Comments by "Arnold Hubbert" (@arnoldhubbert6779) on "Viking Eye Color and DNA: What Was the Genetic Makeup of the Vikings?" video.
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hjalmarolethorchristensen9761 Mange tak. Samme til dig. My last name also ends in son/sen and most of my children have Scandinavian names (Maren, Frederikke (Rikke), Annika Louise, Leif Søren, Kai Johan). Thanks for the encouragement. I'm doing my best to keep up the Scandinavian blood and traditions (at our last family reunion, my daughter performed, "Den Danske Sang er en ung blond pige..." singing with guitar), but it's not easy in America. We only make up about 1% of the population. The problem is intermarriage (I'm not even 100%. I have a little English and German too). Two of my children are already married, but at least one of them married a fellow Scandinavian (Olsen). In the early 1900's, my Scandinavian community attempted to preserve our heritage, and some of our leaders thought the best way to do it was to unify all of us (Danes, Norwegians, Swedes, even Icelanders who also settled in our area) into a single unified group (by the way, the main leader behind this movement was en Dansker named Christensen too, who married a Norwegian), which wasn't easy since, as you know, Scandinavians can be pretty prejudiced against each other. But, unfortunately, with each generation we are a dying breed in America, which is why we Scandinavian Americans look to you in Scandinavia to keep the Scandinavian identity and legacy going strong. Vær stærk som en Viking min bror!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Your comment contains a few truths but is largely an exaggeration. I think people like having extreme opinions in order to show how "wrong" the prevailing beliefs are and are largely agenda driven. First, Vikings has come to mean a people, even if it started out as refering to just those who did the raiding. It now is used by historians to refer to all Scandinavians from the Viking period (look it up), since the original Vikings were also mercenaries, explorers, colonizers (and included their "support team" back home).
Also, there's now this new myth that the Vikings were a "diverse" mix of races. Relative to other people, this is also an extreme exaggeration. Those that were found to have less Scandinavian DNA, were also found outside of Scandinavia and were primarily mixed with the local people (Gaelic, etc.) which has always been known. Also, it was found that those with less Scandinavian ancestry, were also less "viking" culturally. The "asian" amixture was likely due to Sami mixing (which although it did happen, was usually avoided). Just because there are artifacts from far away, doesn't mean there were people from those cultures in Scandinavia. Studies have consistenly shown that the majority of Scandinavians of the period were indeed Nordic and blond, especially in Norway and Sweden (though of course where were dark haired too, "Brunn" types as well, which were in Scandinavia anciently too) and modern blond frequencies have nothing to do with and modern selective breeding, for which there is no evidence (it's a completely made up idea). In fact, modern Scandinavians are less blond than their ancestors.
1
-
1
-
@mikni4069 Debating with someone with a clear personal bias, which is obvious, is usually a waste of time but I'll give it a try anyway.
"It doesn’t matter what you decide to call them, they were not Vikings" I DIDN'T DECIDE ANYTHING. THIS IS WHAT HISTORIANS CALL THEM. You're not getting the context either. Of course they didn't call themselves Vikings (of course, the actual Viking raiders didn't call themselves "Vikings" either). However, modern historians do, for the reasons I've already stated. THAT'S the context by which most modern people refer the Norse as Vikings. No one thinks they were all raiders. But, they were all Norse people of the Viking period which most (if not all) historians refer to as Vikings. Like I said, although it originally meant just the raiders, it has been used to refer to all Norse people of the Viking period. Your insistence in appearing to be so "strict" with your definition of the word Viking is misleading and reveals a personal (possibly, racist) bias. It's NOT because you so badly want only the Norse raiders to be given that designation. It''s actually because you want to be able to refer to anyone of any race who engaged in raiding to be allowed to be referred to as Viking (since it's 'just a job description"), so you can blur or confuse the ethnic identity of the Norse and their modern descendants.
"the term Viking could be used as a referenced to anyone and so it was in the period it was never strictly used for one people or cultures." No it didn't because the Vikings didn't refer to themselves as Vikings. The term came after the Viking period and was used to refer JUST TO THE NORSE (and those of at least partial Norse ancestry). Also, modern archeologists and historians have found that the less Norse you were, the less Viking you are considered, not only by modern hsitoricans, but even among the Vikings themselves (see below).
"graves (outside of Scandinavia) show a far larger diversity than just that of Scandinavia" Exactly, but do you know what else they found? They found that there was a direct correlation between burials of those with Viking grave goods and those without. They found that those with the highest degree of Viking grave goods were purer Scandinavian and those wyho were of partial Scandinavian ancestry, had fewer, and those without Scandinavian ancestry, had none to very little. Are you starting to get the picture? We know the Vikings took slaves (and married some locals), and their descendants may have been included in their culture, to one degree or another, but it appears that those who were not of actual Scandinavian ancestry, were not considered Norse by the Norse themselves.
"ethnical pureness created in the 19th century is a myth of the raiders/traders/settlers" Whatever some 19th centrury romantistists wanted to believe, hasn't much affected most modern scholars and even most lay people interested in the period (unless you're a nazi. btw, Scandinavians and others affiliated with Norse history and identiity absolutely HATE the nazi association and attempt to co-opt our heritage and identity). Among almost all of us, there's no myths. We know our history and are under no delusions regarding it. Fact is, the Norse were quite ethnically homogenous for most of their history, especially compared to other parts of Europe and the world, with the exception of the Gaelic mixing (and very few other northern Europeans), that occured to a lesser degree. None of us have ever thought all the Norse were all blond (or even all Nordic, although I am). In a way, people like you are very much like the 19th century romantics and nazis, in your attempt to exaggerate facts in order to satsify a personal agenda, even if it's to the exact opposite extreme. False extremes are still false, no matter which side.
"The point of the artefacts found in Scandinavia, that you clearly missed" Why do you assume I missed anything? I'm very aware of non Scandinavian finds in Scandinavia. But, like I said, that doesn't mean anything regarding the ethnicity of the Scandinavian people. I have an office full of stuff from Asia and central America. Does that have any bearing on my ethnicity? Nope. It just means I've been to those places and brought stuff back. Just because you raid and trade, doesn't mean you're alwys mixing with other people. Anyone with even the most basic awareness of Norse history is very aware of the Norse extensive travels and that they brought back things, especially things that could be traded. So what? People like you seem to want to use those historical facts as a springboard to exaggeration, often to satisfy a personal bias (btw, you exposed your personal bias with your last sentence).
"The fact remains the genetics pool of coastal Scandinavia was larger..." Of course. Everyone already knows this. In fact, it's always been known, especially by those that live in those areas. However, they're not Italian, Turkish, or east asian, or, even more ridiculous, negroes. They're mixed, to a small degree, mostly just with other northern Europeans living in Britain. Icelanders and Faroese, for example, have always known they have some non Scandinavian ancestry and why.
1
-
@mikni4069 "No one talks about races because races don’t exist" Even though your personal bias was already evident, this last statement confirms it. There's a modern effort by some to re-define race or to eliminate the word entirely. This is usually as a result of a racial inferiorty complex or a feeling of some personal "mission" to rid the world of racism with a self-righteous self-hero worship (and your desire to be worshiped by others) and you think that if you just elimate the word "race," racsim will cease to exist.
Fact is, it's based on a strawman position that doesn't even define race correctly. All race is, is an amalgumation of a group of people, resulting in a common phenotype, due to their isloation for a period of time. You can take any two people, or group of people, isolate them long enough, and over time, all of their features will amalgumate to a large degree, or certain features witll become dominant and common, creating a new "race." It doesn't mean a new "species" or that any race is any less human. The fact that DNA can tell the difference between a negro and a Nordic person, means that race exists.
You probably also think, as some in your camp do, that the Norse weren't racist at all, weren't even aware of race, and just lived in harmony with all peoples. Completely BS. The Norse were very aware, and very racist, just like probably everyone else in their day. If people they encountered didn't resemble their race, they were very racist towards, considered them less than human, and avoided mixing with them (for the most part). Skraelings was the N word of it's day (and still is). Are you aware that the origin of trolls came from the very racist trope the Norse had for the Sami or lapp people? The Norse, and their descendants, have always been very racist towards the Lapps, forbid marriage with them (though it still happened to a small degree), considered killing them for any reason as acceptable, considered them less than human, and would ostrasize anyone for relations with them. In addition, the Nordic ideal of blond hair and very very fair skin (as white as milk) were considered by far the most beautiful and desired where as dark skin and hair was not. The complexion of one man (the only one we know of) who was the child of a Norse man and samoyed woman, his skin was referred to has the skin of death or hell. Doesn't sound too "accepting" does it?
"Danes who were by far the driving seat of the culture was not particularly blond of the time." As I think I already stated, and virtually every Scandinavian knows, the original Scandinavians (long before the Vikings) were made up of, mainly two (but also a third) waves of immigration and we know that not all of them were nordic blond (but they were all still Caucasian Europeans). The Norse sagas even attest to this, which speak of the Aesir and the Vanir, who seemed to be of two different races of people.
1
-
@mikni4069 "No one talks about races because races don’t exist" Even though your personal bias was already evident, this last statement confirms it. There's a modern effort by some to re-define race or to eliminate the word entirely. This is usually as a result of a racial inferiorty complex or a feeling of some personal "mission" to rid the world of racism with a self-righteous self-hero worship (and your desire to be worshiped by others) and you think that if you just elimate the word "race," racsim will cease to exist.
Fact is, it's based on a strawman position that doesn't even define race correctly. All race is, is an amalgumation of a group of people, resulting in a common phenotype, due to their isloation for a period of time. You can take any two people, or group of people, isolate them long enough, and over time, all of their features will amalgumate to a large degree, or certain features witll become dominant and common, creating a new "race." It doesn't mean a new "species" or that any race is any less human. The fact that DNA can tell the difference between a negro and a Nordic person, means that race exists.
You probably also think, as some in your camp do, that the Norse weren't racist at all, weren't even aware of race, and just lived in harmony with all peoples. Completely BS. The Norse were very aware, and very racist, just like probably everyone else in their day. If people they encountered didn't resemble their race, they were very racist towards, considered them less than human, and avoided mixing with them (for the most part). Skraelings was the N word of it's day (and still is). Are you aware that the origin of trolls came from the very racist trope the Norse had for the Sami or lapp people? The Norse, and their descendants, have always been very racist towards the Lapps, forbid marriage with them (though it still happened to a small degree), considered killing them for any reason as acceptable, considered them less than human, and would ostrasize anyone for relations with them. In addition, the Nordic ideal of blond hair and very very fair skin (as white as milk) were considered by far the most beautiful and desired where as dark skin and hair was not. The complexion of one man (the only one we know of) who was the child of a Norse man and samoyed woman, his skin was referred to has the skin of death or hell. Doesn't sound too "accepting" does it?
"Danes who were by far the driving seat of the culture was not particularly blond of the time." As I think I already stated, and virtually every Scandinavian knows, the original Scandinavians (long before the Vikings) were made up of, mainly two (but also a third) waves of immigration and we know that not all of them were nordic blond (but they were all still Caucasian Europeans). The Norse sagas even attest to this, which speak of the Aesir and the Vanir, who seemed to be of two different races of people.
1