)
In my experience, Icelandic society has an ingrained sense of inferiority from its long history of being left behind as Europe and the US developed further ahead (and from being a tiny spec in the modern landscape). It wasn't until aid from the Marshall Plan hit the shores of this country that it was able to partially catch up to the rest of the western world (and not until some decades later). Iceland, for its part of being neutral in the war and not having any fighting happen within its borders, got the highest ratio of aid per capita than any other country.
This effect can be seen anytime Iceland, or anything related to the country, gets any positive publicity in the foreign press or by internationally recognized individuals as the local(s)/ news goes crazed reporting on it, even going so far as starting to calling whom ever gave the attention "friends of Iceland" (Íslandsvinur).
Icelandic people will also turn nauseatingly nationalistic when interacting with outsiders, falling over themselves trying to offload as much local history, lore and what they perceive as local wisdom on life and work in an attempt to be elevated in the eyes of those they are talking to, when most times what is said is not grounded in reality or fact.
I say this as a born and raised Icelander.
There are many positive qualities in modern day Icelandic society, but there are also an equal amount of negative aspects that rarely make it into the international headlines. And most of the positive attention is often based on the delutional ideas Icelanders themselves have as being superior to others (direct lineages to vikings, fighting the elements for generations, having that special spark that can't possibly exist elsewhere on a planet of 7 billion people.....)
In my experience, Icelandic society has an ingrained sense of inferiority from its long history of being left behind as Europe and the US developed further ahead (and from being a tiny spec in the modern landscape). It wasn't until aid from the Marshall Plan hit the shores of this country that it was able to partially catch up to the rest of the western world (and not until some decades later). Iceland, for its part of being neutral in the war and not having any fighting happen within its borders, got the highest ratio of aid per capita than any other country.
This effect can be seen anytime Iceland, or anything related to the country, gets any positive publicity in the foreign press or by internationally recognized individuals as the local(s)/ news goes crazed reporting on it, even going so far as starting to calling whom ever gave the attention "friends of Iceland" (Íslandsvinur).
Icelandic people will also turn nauseatingly nationalistic when interacting with outsiders, falling over themselves trying to offload as much local history, lore and what they perceive as local wisdom on life and work in an attempt to be elevated in the eyes of those they are talking to, when most times what is said is not grounded in reality or fact.
I say this as a born and raised Icelander.
"Icelandic people will also turn nauseatingly nationalistic when interacting with outsiders, falling over themselves trying to offload as much local history, lore and what they perceive as local wisdom on life and work in an attempt to be elevated in the eyes of those they are talking to, when most times what is said is not grounded in reality or fact."
Well as Scot I don't think that behaviour is unique to Iceland! :-)
Well as Scot I don't think that behaviour is unique to Iceland! :-)
I guess it is a tendency of humans to want to be perceived in the best light as possible, rather than the truest.
Don't believe I had this experience with the Scots I have had the pleasure of interacted with in the past, though I guess now I wouldn't have been able to know.
Lovely people though :)
Don't believe I had this experience with the Scots I have had the pleasure of interacted with in the past, though I guess now I wouldn't have been able to know.
Lovely people though :)
Haha you sound pretty similar to Norwegians. It is true though. We are underdogs and so we get thrilled when foreigners praise us. It is a bit like hunting for likes on social media.
I also think there are a lot of people in the rat of the world that project on is Nordic countries. They want us to be what they dream of. They want so badly to believe. And we are more than willing to indulge in their fantasy and self deception.
I like the Nordics but we have pros and cons. Nordic life also comes with downsides. Downsides I think many people are not ready for.
I also think there are a lot of people in the rat of the world that project on is Nordic countries. They want us to be what they dream of. They want so badly to believe. And we are more than willing to indulge in their fantasy and self deception.
I like the Nordics but we have pros and cons. Nordic life also comes with downsides. Downsides I think many people are not ready for.
Cool to see a Tafl game in the embedded video!
Hard to take an article seriously when the author doesn’t understand the difference between the words affect and effect.
This article irked me, it seems like the author gathered cheap observations and tried to give it an air of scholarly analysis."Icelanders like outdoor activities. Must be because of their Viking roots!". "Icelanders have a strong sense of community, must be because of their Viking roots!".
Looking over from europe, the first tl;dr impression I got was "Icelanders aren't anglosaxon!" which is odd because I'd guess the current inhabitants of former Angle, Saxon, and Jute lands behave much more like icelanders than like BoJo's chums.
Could westward overseas migration have done something to the cultures?
Could westward overseas migration have done something to the cultures?
To expand on my point (noting difference, not ascribing valence![1]), of these claims from TFA:
[1] To be perfectly explicit: that was an observation that these differences exist, not a claim that either side of the channel were better than the other.
[2] Most european cultures, for instance, have a native phrase for wishing one's companions a good meal.
- word for keeping on trucking through life's challenges
- love of hot pools and hiking
- toponyms lasting over 1'000 years
- importance of hospitality
- importance of society
- wide kinship networks
- seasonal livestock drives
- longstanding democratic traditions
- attested body of folklore
- register of official names
[1] To be perfectly explicit: that was an observation that these differences exist, not a claim that either side of the channel were better than the other.
[2] Most european cultures, for instance, have a native phrase for wishing one's companions a good meal.
Just throwing in that genetic make-up of icelanders is surprisingly diverse, it's not as "Norse" as one could believe from just the language and culture.
Not trying to make any particular point with that tidbit.
Not trying to make any particular point with that tidbit.
I think the number of votes and comments is evidence that this type of articles should have no place on HN.
I recently submitted the following https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24627622
Complexity Scientist Beats Traffic Jams Through Adaptation (quantamagazine.org) 1 point by bryanrasmussen 23 hours ago | hide | past | favorite | discuss
which did not get more than the default 1 and no comments, which I guess means it has no place on HN.
Complexity Scientist Beats Traffic Jams Through Adaptation (quantamagazine.org) 1 point by bryanrasmussen 23 hours ago | hide | past | favorite | discuss
which did not get more than the default 1 and no comments, which I guess means it has no place on HN.
for context, the same thing posted 13 hours later: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24617571
(what's the secret to both comedy and online rati - TIMING!)
(what's the secret to both comedy and online rati - TIMING!)
yes I know - that's why I chose that one specifically to put in my reply.
This whole story reads like this complete detachment of Iceland from everything else around it. But many Americans are entirely infatuated with Iceland and don’t look beyond its borders to put it in context.
Almost everything said about Icelanders here would apply to my native Norway. The attitudes, values etc are very similar. Same with the connection to nature.
Same with institutions. The Thing like the Icelanders had existed all over Scandinavia. It was not unique to Iceland. But Norway being much larger had multiple Thing. They still served as a sort of proto democracy. New Kings got voted in by election. Every free man and women could vote. Every offspring of the king, bastard or not was eligible to “run for office” so to speak.
What is unique to Iceland is how tightly knit society they are due to how few people they are and everybody knowing everybody.
And of course that they can read the original sagas but sagas also play an important role in Norway. I also learned about old Norse and read sagas in high school.
It is more difficult for us of course but we can still see it is a strongly related language. I can guess a lot of the text if I read an Icelandic newspaper.