Youtube comments of Arnold Hubbert (@arnoldhubbert6779).
-
201
-
52
-
It's true that some immigrants have been less distruptive, however, ultimately, it will still change Nordic demographics, identity, and sense of community. A sense of community has been shown to be a determining factor as to how well a community cooperates and and ethnic identity plays a major role. It's a feeling of being a part of a large extended family. This is lost, when ethnic demographics change. In the US, even where some different ethnicities have integrated in the past, are now being pitted against each other, for political gain, which is fracturing the country. European countries are largely founded on ethnic identity (even if you go into the distant past, where there were some different ethnicities in the same European countries (even though still just different Europeans), it took years of war and contention before they've finally develped a sense of unity). An Indian will never be seen by a native Nordic, as a native, but always as a "guest." It's just best that everyone stays in their own native countries. If you think the Nordic countries have a desirable economy, policies, etc., why don't you create that in your own country?
48
-
38
-
Amongst all the good comments, there's one I haven't found (and usually don't find), which is WHY did the Swedish government (and others) allow and promote such a horrendous policy (mass unrestricted immigration from a people whose culture and values are completely imcompatible with those of the natives). Why would they continue to support it when it was so obviously bad for the country but even the majority of the citizens opposed it (why would an elected politicial do anything that the majority of their voters oppose?). Often they're either given a pass that they were "well intended" or "had good hearts" but were just naive. This is NOT true (although, I'm sure there are a few naive citizens who may have felt this way, but not the government). It all has to do with POWER. Jascha Fischer (German politicial) said a few decades ago that the purpose of socialists (and others) in promoting the unrestricted mass immigration from the middle east, in particular, was to "dilute the native population." A people who have their own national, cultural, and ethnic identity are very difficult to control by globalists and leftists (of course, the other extreme, extreme nationalism, can have negative consequences too). Once you've broken them, they will no longer care about the future of their country and people, but all they will care about is their own immediate needs. So, they're easier to manipulate. This is the exact same thing that is happening in the USA right now.
32
-
12
-
To those Danes whose values include compassion, tollerance, open mindedness, and human, especially women's, rights, who also favor unrestricted immigration from muslim countries, you are inviting a people whose values contradict and are the complete opposite of what your's are, who, if presenst trends continue, WILL REPLACE YOU AND YOUR VALUES IN YOUR OWN COUNTRY. When they have enough in numbers, they will impose their values, which are the opposite of your values, on you. You're committing suicide.
12
-
12
-
It's true that some immigrants have been less distruptive, however, ultimately, it will still change Nordic demographics, identity, and sense of community. A sense of community has been shown to be a determining factor as to how well a community cooperates and and ethnic identity plays a major role. It's a feeling of being a part of a large extended family. This is lost, when ethnic demographics change. In the US, even where some different ethnicities have integrated in the past, are now being pitted against each other, for political gain, which is fracturing the country. European countries are largely founded on ethnic identity (even if you go into the distant past, where there were some different ethnicities in the same European countries (even though still just different Europeans), it took years of war and contention before they've finally develped a sense of unity). An Indian will never be seen by a native Nordic, as a native, but always as a "guest." It's just best that everyone stays in their own native countries. If you think the Nordic countries have a desirable economy, policies, etc., why don't you create that in your own country?
11
-
11
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
Ironing Board
Sarah Boone in 1892? No!
Of the several hundred US patents on ironing boards granted prior to Sarah Boone's, the first three went to William Vandenburg in 1858 (patents #19390, #19883, #20231). The first American female patentee of an ironing board is probably Sarah Mort of Dayton, Ohio, who received patent #57170 in 1866. In 1869, Henry Soggs of Columbus, Pennsylvania earned US patent #90966 for an ironing board resembling the modern type, with folding legs, adjustable height, and a cover. Another nice example of a modern-looking board was designed by J.H. Mallory in 1871, patent #120296. Details...
6
-
6
-
@lac8494 Your comment: "Read what Benjamin Franklin, your home boy said and then research what he said and then come back with an intelligent argument..." No problem. BF used the term "swarthy" when describing Italians, French, Spanish, Germans, and Swedes from the mid to late 1700's, right? So, are you telling me that all those Europeans from as recent as the mid to late 1700's WERE ALL NEGROES? My own heritage is Scandinavian and German that didn't immigrate to the US until the mid to late 1800's. Are you telling me that my own relatively recent ancestors were all black nergoes and then somehow became fair skinned, blond haired and blue eyed within the last 150 years or so (my family has those features)? OR, that somehow, my recent ancestors came in and completely removed ALL evidence of the European negro population, including digging up every grave, to remove all DNA evidence just in case future scientists might be able to use to prove their existence in, again, all within about 50-100 years time. The fact that you'd fall for such a ridiculous idea that is so easily disproven supports the idea of your suffering from an inferiority complex fueled delusion.
BF's comment actually discredits your cute little theorys. Swarthy doesn't mean black negro. It's just the word Europeans used back then (AND TODAY), to describe white Europeans with a slightly darker appearance. We still use the term to describe southern Europeans or even just a European with dark hair.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
@sumanthm629 It's true that some immigrants have been less distruptive, however, ultimately, it will still change Nordic demographics, identity, and sense of community. A sense of community has been shown to be a determining factor as to how well a community cooperates and and ethnic identity plays a major role. It's a feeling of being a part of a large extended family. This is lost, when ethnic demographics change. In the US, even where some different ethnicities have integrated in the past, are now being pitted against each other, for political gain, which is fracturing the country. European countries are largely founded on ethnic identity (even if you go into the distant past, where there were some different ethnicities in the same European countries (even though still just different Europeans), it took years of war and contention before they've finally develped a sense of unity). An Indian will never be seen by a native Nordic, as a native, but always as a "guest." It's just best that everyone stays in their own native countries. If you think the Nordic countries have a desirable economy, policies, etc., why don't you create that in your own country?
5
-
5
-
5
-
Exactly. Blacks were the original Europeans who invented and built everthing Europeans are given the credit for. They were the original nobility until white Europeans came and kicked them out of their castles and stole their identities and noble heritage and noble heraldry and coats of arms. UNTIL whites got enough power and then secretly, leaving absolutely no evidence, killed or captured ALL blacks and shipped them to the Americas, but destroying all the records and forcing all the people in Europe and America at the time to both deny it ever happened and to never write about it or pass down oral stories to their descendants, including as especially the blacks themselves. Then, the whites destroyed or altered all the images and records of native black europeans, except of course, any records or images of blacks who were slaves transported from slave territories. And, if that weren't enough, they even dug up ALL the black graves in Europe and destroyed all the evidence (or just transposted all the graves to the Americas) so that one day, no future scientist would be able to use DNA testing to prove they existed. Clever devils, those white people. Not so say, super hard working. That would have taken generations of hard work to do all that.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
Some EU politicians, who are behind this unrestricted mass immigration to Europe, have stated that their intent is to elimiate any "ethno-states," and that by doing so will remove the cause of future wars. This is not true. Ethnic differences do not automatically result in war, nor does their elimination prevent them. In the US civil war, one of the most brutal wars in history, was between two basically idential ethnicities, who, up until just a generation or two ealier, had immigrated from the same countries.
Also, if it were so, why is it that only European countries are targeted for the elimination of ethno-states?
4
-
4
-
They make such a big deal about the "legacy" of the Saulmann's left, first, their house, but they lived there for only, what, 5 or 6 years? That's not a legacy. That's a rental. The current and former home owners have proably lived there for decades but who cares? Then, the art that they possessed for just a few years. It was wrong to have been pressured to sell their art (let alone the holocaust) but let's not exaggerate any sort of legacy. The art itself was likely passed around, bought and resold over and over, with some winners, and some losers. There were far greater losses as a result of the war, including people's lives (both jewish and non-jewish, including innocent Germans as well). Thousands of innocent German families lost entire properties that had been in their family, in many cases, for hundreds of years (not 5 or 6 years). Get some prespective and spend your time doing documentaries about them.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Many Swedes naively think that they can have unlimited immigration and their way of life WON'T CHANGE. This is NOT TRUE. What makes Sweden Sweden is not the land, resources, or even it's laws. It's the PEOPLE. If you change the people, Sweden will change, and likely not in a way that native Swedes, of all different political and cultural beliefs, want. Muslim culture and beliefs, for example, are, not just different, but are in oppostition to the majority of Swedish values, and they refuse to ever intergrate. What do you thin will be the result? When they are enough of the population, they will begin to make cultural and political demands that go counter to native values. It could also eventually lead to the "balkanizaton" of Sweden. It doesn't matter if the Swedish government tries to settle muslims all over the country. The process has already begun in other European countries. Recently, a large group of French military generals sent a commucation to the French government that civil war is inevitable unless something can be done to stop the increased balkanization of France due to the unrestricted muslim immigration. Think this through, people, before it's too late. If some people are legitimate war refugees (most aren't, by far), allow them temporary safety, but repatriate them to their native countries as soon as possible.
4
-
4
-
Here's what a people with the world's biggest racial inferiority complex do. 1) They first envy your heritage. 2) Then they fantasize about having your heritage with you. 3) Then, they take your heritage and deny that it's even your heritage anymore. Over the last few decades, blacks have been doing this same thing with the following peoples: Egyptians, Japanese, Chinese, British, Anglo Saxons, Celts, Vikings, Russians, European nobility, all Europeans, Jews, all Israelites, native Americans. In fact, I think the only heritage they won't claim is AFRICAN.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@lac8494 Actually, I HAVE asked a lot of people, like yourself, for proof. To this day, NO ONE has ever provided it. In fact, when I've held them to a specific claim (who, when, how, etc.), they usually "run away" and say stuff like, they don't owe me an explanation or something like that.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Here's what a people with the world's biggest racial inferiority complex do. 1) They first envy your heritage. 2) Then they fantasize about having your heritage with you. 3) Then, they take your heritage and deny that it's even your heritage anymore. Over the last few decades, blacks have been doing this same thing with the following peoples: Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Japanese, Chinese, British, Anglo Saxons, Celts, Vikings, Russians, European nobility, all Europeans, Jews, all Israelites, native Americans. In fact, I think the only heritage they won't claim is AFRICAN.
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Many Swedes naively think that they can have unlimited immigration and their way of life WON'T CHANGE. This is NOT TRUE. What makes Sweden Sweden is not the land, resources, or even it's laws. It's the PEOPLE. If you change the people, Sweden will change, and likely not in a way that native Swedes, of all different political and cultural beliefs, want. Muslim culture and beliefs, for example, are, not just different, but are in oppostition to the majority of Swedish values, and they refuse to ever intergrate. What do you thin will be the result? When they are enough of the population, they will begin to make cultural and political demands that go counter to native values. It could also eventually lead to the "balkanizaton" of Sweden. It doesn't matter if the Swedish government tries to settle muslims all over the country. The process has already begun in other European countries. Recently, a large group of French military generals sent a commucation to the French government that civil war is inevitable unless something can be done to stop the increased balkanization of France due to the unrestricted muslim immigration. Think this through, people, before it's too late. If some people are legitimate war refugees (most aren't, by far), allow them temporary safety, but repatriate them to their native countries as soon as possible.
3
-
3
-
Here's what a people with the world's biggest racial inferiority complex do. 1) They first envy your heritage. 2) Then they fantasize about having your heritage with you. 3) Then, they take your heritage and deny that it's even your heritage anymore. Over the last few decades, blacks have been doing this same thing with the following peoples: Egyptians, Japanese, Chinese, British, Anglo Saxons, Celts, Vikings, Russians, European nobility, all Europeans, Jews, all Israelites, native Americans. In fact, I think the only heritage they won't claim is AFRICAN.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
AS A WHITE PERSON and reading about all these claims I've come to realize something... Doesn't that make us pretty amazing? That we were able to completely take over and replace and the negroes in Europe is a pretty impressive accomplishment. We've so thoroughly "colonized" negroes that we've made the entire world think that it was US who had accomplished all those things. Think about all we would have had to do. Even though we didn't know anything, somehow we were able to defeat all the negroes and take over their castles, palaces, homes, and cities, and move out of our caves. We dug up ALL the negro burials and replaced them with our own ancient ancestor's bodies (which we would have to have preserved for thousands of years since the burials scientists are digging up now and find they all have Caucasian DNA, are thousands of years old). Even though our ancestors weren't even aware of DNA yet. We learned so well when you all taught us how to build ships, castles, cities, and modern laws and forms of government, that we've been able to continue doing those things and spread the technology and knowledge all around the world and everyone thinks we invented those things. We concocted impressive genealogies for ourselves, going back hundreds, even well over a thousand years of ancestors, stole negro identities and names, and made them appear to have lived in Europe the whole time. Oh, we painted over every painting of all the negro nobility and made them look Caucasian so well that even modern experts can't tell. Then, on top of everything, we also gathered up every single negro, so that none were left, and shipped them to sub Saharan Africa and make them live like the world's most primitive culture and people, reduced to living in mud huts and even eating each other for food (and even got them to stop using the wheel until the 20th century), so we could trick everyone into thinking they hadn't originated in Europe and were so advanced. We even got negroes to forget their own glorious past and believe that they just were this primitive and backward people, so we could also enslave them later. Oh, we also made the negroes learn a who new non European language in Africa and removed any connection or words that might connect their language to the European language their ancestors had developed and spoke for thousands of years. We also tricked them into thinking that their European surnames, which they somehow kept, despite no longer speaking a European language, were just names they took from their Caucasian slave masters.
Just wow! We Caucasians are an amazingly ambitious and hard working people to have accomplished all that, and within just a few hundred years. You have to admit.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
So, you're angry that blacks aren't being given credit for inventing fried chicken, but are you giving credit to the scottish for inventing the original fried chicken? Frankly, fried chicken in all of it's many forms, were probably all "invented" all over the world, but numerous people and races. No one OWNES fried chicken. And, even if it was black slaves who invented the particular version of fried chicken that has since become the most popular, WHO CARES? Are we supposed to thank the Lord for black contributions to fried chicken every time we eat it? Should we have a month dedicated to the black invention of fried chicken? Should black people specifically thank white people every time they use a white invention? You guys are absurd.
Also, you want to be associated with fried chicken as YOUR FOOD and part of your heritage, but when blacks are depicted as being associated with fried chicken, you claim it's racist. You're angry about all the KFC's being placed in black communities but are now angry about all the businesses and stores that are leaving black communities. Make up your minds, dudes.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
AS A WHITE PERSON and reading about all these claims I've come to realize something... Doesn't that make us pretty amazing? That we were able to completely take over and replace and the negroes in Europe is a pretty impressive accomplishment. We've so thoroughly "colonized" negroes that we've made the entire world think that it was US who had accomplished all those things. Think about all we would have had to do. Even though we didn't know anything, somehow we were able to defeat all the negroes and take over their castles, palaces, homes, and cities, and move out of our caves. We dug up ALL the negro burials and replaced them with our own ancient ancestor's bodies (which we would have to have preserved for thousands of years since the burials scientists are digging up now and find they all have Caucasian DNA, are thousands of years old). Even though our ancestors weren't even aware of DNA yet. We learned so well when you all taught us how to build ships, castles, cities, and modern laws and forms of government, that we've been able to continue doing those things and spread the technology and knowledge all around the world and everyone thinks we invented those things. We concocted impressive genealogies for ourselves, going back hundreds, even well over a thousand years of ancestors, stole negro identities and names, and made them appear to have lived in Europe the whole time. Oh, we painted over every painting of all the negro nobility and made them look Caucasian so well that even modern experts can't tell. Then, on top of everything, we also gathered up every single negro, so that none were left, and shipped them to sub Saharan Africa and make them live like the world's most primitive culture and people, reduced to living in mud huts and even eating each other for food (and even got them to stop using the wheel until the 20th century), so we could trick everyone into thinking they hadn't originated in Europe and were so advanced. We even got negroes to forget their own glorious past and believe that they just were this primitive and backward people, so we could also enslave them later. Oh, we also made the negroes learn a who new non European language in Africa and removed any connection or words that might connect their language to the European language their ancestors had developed and spoke for thousands of years. We also tricked them into thinking that their European surnames, which they somehow kept, despite no longer speaking a European language, were just names they took from their Caucasian slave masters.
Just wow! We Caucasians are an amazingly ambitious and hard working people to have accomplished all that, and within just a few hundred years. You have to admit.
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
"Perhaps you've heard the claims: Were it not for the genius and energy of African-American inventors, we might find ourselves in a world without traffic lights, peanut butter, blood banks, light bulb filaments, and a vast number of other things we now take for granted but could hardly imagine life without.
Such beliefs usually originate in books or articles about black history. Since many of the authors have little interest in the history of technology outside of advertising black contributions to it, their stories tend to be fraught with misunderstandings, wishful thinking, or fanciful embellishments with no historical basis. The lack of historical perspective leads to extravagant overestimations of originality and importance: sometimes a slightly modified version of a pre-existing piece of technology is mistaken for the first invention of its type; sometimes a patent or innovation with little or no lasting value is portrayed as a major advance, even if there's no real evidence it was ever used.
Unfortunately, some of the errors and exaggerations have acquired an illusion of credibility by repetition in mainstream outlets, especially during Black History Month (see examples for the traffic light and ironing board). When myths go unchallenged for too long, they begin to eclipse the truth. Thus I decided to put some records straight. Although this page does not cover every dubious invention claim floating around out there, it should at least serve as a warning never to take any such claim for granted."
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@victor_bueno_br "I think wanting to live a culture is the greatest way of honoring said culture." Except, eventually you'll want to change that culture to match your own identity. It's human nature to want to feel a part of something and not wanting to feel any less than others. So, eventually you'll try to either change your identity or find a way to insert your own identity into the Norse one. You'll either start to believe that your ancestors were really Norse or that the Norse who visited Spain, somehow left a genetic influence that somehow you acquired. Or, that the Iberians made their way to Scandinavia and mixed with the Norse, or any other thing one's mind could conjur. Either way, any of those ideas would re-write my own heritage and history. I know a black guy who decided to practice Asatru who now believes that his one and only Norman ancestor from a thousand years ago, is the only source of his genetics (and that he's not really black african), and that in reality, the Norse were all black asians, and that my own Scandinavian ancestors were really from Africa. I know this is an extreme example and that you wouldn't go that far (because no one has an inferiority complex like a black american), but the temptation is the same.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Here's what a people with the world's biggest racial inferiority complex do. 1) They first envy your heritage. 2) Then they fantasize about having your heritage with you. 3) Then, they take your heritage and deny that it's even your heritage anymore. Over the last few decades, blacks have been doing this same thing with the following peoples: Egyptians, Japanese, Chinese, British, Anglo Saxons, Celts, Vikings, Russians, all Europeans, Jews, all Israelites, native Americans. In fact, I think the only heritage they won't claim is AFRICAN.
2
-
"we adapted and branched out into multiple ethnicities" THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT RACE IS AND AND HOW IT'S DEFINED. You only used the word "ethnicities" so you could express a biological reality without using the word "race." (to avoid using the word race, people have also started to incorrectly use words like "nationalities."). Race IS NOT a social construct invented in the 15th century. It's existed since the first group of humans isolated themselves for several generation, long enough for them to develop an amalgamation of their features. And, people have recognized distinct races since at least recorded history. Only racial superiority and inferiority are social constructs.
People, like you, who make the claim that race is nothing more than a social construct, only do so because you THINK that's the way to end racism. But then, you all will continue to use racial terminology and distinctions, if you've found that by doing so, benefits you. I've literally heard black people say, "Race is a social construct invented by WHITE PEOPLE who are all evil from birth." You've done something very similar in a passive aggressive way. You claim race doesn't exist and then proceed to highlight all the racial benefits of being black. That, my uneducated friend, is what is known as hypocrisy.
2
-
Here's what a people with the world's biggest racial inferiority complex do. 1) They first envy your heritage. 2) Then they fantasize about having your heritage with you. 3) Then, they take your heritage and deny that it's even your heritage anymore. Over the last few decades, blacks have been doing this same thing with the following peoples: Egyptians, Japanese, Chinese, British, Anglo Saxons, Celts, Vikings, Russians, European nobility, all Europeans, Jews, all Israelites, native Americans. In fact, I think the only heritage they won't claim is AFRICAN.
2
-
2
-
Here's what a people with the world's biggest racial inferiority complex do. 1) They first envy your heritage. 2) Then they fantasize about having your heritage with you. 3) Then, they take your heritage and deny that it's even your heritage anymore. Over the last few decades, blacks have been doing this same thing with the following peoples: Egyptians, Japanese, Chinese, British, Anglo Saxons, Celts, Vikings, Russians, European nobility, all Europeans, Jews, all Israelites, native Americans. In fact, I think the only heritage they won't claim is AFRICAN.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@yvngleanoa2137 I've done my genealogy extensively (btw, most white Americans have done so. We're quite aware of our heritage). I can trace my heritage back to well over a thousand years. My family has been to the churches and monasteries in the areas where my ancestors lived for hundreds of years, and have seen the actual genealogical records showing my ancestry (not from some limited US census). I've seen the castles where my ancestors lived that are still named for my family name. I've even seen a statue of one of these ancestors (she's Caucasian, btw). I have the records from these castles showing my descent from those that lived there (one, since 1288). I can also trace my dna to ancient dna found in Europe. Just because most black Americans don't even know the names of their great grandparents, they think no one else can either. You guys have no idea just how connected we European Americans are to our ancestors and heritage (which doesn't come close to how even more connected our European relatives are).
"there’s thousands of black Americans that can prove they have black royalty in there blood" I've heard this claim made now, numerous times, but whenever I ask a negro to offer evidence, he just runs away without offering any. So, let's give you a try. What is the specific proof that you have black royal (or even just black European) blood? Btw, the proof can't be some random image of st Maurice, etc. I want to know YOUR actual connection (and, that they're actually negro).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@i.lungsmaras7244 Did Sarah Boone invent the ironing board? NO. She invented an feature that is rarely used. And yet, in black circles it's only stated that she invented the ironing board, not simply a related feature. Your claim would be like the inventor of the hubcap (but one that isn't even used) being given credit for inventing the automobile.
Her addition wasn't even a part of our modern ironing board. It was something for ironing shirt sleeves and isn't part of our modern ironing board. "Boone's ironing board was designed to improve the quality of ironing the sleeves and bodies of women's garments. The ironing board was very narrow, curved, and made of wood. The shape and structure allowed it to fit a sleeve and it was reversible, so one could iron both sides of the sleeve.[2][3]"
Wikipedia has a picture. You'll recognize it clearing as not having any part of a modern ironing board.
In 1869, Henry Soggs of Columbus, Pennsylvania earned US patent #90966 for an ironing board resembling the modern type, with folding legs, adjustable height, and a cover.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@yvngleanoa2137 Bro, the Moors ruled a portion of Spain for about 781 years (btw, why bother to exaggerate to 900? I think it's so that eventually you'll be able to start exaggerate to a "thousand' years because a thousand sounds much more impressive). Also, the history is clear how their advanced was halted from going beyond Spain. What so called 'evidence" do you have (not fake evidence like depictions of st Maurice or of moorsheads on crests, etc. which have a completely different meaning), but actual documented evidence of actual Moors invading the rest of Europe? Also, the Moors weren't negro (sub saharan African). They were North West African. Also, the definition of Moor, "literally means": from Old French More, via Latin from Greek Mauros ‘inhabitant of Mauretania’. It has nothing to do with dark complexion. Also, the Moors were, "a member of a northwestern African Muslim people of mixed Berber and Arab descent." Btw, you're welcome to look up Berber yourself to see what their race is. You'll be disappointed, of course.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jorad4887 If you're getting your information from a single documentary, it's doesn't sound like very reliable information. You must understand that with the proliferation of so many "documentaries" today, and with no real oversight regarding truth, especially those on the internet, the "facts" are often influenced by personal biases or, just as often, by simply repeating back other, just as unreliable and unvetted, sources. Kind of just like your original claim regarding the assumptions modern people make about the past. Fact is, the Norse were indeed actually taller than their European counterparts. We know this from both contemporary descriptions as well as archeological evidence. Some modern documentaries will twist or misconstrue evidence to make it seem as though they have the "truth' that no one else has, in order to feel superior (just like you did in your original text). They misunderstood the results of averages, which don't give an accurate picture of reality. For example, one extremely short individual can skew the results, even if he were an isolated outlier (which is exactly what happened with some "results" regarding the subject, that other respectable scientists have since debunked). Fact is, the Norse were actually almost as tall as modern Scandinavians which, by the standards of the day, were taller than the average European.
2
-
Here's what a people with the world's biggest racial inferiority complex do. 1) They first envy your heritage. 2) Then they fantasize about having your heritage with you. 3) Then, they take your heritage and deny that it's even your heritage anymore. Over the last few decades, blacks have been doing this same thing with the following peoples: Egyptians, Japanese, Chinese, British, Anglo Saxons, Celts, Vikings, Russians, European nobility, all Europeans, Jews, all Israelites, native Americans. In fact, I think the only heritage they won't claim is AFRICAN.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
AS A WHITE PERSON and reading about all these claims I've come to realize something... Doesn't that make us pretty amazing? That we were able to completely take over and replace and the negroes in Europe is a pretty impressive accomplishment. We've so thoroughly "colonized" negroes that we've made the entire world think that it was US who had accomplished all those things. Think about all we would have had to do. Even though we didn't know anything, somehow we were able to defeat all the negroes and take over their castles, palaces, homes, and cities, and move out of our caves. We dug up ALL the negro burials and replaced them with our own ancient ancestor's bodies (which we would have to have preserved for thousands of years since the burials scientists are digging up now and find they all have Caucasian DNA, are thousands of years old). Even though our ancestors weren't even aware of DNA yet. We learned so well when you all taught us how to build ships, castles, cities, and modern laws and forms of government, that we've been able to continue doing those things and spread the technology and knowledge all around the world and everyone thinks we invented those things. We concocted impressive genealogies for ourselves, going back hundreds, even well over a thousand years of ancestors, stole negro identities and names, and made them appear to have lived in Europe the whole time. Oh, we painted over every painting of all the negro nobility and made them look Caucasian so well that even modern experts can't tell. Then, on top of everything, we also gathered up every single negro, so that none were left, and shipped them to sub Saharan Africa and make them live like the world's most primitive culture and people, reduced to living in mud huts and even eating each other for food (and even got them to stop using the wheel until the 20th century), so we could trick everyone into thinking they hadn't originated in Europe and were so advanced. We even got negroes to forget their own glorious past and believe that they just were this primitive and backward people, so we could also enslave them later. Oh, we also made the negroes learn a who new non European language in Africa and removed any connection or words that might connect their language to the European language their ancestors had developed and spoke for thousands of years. We also tricked them into thinking that their European surnames, which they somehow kept, despite no longer speaking a European language, were just names they took from their Caucasian slave masters.
Just wow! We Caucasians are an amazingly ambitious and hard working people to have accomplished all that, and within just a few hundred years. You have to admit.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I and my family have the same ancestry (Norwegian and German) and phenotype (blond and blue). Even my mother sounds like she could have been Lebensborn (blond and blue, Nordic phenotype, born in 1942 and is basically an equal mix of Norwegian and "Germanic Europe" (according to the dna test). But, we're not Lebensborn, just Americans (no unique origin). I'm just curious about your being "repeatedly attacked for it and being told you shouldn't exist.." Though bad treatment certainly happened to Lebensborn participants in Norway after the war, I wouldn't have thought it would have extended beyond the first generation. What decade did you grow up? Who is doing that to you? I've never experienced anything like that in America and I can imagine even less that it would happen in a European country. What country do you live? Btw, I also married a woman with German heritage (just another American, though) and with the same blond blue phenotype as well (and have 7 children). We've had just the opposite experience in America. For example, my very blond (and blue), and fair and Nordic 6'5' son, often attracts people's attention for his looks (especially girls).
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"Perhaps you've heard the claims: Were it not for the genius and energy of African-American inventors, we might find ourselves in a world without traffic lights, peanut butter, blood banks, light bulb filaments, and a vast number of other things we now take for granted but could hardly imagine life without.
Such beliefs usually originate in books or articles about black history. Since many of the authors have little interest in the history of technology outside of advertising black contributions to it, their stories tend to be fraught with misunderstandings, wishful thinking, or fanciful embellishments with no historical basis. The lack of historical perspective leads to extravagant overestimations of originality and importance: sometimes a slightly modified version of a pre-existing piece of technology is mistaken for the first invention of its type; sometimes a patent or innovation with little or no lasting value is portrayed as a major advance, even if there's no real evidence it was ever used.
Unfortunately, some of the errors and exaggerations have acquired an illusion of credibility by repetition in mainstream outlets, especially during Black History Month (see examples for the traffic light and ironing board). When myths go unchallenged for too long, they begin to eclipse the truth. Thus I decided to put some records straight. Although this page does not cover every dubious invention claim floating around out there, it should at least serve as a warning never to take any such claim for granted."
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The treatment of enslaved people was horrible, and could never be excused in the least. However, there were at least a couple of exaggerations/untruths presented in this video. First, there was NO effort on the part of slave owner women to rape and be impregnated by male black slaves. The stigma for a white women to give birth to a black baby would have been so negative that the entire family, not just the women, reputation would have been ruined (not so, with white male slave owners raping black female slaves, which is well documented). In fact, if a baby were produced between a white woman and black slave, the baby would have been considered free and would have been no benefit to the slave owners.
Second, though it's true that Delphine LaLaurie abused her slaves severely, it was by chaining them and beating and whipping them for long periods of time. Such horrible abuse and torture is bad enough and need not be embellished. However, the graphic account in this video is based on two fictional accounts, in order to sensationalize the story (and sell books). Both accounts were proven to have had NO source but were complete fabrications.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I'm amazed at all the outrage expressed by so many in the comments section. And yet, the same thing, in a way, is still happening today (but without all the outrage). During the 60-80's, in Scandinavia, the practice of sterilizing undesirable people (usually mentally deficient) was a government program. Iceland recently claimed to have "cured" Down's Syndrome. How? By aborting babies with that condition (and pressuring the mothers to do so, many saying later, it was against their will). Abortion is already rampant everywhere and used to eliminate the undesirable (usually as determined by the mother). Btw, Planned Parenthood, was initially set up to abort the undesirable, including undesirable races. Black babies are aborted in the hundreds of thousands (and specifically targeted by Planned Parenthood). People are getting artificially inseminated with the sperm of men with a preferred phenotype (with blond hair and blue eyes, fair skin, and height, being at the top of the preferred list). My family is basically Norwegian/German and even something as innocuous as my blond wife (when she was single) and blond adult children, are often aggressively pursued, just for their phenotype (and have been told so by those pursuing them). My Italian/Greek brother in law said he pursued my very blond sister, just for her hair.
Btw, my very Nordic (and stunningly beautiful) mom was born in 1942 and when she took a dna test, along with her brother, her's came out to be about half Norwegian half Germanic Europe, whereas her brother's (same test, same time) came out entirely different (and looks nothing or very little like her siblings). The idea of her being a secretly adopted Lebensborn child popped into my head for about 2 seconds (her uncle actually help liberate an area which had a Lebensborn home), until I reminded myself she looks just like her Norwegian grandmother.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@user-bw5nc Most of the time you ask POC to share examples of the "racism" they've had to endure, they claim it's so"subtle," that they have come up with term to describe it: "micro aggressions." In fact, it's so subtle, it's hard to explain. What's really happening is that POC have been taught to be the victim so long and that the "whites" are out to get them, that you see "racsim" everywhere, including in places it isn't. If you feel mistreated in any way... "RACISM." If you think someone else was treated better than you... "RACISM." A common complaint of POC is when some white person asks, "Where are you from?" Meaning, where are your ancestors from or what is your heritage. For some reason, POC are so offended by this and you call it racist. I'm often asked this same question, even by other white people and I'm not the least bit offended. Poeple are just curious. In reality, you're just suffering from an inferiority complex.
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Here's what a people with the world's biggest racial inferiority complex do. 1) They first envy your heritage. 2) Then they fantasize about having your heritage with you. 3) Then, they take your heritage and deny that it's even your heritage anymore. Over the last few decades, blacks have been doing this same thing with the following peoples: Egyptians, Japanese, Chinese, British, Anglo Saxons, Celts, Vikings, Russians, European nobility, all Europeans, Jews, all Israelites, native Americans. In fact, I think the only heritage they won't claim is AFRICAN.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The main reason why Germans have been so demonized since the war, is political. It actually started during world war 1. Long story, short, when Germany united under Bismarck, some other countries were worried about it becoming to powerful. America was brought into the war against Germany for that reason. However, America and Germany were not natural enemies (a lot of Americans were of German heritage and many Americans wanted to support Germany during the war) so propaganda was created to demonize not just Germany, but Germans as well. This same propaganda continued into world war 2 but also for one more reason. As you know, the far left socialists and far right socialists battled for supremacy in Germany before the war. The far right (Nazis) won. But, as a a result of their loss in the war, the far left socialists took over and in order to win the population over to their side, demonized not just the Nazis, but any sense of national or ethnic pride of the German people, but associating those things only with Nazism. By, breaking down Germans sense of national and ethnic identity and pride (even being embarrassed to be German), they were ripe for being manipulated into accepting an EU. And, by extension, the same thing has happened in the US. In the media (movies, etc.) Germans are always the villains, and are associated with Nazim and nation and ethnic white pride. By demonizing them, they're really demonizing "The West" (traditional, white, Christian, family orientated, conservative people), even though they bear almost no resemblance. Any way, most anti German sentiment and propaganda, is political and can be traced back to these things.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I agree and it's true that the US government played a role in the destruction of the black family. It was mostly accomplished through targeted government welfare programs, which resulted in the need for black fathers and completely destroyed their purpose as men and fathers. So, the solution ISN'T MORE OF THE SAME (i.e. more government programs, more welfare, free hand-outs, reparations, etc.), because THAT was the cause in the first place. The solution is to do just opposite (remove all of government programs, free hand-outs, quotas, welfare, etc.). If you want to completely destroy the black family (by destroying the purpose and manhood of black men/fathers), reparations would accomplish that completely.
1
-
1
-
@sublimnl1 Here's what a people with the world's biggest racial inferiority complex do. 1) They first envy your heritage. 2) Then they fantasize about having your heritage with you. 3) Then, they take your heritage and deny that it's even your heritage anymore. Over the last few decades, blacks have been doing this same thing with the following peoples: Egyptians, Japanese, Chinese, British, Anglo Saxons, Celts, Vikings, Russians, European nobility, all Europeans, Jews, all Israelites, native Americans. In fact, I think the only heritage they won't claim is AFRICAN.
1
-
1
-
Of course he wants to believe that AA freed themselves, instead of white people, so that he can rid himself of his inferiority complex towards whites. The only way to do so is to grossly exaggerate the relative contribution of AA compared to white Americans. The actual numbers are 2,489,836 white soldiers. 178,975 African American soldiers. But in addition, it was primarily white Americans who made up the effort to free black slaves, including those not on the battlefield. If white people were mainly responsible for freeing AA, then it makes AA seem incapable of freeing theselves and that they have always been dependent on white people for pretty much everything. So, if history makes you feel bad, no problem. Change history.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@benyahudadavidl You got one thing right, though. We're not supposed to tell and I could get in big trouble for this but the truth is white people (especially blond Nordic people***) come from another planet. Our ancestors came to earth, actually, only about 1000 years ago. They decided to settle in Europe because it was by far the most advanced civilization at the time. But, in order to pull it off, they had to eliminate the native negro population and then just replace them by appropriating their identities (after tricking the negro Europeans into teaching them all they knew, first). However, our ancestors thought that in the future, their descendants might be able to use the descendants of those negroes as slaves, so instead of just killing them outright, most of them were just transported to sub saharan africa, where they were made to forget their history, technology, their language, even their names, so they'd think they were just a primitive native african people. Our plan worked perfectly until recently when black people started to put 2 and 2 together and figure things out.
Well, we had a good run but our people are starting to talk about returning to the home world. We hid our spaceships in oceans and lakes (why do you think white people love to have their vacation homes near bodies of water?) and are getting them ready for our return.
* All white people are descended from our alien ancestors but darker Europeans mixed with indigenous earthlings which is why they're darker now. However, blond Nordic people (Scandinavians, etc.) are pure descendants of these alien ancestors. It's not been easy to keep our ancestry pure, but there have been a lot of attempts over the centuries (the nazis, American eugenics, just to name a few).
1
-
1
-
I agree and it's true that the US government played a role in the destruction of the black family. It was mostly accomplished through targeted government welfare programs, which resulted in the need for black fathers and completely destroyed their purpose as men and fathers. So, the solution ISN'T MORE OF THE SAME (i.e. more government programs, more welfare, free hand-outs, reparations, etc.), because THAT was the cause in the first place. The solution is to do just opposite (remove all of government programs, free hand-outs, quotas, welfare, etc.). If you want to completely destroy the black family (by destroying the purpose and manhood of black men/fathers), reparations would accomplish that completely.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Your claim of the descent of all European is quite flawed, if you're referring to western and north western Europeans. Eurasian (specifically Ancient Northern Eurasian), yes, but not "Turkic" or "Mongol." Europeans descend from western hunter gatherers, Yamnaya (which is where the ANE ancestry comes from, and "Early Neolithic Farmers."
Btw, the "Eurasian" isn't the same as modern east asian. The Eurasian were Caucasian and in fact were phenotypically Northern European (often quite tall, even often with blond hair and blue eyes). Look up "Ancient Northern Eurasians." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_North_Eurasian
In fact, they've found mummies that are purely descended from ANE that you can see for youself (Look up Tarim Basin Mummies).
Btw, if you're from Northern Europe but have the phenotype you described, depending on the region, it's likely due to either having Sami ancestry (who, of course, aren't European but east asian) or, in the case of some British people, gaelic or pictish ancestry. Or, you personally might have more recent Turkic or Mongol ancestry from a recent immigrant ancestor.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@victor_bueno_br I appreciate your very thoughtful and respectful reply. My intent, btw, was never to dictate to you regarding your choice of religion, however, if I may add this one thing. Christianity is truly for all, no matter your heritage, and you would never have to try and "fit in." To "fit in," your heritage just needs to be a son of God, which you already are. Btw, not that it matters, but your Iberian ancestors have been Christian a lot longer than my Scandinavian ancestors. I wish you well.
1
-
@victor_bueno_br "I find quite interesting that I, an outsider to your culture, believe more in the divinity of Odin than you, which for me is puzzling." Good question. Especially in a forum dealing with Norse paganism (like, why would I be here?). I studied Norse mythology in college and for years since (also, Norse mythology was always a part of my culture growing up. Though American, my family is from a Scandinavian settlement). My purpoes has been to find certain truths contained within, even if I don't find it to all be true. Btw, in some ways, there could be some truth to your comment about "the same deities presenting themselves to different cultures." I believe that most cultures have a remnant of the true religion and true God, but have retained or modified different aspects due to their culture, preferences, or just lost truths over the centuries. I believe Norse "paganism" is largely a remnant of a more ancient religion and church (which I claim to be a member of, which is Christian but not mainstream or Nicene based Christianity). Scholars have always recognized Christian elements in Norse paganism and mythology, but have always attributed as due to the Christian elements being inserted after the introduction of Christianity to the Norse people. I'm sure that could be true, to a degree, but I also believe there are many Christian elements that predate the Christianization of the Norse. Part of my evidence is due to the elements that are absent from mainstream Christianity but are unique to MY religion, but that are also present in Norse mythology. I'll share an example, if you're interested.
1
-
1
-
I don't know too much about my Danish and Norwegian relatives' activities during the war, however, I've read letters between them and my Scandinavian American grandparents where they expressed their fear of the Soviet communists, especially the Soviet attempt to take over Scandinavia post war. I don't make any excuses for any Scandinavians who betrayed their countrymen (for which there is NO excuse), however, the main motivation for many of those who joined with the Germans during the war to fight against the Soviets, did so because of their anti communist beliefs and fear of communist aggression, which, we can't deny, was real and serious (they would have taken over Scandinavia if they could have, like the rest of eastern Europe). Most of them were young and naïve, and weren't able to discern the threat of both the communists and and Nazis. Just the communists. Most of them thought they were also fighting to protect their homeland. The fact that both the Danish and Norwegian governments actively promoted such collaboration, contributed to their misguided participation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I know this is old but this isn't "journalism" but is clearly a biased attempt to weaken English identity. Certainly the result annalysis had an agenda (exaggerating the least likely non-European explanation) but I suspect even the initial results were also manipulated. It has been shown that in other examples with a similar biased agenda, many of these test results have been admittely falsified and manupulated. The host is clearly reveling and gloating over destroying the English identity of those tested. Clearly the host had a political agenda which was to try and weaken English identity and, likely, encourage the acceptance of non European immigrants. Some of the results of, for example, "middle eastern," may have simply been testing for mitochondrial dna which likely was simply "anatolian" which, according to history, weren't modern middle eastern people.
Given that these examples tested so high in regard to non-European dna, I suspect the results were rigged (the interpretation of the results certainly were). It's actually been reported that many DNA test results, under similar biased circumstances, have been manipulated with similar results. I'm not even British (American) but my own results are 100% European and of my British DNA results it was almost 100% England/Northwest European, with only a small fraction Scottish (incidentally, the rest of my DNA is Scandinavian). I find it highly unlikely that I as an American would be 100% European and even more English than those native English people who undoubtedly are aware of their English genealogy.
1
-
@lorenalittlejohn7379 Delusional fantasies, by someone so desperate to believe that you're some how indigenous. You're not. If you've done your genealogy, it'll show your ancestors were ENSLAVED by native tribes, not actually of native descent. This fact has been proven over and over. DNA has actually proven to be quite accurate, especially when it comes to African DNA. An AA can submit a dna sample, and without even informing the lab, get results back showing exactly where in West Africa your ancestors were enslaved before being brought to America. In fact, every AA whose submitted a DNA test, have NEVER come back as indigenous, but have always shown the majority of your dna is exactly from the regions in West Africa where the record shows your ancestors were enslaved. The fact you actually use the name of Tuskegee College of proof that blacks are native is absurd. I come from Utah, which is a native American tribe. Does that mean I'm native? No and I'm not. Not even a little.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Curious.JenJen That "truth" has never been "hidden." It's because it's not true and there is NO evidence to back up these recently invented claims. Even IF the Olmec were negro (btw, most anthropologists don't think so. Most believe they're just the ancestors of the native people who still live in the area who actually exactly resemble those stylized images, even more so that negroes, or that they might be related to polynesians who also aren't negro), so even IF the Olmecs were negro, they still aren't the ancestors of the african negro slaves transplanted here from Africa, the ancestors of ALL black Americans.
For perspective, here's a list of some of the "hidden truths" Afrocentrists have recently "discovered" (i.e. invented in order to overcome their inferiority complex): 1) That all the original European nobility were negro until white people kicked them out of their castles and stole their identities. 2) That the vikings were negro until white people replaced them all in just a couple hundred years, leaving no trace whatsoever (or that modern native blond Scandiavians are just "lightened" afrcan negroes). 3) That negroes were the original inhabitants of the UK, through the middle ages until the 16 and 1700's when all of them were transported out of the UK (leaving not trace) to the Americas (including the Carribean and Jamaca) where they were enslaved, so all those immigrating to the UK in modern times, from those countries, are just descendants of people who lived and built the UK originally. 4) the the "Black Irish" are really "negro irish." 5) that leprechauns were negro African pygmies. 6) That negroes were the first to have blue eyes and blond hair until the ancestors of Europeans from the east, killed all the men and raped the women which is why some Europeans now have blond hair and blue eyes, and 7) that virtually all of their ancestors were indigenous to the US and only 4% were from Africa. There's a lot more, but these are some of my favorites.
People with an extreme inferiority complex are often very vulnerable, just as the guy on this video describes, but it can make you extremely vulnerable and gullible to the most ridiculous ideas. Having lost and been humiliated, after world war one, the Germans suffered from an inferiority complex too. That's why it was relatively easy for some of the crazy ideas of the nazis to take hold. One of the "hidden truths" the nazis discovered was that their ancestors lived and built Atlantis until a cataclism forced them out to Europe. Even the place Atlantis is only a fantasy.
1
-
@Curious.JenJen Even his so called "evidence" is just circumstantial. "Why would they do that?" isn't actually evidence for anything, especially when you WANT to believe something. Btw, the reason negroes were transported all the way from Africa was due to the fact that Americans really didn't enslave native Americans. The Spanish did, in great numbers but eventually they all died or there just were enough of them left, or were too rebellious, so they eventually switched to african negroes because, 1) they were able get access to them easily by their being enslaved first, by their own people, and 2) they were more compliant and docile when compared with native Americans (no longer being in their native land contributed to this).
Another purpose for blacks in claiming to be native American is nothing more than for welfare benefits. You guys have been envious of the lifelong and multigenerational welfare payments made to native Americans, and you want to get on that same gravy train. The only reason why some of you THINK you have native ancestry is because your ancestors were enslaved by some native American tribes. The other notion, that blacks were indigenous, is easily refuted by the overwhelming evidence that all your black ancestors were brought by the Atlantic slave trade from Africa. If any blacks actually do have native DNA (which is actually far rarer than white Americans having native DNA), your'e still not "native" anymore than white Americans would be considered native (not even by themselves, let alone any native American tribe).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AngelGonzalez-sn4bv "but there is no law or rule saying that your ancestors have to be a certain ethnicity" That is certainly true about most mainstream religions, particularly Christianity, which specifically reaches out to all races and claims all races to equally be children of the same God. But, for most pagan "religions" this is not the case. Whether it's some indigenous polynesian beliefs, or native african tribal beliefs, or various other European pagan belief systems, they were never intended to be any kind of "world religion" or that would be proseletyzed to non members of their tribes or people. Why would you want to worship my ancestors (as a Scandinavian American, I can easily trace my ancestry to many of the Norse "dieties," including Odin and Thor, etc. Not a big deal. Any Scandinavian can)? They're my ancestors and I don't even follow that supposed "relgion." We don't know enough about what they really believed to even know what to follow. What I think you're doing is trying to follow the Nordic culture, which isn't the same as religion anyway.
Btw, Odin and Thor weren't actually gods. They were just some of my people's ancestors who probably just had retained and passed along some basic religious beliefs from an older, more original, religion.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If you want an example, regarding different ethnic groups, here's the latest from Finland: "In the Nordic countries, university admissions work solely on grades, which leaves no room to account for different student contexts. This creates inequality, as it incorrectly assumes everyone to have the same background and opportunities to receive excellent grades. In the interview, Vesa Puuronen agrees that “the Nordic university admissions system does not include any attempts to level inequalities”." So, not due to any fault of native Finns, but simply due to the fact that often different ethnic groups don't integrate well, now native born Finns, with the same or better grades, are going to be passed over in favor of non-native immigrants, or just someone of a different ethnicity. Can you imagine how this would make you feel and your identity as a Finn, when the government forces penalties on one in order to benefit another (done in the USA all the time). It pisses us off! It makes us less empathetic. It makes us distrust the government. Be less civic minded, etc. You create an environment where people become more individualistic and try to protect their own interests, even at the expense of the community. For all you people who think Iceland or Scandinavia is "magical," the "magic" is in an ethnically homogeneous community. (note: it IS possible to have all the good things you want in a society and be ethnically diverse, BUT it is only possible with a common and strong religion, which, is not a reality right now, pretty much anywhere).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I agree with everything said, with one exception. The idea of anyone, including those not of Norse (or related) descent participating in the Norse religion or community. Although this seems ok at first, even supportive, in the end, it will be the seeds of our destruction. Eventually, those not of Norse descent will start to feel like outsiders. They will try to find a way to be accepted will will include one of two things (or both). They will either rewrite history by insisting that the Norse were "inclusive" of all races and that every race were Vikings. OR, if they're not successful with that rewriting of history, they'll just try to take away YOUR identity by claiming the Norse never existed, etc. This is exactly what Bjorn is describing. This exact thing happended recently with the Anglsosaxonists. It's vice president was a black woman who, after participating in the society for so long, eventually started to feel excluded due to her race and not being of anglo saxon descent. The society is now called the society for the study of medieval history.
1
-
1
-
I get it. Many Germans, even generations after the war, were made to continue to feel guilt for it to the point where you were even ashamed to be German (prefered to be "European" instead). Though every nation should learn from it's past, personal or collective guilt is not necessary and can actually be harmful. In my opinion, I believe a lot of the motivation for this multi-generational guilt is political. After the war, by associating the Nazis with everyone on the political right (including those who have nothing in common with the Nazis), those on the political left are able to forever demonize all their political opponents. During the war, the Japanese were probably far more barbaric than the Nazis and of course, the Soviets were equally as (and certainly, the Chinese and Cambodians during their communist take overs) and yet no one of these races or nationalities are made to feel guilt for the behavioir of others of their same race or nationality (and they shouldn't). It's pretty much only Germans.
Except, it's starting to happen in America now too (again, for political reasons). Though no where to the same level, all white people are now being made to feel guilt over slavery despite the fact that most Americans don't even have ancestors who were involved in it. In fact, there are far more Americans who have ancestors who fought against slavery, than supported it, and yet we're all made to feel guilt. Nope.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@PerryLornythorinque Your English is far better than my French (I actually do speak a little and I happen to be talking to my daughter while typing this whose actually lives in France right now and speaks fluently). I never said this video wasn't necessarily inaccurate (although, the title is a little misleading, because most of those individuals really wouldn't be considered aristocrats (even if a few of them assocaited with aristocrats). Some of them weren't remakable at all, only unique, given their enslaved background and their unique circumstances. However, I will agree that what a few of them achieved, though not necessarily historically remarkable, it was remarkable, given their backgroud, that they accomplished what they did.
However, a common perspective from some segments of American society, distorts and exaggerates these examples. For example, there was a recent film made all about Dido Belle, but rather than representing the truth about her very unremarkable accomplishments or historical impact, instead made her out to be the most talented, skilled, accommplished, of supreme noble character, but oppressed, while at the same time made most of the white people out to be incompetent, naive, oppressive, bafoons. In reality, she was nothing more than a mixed race servant, but who was also cared for more so than most african slaves at the time so associated with her white cousin to a degree while they were young. Doesn't sound like a great movie but have been more historically accurate.
My original point was that many black Americans are obsessed with finding validation and self-worth by associating black people with European history, especially if they're somehow able to find a connection with the nobility. Due to being surrounded by European history for generations, they've come to believe that the only way to achieve the greatest self-worth is within the context of European history and identity. However, historical accuracy isn't as important as how it makes you feel so often these connections or their accomplishments are often highly exaggerated.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nebulanesian369 I get my knowledge of history from numerous sources. Records that correlate with and support each other from numerous divergent sources (in other words, a historical account written by one group correlates with the historical record recorded by another group in another area, both act like supportive witnesses for each other and that what they've recorded is largely true), supporting scientific and anthropological and archeological evidence which also support each other as well as the historical record (for example, every dna test ever conducted of every Norse/Viking burial all show white European dna that perfectly matches that of their modern descendants in Scandinavia (and in a few cases, other Northern European people), my own family's records and documentation, which can be traced all the way back several generations in Europe and include genealogical records (going back hundreds, even well over a thousand years), journals, portraiture (I have paintings and statuary of my direct ancestors that I've seen), even oral histories that have been passed down to myself, that are more than a couple hundred years old. for starters. Btw, my own dna matches dna taken from Viking/Norse burials from over a thousand years ago. On the other hand, if you''re black, every black (american) dna test ALWAYS, shows your dna originated in west Africa, EXACTLY FROM WHERE THE HISTORICAL RECORD SHOWS YOUR ANCESTEORS WERE ENSLAVED (even down to the very west african tribes). See, that's how an understanding of true history works, one thing corroborating another.
Where do you get your "knowledge" of history, besides from your own fantasies? From a few videos on the internet made by a few Afrocentrists, who have NO connection to Europe, past or modern, and whose comprehension of European history (and terminology, including an understanding of the word "swarthy") is influenced by the world's biggest inferiority complex and resulting bias?
If you were an honest searcher for true history, just go ask a European what the definition is of the word "swarthy." He'll laugh at you if you claim it means black negro.
1
-
Btw, I can see why so many of you delusional afrocentrists think you can just claim European heritage, just based on your original statement. You referenced "primary source material" and I'm sure you assume that white Europeans just have never read those things and that our knowledge is just limited to what we learned in elementary school. The fact that you're that delusional corroborates your absurd claims. I've personally, as have probably the majority of Europeans, read vast amounts of "primary source" material. We have entire courses of study in universities that use source material in their entirety, from every area and period of European history. Do you honestly think we're not aware of our own history? Europeans (in Europe or America), despite some exceptions, are EXTREMELY aware of our history and heritage. In many cases, we've maintained a connection to even our distant ancestors for hundreds of years. Even many of us Americans have been to the actual houses (and castles) in Europe where our families lived for hundreds of years. One house my family lived in, just before immigrating to America, our family lived in for several hundred years and is still called by my family name as their house.
By contrast, you probably can't go very far back in your own genealogy (not your fault, if you're a descendant of slaves, which erased most of your heritage). And now, you've read a few things in a few books, taken way out of context, and combined with a personal bias, and now YOU have the gall to accuse Europeans for not being aware of our own history and that YOU, with absolutely NO connection, are now the expert in OUR history? You guys are truly the world's most delusional people.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@NatWhilc1963 Thanks for your reply. So, just to be clear, Ancestry's category of "England/Northwest Europe" is considered to be "Anglo-Saxon," rather than being a mix of all the groups that make up the ancestry of modern England? Good to know. I think you could be right because Ancestry also separates off Scottish, Wales, and Irish dna (I know that in the past, Ancestry just lumped all those into a single category but a couple years ago were able to separate them from each other).
I'm particularly curious because of my own Ancestry results. I'm an American, so more of a mix of European ancestry (though probably not as mixed as most). My results also match my family's genealogical records as well. I'm about half Scandinavian and then about 40% "England/Northwest Europe" (the balance is a mix of mostly German and Scottish). However, the results also included my Danish ancestry as a sub category of England/Northwest Europe (hard to separate the Danish from Anglo-Saxon). So, although I don't consider my self "Anglo-Saxon" (in fact, since my family is actually from a Scandinavian settlement in the US, our Scandinavian heritage was always emphasized), however, its nice to know that my "British" ancestry might actually mostly be Anglo-Saxon (therefore, related to my Scandinavian, especially Danish, ancestry). Btw, I'm very much in favor of all of you who are of Anglo-Saxon ancestry and heritage to maintain your identity. One of the best things you can do is to have Anglo-Saxon children and then pass along your culture and heritage and identity to them. Keep doing all you can.
1
-
1
-
@careytitan9097 Actually, Europeans can be quite different from each other, and with vastly different origins. And, though there's been a lot of European mixing over the centuries, making some specific identities no longer dominant for some (and therefore, impossible to be too specific), for others, even without a DNA test, also factoring in an understanding of history (as imperfect as it is), a pretty good guess can be made for a lot of people's genetic and historical identity. Perhaps not to the Iron Age but certainly, to first millennium AD (for some).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@careytitan9097 I can easily see a difference in many. There are Nordic types, there are darker non-Nordic types (don't know what they're called, "Gaelic"? I wouldn't call them Celtic, though some erroneously do) and there are mixes between the two (sometimes, even displaying all three examples within the same family, though much rarer). Though the mixes aren't able to be pin pointed to any single ancestry, the more divergent and race specific identities are more easily identifiable, even they're mixed too, in smaller degrees. Even if all are now mixed to one degree or another, you can still tell which clearly display more Nordic ancestry versus those who display more "Gaelic" (or whatever it's called) ancestry. But, are each type strictly located within definable national boundaries? Certainly not exactly, though statistically there may be more of one type in certain areas than others.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@micaelamorrigan2544 If you're ashamed of your German ancestry then you're no better than the Nazis you're condemning. The Nazis used the same racist rationale to justify the killing of Jews and others. Just because your racism is direct towards a different race, it's still racism. How on earth would someone of German ancestry be guilty of the actions of someone else of German ancestry? Also, just because one is Jewish, doesn't automatically make one immune to racism or even atrocities. Some of the most murderous people of Stalin's communist regime were Jews, who actually, during the Great Purge, targeted and killed thousands of Germans (and other foreigners living in Russia), just because they were German. And, just because those communist Jews committed atrocities and those Nazi Germans committed atrocities, doesn't make all Germans or all Jews, guilty. See how racism works now?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
That this author should put so much emphasis on a completely fictional fantasization helps illustrate the extreme racial inferiority complex felt by so many blacks. Constantly comparing yourselves to other races, just like when individuals are constantly comparing themselves to other individuals, will only result in dissappointment and depression and, often, a desire to bring down your "competition." This inferiority complex is most of the motivation behind the Black Lives Matter movement as well as this author's "anti-racism" effort (which is really extrememly racist, just anti-white, whom he want's to bring down in order to satisfy his lack of racial self-esteem). Just like with individuals, that's NOT the solution (you don't acquire self-esteem by tearing down the "poplular" kids). You acquire it by building up your self (but not at the expense of others), based on reality (not fake or a re-written reality like in "Wakanda"). The real solution to black racial "inferiority" is, 1) two parent homes with dedicated fathers, and 2) a realization of your true identity, not a worldly one based on comparing yourself to others, but by understanding that you're a child of God, and have the same potential as all His children.
Btw, on a side note, the marxists are just using your black racial inferiority complex to accomplish their drive for power. They're using you as "cannon fodder," in their war to achieve power over everyone. They want you to feel inferior so they can use you.
1
-
Here's what a people with the world's biggest racial inferiority complex do. 1) They first envy your heritage. 2) Then they fantasize about having your heritage with you. 3) Then, they take your heritage and deny that it's even your heritage anymore. Over the last few decades, blacks have been doing this same thing with the following peoples: Egyptians, Japanese, Chinese, British, Anglo Saxons, Celts, Vikings, Russians, all Europeans, Jews, all Israelites, native Americans. In fact, I think the only heritage they won't claim is AFRICAN.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Perhaps you've heard the claims: Were it not for the genius and energy of African-American inventors, we might find ourselves in a world without traffic lights, peanut butter, blood banks, light bulb filaments, and a vast number of other things we now take for granted but could hardly imagine life without.
Such beliefs usually originate in books or articles about black history. Since many of the authors have little interest in the history of technology outside of advertising black contributions to it, their stories tend to be fraught with misunderstandings, wishful thinking, or fanciful embellishments with no historical basis. The lack of historical perspective leads to extravagant overestimations of originality and importance: sometimes a slightly modified version of a pre-existing piece of technology is mistaken for the first invention of its type; sometimes a patent or innovation with little or no lasting value is portrayed as a major advance, even if there's no real evidence it was ever used.
Unfortunately, some of the errors and exaggerations have acquired an illusion of credibility by repetition in mainstream outlets, especially during Black History Month (see examples for the traffic light and ironing board). When myths go unchallenged for too long, they begin to eclipse the truth.
1
-
1
-
1
-
He probably deserved the more like a bronze or silver star, but the Medal of Honor was awarded to him due to his race. By normal Medal of Honor standards, fighting off a force of 12 men, killing four, even while wounded, normally wouldn't warrant a Medal of Honor for a white soldier (more like a bronze or silver star). By contrast, Alvin York (initially awarded only the Distinguished Service Cross till upgraded) played a key role in a key battle, personally killing between 25-35 soldiers, destroying 35 machine gun nests, capturing 132 soldiers, and saving at least dozens of lives. Or, Audie Murphy, "ordered his men to retreat to positions in the woods, remaining alone at his post, shooting his M1 carbine and directing artillery fire via his field radio while the Germans aimed fire directly at his position. Murphy mounted the abandoned, burning tank destroyer and began firing its .50 caliber machine gun at the advancing Germans, killing a squad crawling through a ditch towards him.[83] For an hour, Murphy stood on the flaming tank destroyer returning German fire from foot soldiers and advancing tanks, killing or wounding 50 Germans (though officially credited with killing 240 soldiers during the war). He sustained a leg wound during his stand, and stopped only after he ran out of ammunition. Murphy rejoined his men, disregarding his own injury, and led them back to repel the Germans. He insisted on remaining with his men while his wounds were treated."
He was still certainly heroic, though.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Iflie
Again, Swedish Vikings didn't go west and there were no Finnish Vikings. Why does Finnish dna also show up in some Japanese or Chinese people without any south asian (Indonesian, etc.) or any other possible European ancestry? You're missing an important logical point. IF it were true that some Asians had actual Finnish ancestry as a result of a supposed connection to the Norse (Scandinavians/Swedes), that connection would be so minimal that you would have to have a lot of actual Scandinavian dna first, in order to show even the smallest amount of Finnish dna. I'm mostly Scandinavian (Norwegian, Danish, and Swedish and some English) and I have NO Finnish dna. So, if a typical Viking had even a little Finnish dna, if you were descended from him, you would still show a lot more Scandinavian, long before you would have retained any Finnish. So again, it's impossible to have Finnish dna through some supposed 'Viking" connection, without also having a lot more of Scandinavian first. The only way for an asian to show Finnish (and in reality, likely not Finnish but Sami, who also live in Finland (especially so little) is by being descended from distantly related common asain ancestors.
And again, I've never heard Dutch containing any Finnish dna, though it's common to have Scandinavian (like I mentioned, my largely Dutch and German wife has a significant amount of Norwegian and Swedish but NO Finnish).
Let's figure this out. Do you have ANY Scandinavian dna? Better yet, what are all your dna percentages? If you don't have any Scandinavian, there's no way you would have any actual Finnish, even in miniscule amounts, from "Viking" (or Dutch) ancestors. Not 1 in a million chance. More like 0 in a million.
1
-
@Iflie "That would assume DNA had to include certain things to have others. It doesn't work like that." Even if you were Finnish it's extremely rare to have 100% Finnish dna without having some Scandinavian too. So, the chances of your having Finnish and no Scandinavian too, especially in the way you're claiming (through Frisian Vikings), there's no way you're actually of Finnish descent. It's literally impossible. Btw, why are you so determined to try and believe in the impossible rather than the extremely likely (and biologically proven and accepted, of common descent from asian ancestors)? Again, besides my wife, I've never heard of the Dutch having any Finnish dna. However, let's assume some Dutch have 2% Finnish. You'd have to be pretty much 100% Dutch for any amount of Finnish to even register. How much Dutch dna do you have?
On the other hand, if you have a significant amount of Baltic dna, then it is possible to have Finnish ancestry through them, without having Scandinavian dna. However, there are different kinds of Finns. If you have "Finnish" dna through baltic or eastern European it would be through eastern or Karelian Finn, which is more asian and less European, rather than western Scandinavian/Viking connected Finn (especially with no Scandinavian dna).
1
-
1
-
I think a lot of those commenting need a little perspective adjustment. So much shock, outrage, and disgust directed at this program and yet people do the same thing today and no one cares or bats an eye. People select for specific racial phenotypes all the time, whether in selecting a marriage partner or even when selection a preferred phenotype for your child, if you use artificial insemination. Statistically, the blond, blue, Nordic phenotype is still the most preferred in artificial insemination, often even by those themselves who don't possess the same phenotype. Around the world, children are killed if considered imperfect, through abortion (Iceland claims, for example, to have eliminated downs syndrome. How? Simply by aborting the babies with the condition). The only thing people aren't currently doing, as far as I know, that isn't generally accepted, is kidnapping certain children. The kidnaping happens (child trafficking) but it's generally not considered acceptable. So, nothing new here and why is everyone acting so shocked?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nealgrimes4382 When did anglo Saxon ethnic identity cease to exist and how do you define their ceasing? It couldn't have been just at the 1066 Norman invasion, since their are numerous records of their continuing in their anglo saxon identity (there were Anglo Saxons who continued to self identify and even offered some continuing, though mostly passive, resistance). So, if they're no more, when did it officially happen (I'm not looking for an exact date). Also, if being "English" is identical to being "Anglo Saxon" then only the title has been slightly altered, but the ethnic identity may still exist. Or, if English is a new identity meant to supplant the Anglo Saxon one, how are you so sure all the Anglo Saxons accepted it? Many Anglo Saxon resisted and even migrated to other locations in order to maintain their identity. Some went to Denmark. Some even went to form a new colony called New England (not in the US, but in the Crimea). And, even though many Brits would criticize this as absurd (and it is, a little), many Americans, including some founding fathers, but also many since, have traditionally considered the American Revolution as an "Anglo Saxon" revolution and rebellion against Norman rule. Of course this would be hard to justify this claim as literal and, in fact, it's probably more symbolic, but it still proves the point that, perhaps, there have always been those identifying as Anglo Saxon (even if just a glorified and symbolic way, and regardless of whether or not they were really of "pure" Anglo Saxon ancestry) and never really went away. Though I'm an American of mostly Scandinavian heritage and consider myself a Scandinavian American (and don't consider myself "Anglo Saxon" in any way), my English ancestors were part of a group of immigrants who actually did claim to be Anglo Saxon as much as they did English, even going so far as to claim having left the tyranny of the Norman rule in Britain. And, it wasn't in a racist way, but just in an anti-oppression kind of a way (again, even if largely symbolic).
1
-
@ianbirchfield5124 Good job with your response. Even though he sounds pretty "harmless" and just naive and gullible, but that's how it starts. I laughed when I first heard of these absurd and baseless claims but they're not so pervasive that they're entering some mainstream entities, academia, film, museums, etc. I read that many scholars are afraid to counter these fantasies because they're worried about being called racist and cancelled (at least one, I know of, has already been). If it's not stopped, it could eventually be impossible to stop later.
Btw, I actually used to feel bad for them too for the same reasons you mentioned, including the descendants of African slaves who had their heritage taken from them forcibly through being uprooted as they were. However, I don't feel the same sympathy I once did since their inferiority complex fueled delusions may end up overwriting true history.
1
-
@ianbirchfield5124 I'll also mention that it's fairly clear, at least in part, his motives for wanting to believe Europeans were black. If he's such a fan of LOTR's and wished it had black characters, he's obviously has Europe fetish and envy. This is not uncommon among non-European POC. They're surrounded by Europeans, our history, our myths and stories, our beauty standards, etc. It's only natural than many would begin to gravitate towards those things, at first, just fantasizing, wanting to believe they're somehow a part of it, appropriate it, then eventually, that white people are the interlopers who stole their heritage from them. And, their delusions know no bounds. I even know of some black folks who, as a result of European beauty standards, make the claim that black people were the first to have blue eyes and blond hair and that the Europeans stole those features from them (no matter what you believe regarding human evolution, and the "out of Africa" theory, their logic is absurd).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
So, you're actually saying that black men should stop killing each and start killing white people? Over what? There's actually no record of this ever happening with the exception of a single dubious story about what some may have done with cadavers in single medical school, which was the same thing they did to any race, not just negroes. There's no record of it happening on slave ships, or in the south. However, what this is a record of is your comment where you actually want black men to kill white people, who, ever if this ever did happen, certainly have no connection to it and are completely innocent people. I hope you realize that your very own desires will condemn you and you actually want to kill a completely innocent people, just because you're angry over a false story.
Btw, young black men ARE already killing white people. The rate of black on white murder is far far higher than the other way around. And, you know what, your attitude is contributing to it. You should be ashamed.
1
-
1
-
Very few of those non Scandinavians (and even some Scandinavians) who are drawn to Norse paganism, do so out of a sincere belief in the divinity of Odin or the tenants of it as a religion. THEY'RE DRAWN TO THE CULTURE (or, perceived culture). You can't separate Norse paganism from the culture. And, as essentially a pracitce of honoring Norse culture, traditions, and ancestors, why would any non Scandinavian (or at least, non germanic) even want to pracitce it? It's not at all like Christianity, which is meant for all people, regardless of race or heritage. It's just meant for those for whom it's their heritage.
Those non Scandinavians and non Germanics who practice the Norse religion, will eventually try to insert themselves into the heritage, because the two are inseperable. They will start by fantasizing, leading to concocting theories of just how their ancestors were really Norse (or that the Norse were really of their race). They might even, eventually, deny the Norse were even Scandinavian or Germanic. Sounds ridiculous and yet it's already happening. I've talked with a black guy who started practicing Asatru as, what he claims, his ancestor's "old ways." This has led him to claim that his one and only Norman ancestor from a thousand years ago, is the only source of his genetics and ancestry (and claims not to have any black african heritage, though it's clearly his dominant ancestry), claims the Norse were really all black/asians, and that my Scandinavian ancestors were really from Africa.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@yvngleanoa2137 Where in the world are you getting the idea they spread out to France and other kingdoms? They never went beyond Spain, though they tried, but were defeated before their attempt to enter France. They didn't even rule over all of Spain, and most of their rule was over a minority of Spain. Also, where did you get the number 900 years? It was 781 years. Also, "melanated" is a virtually useless word, because it's so subjective. It could literally mean anyone with a complexion darker than the palest of Nordic Europeans, which includes a lot of Caucasian people, including southern Europeans. Moors were, according to every historian, north African berber and arabic and weren't negro.
Also, here's the official definition of of the word, Moor:
Moor (n.)
"North African, Berber, one of the race dwelling in Barbary," from Old French More, from Medieval Latin Morus, from Latin Maurus "inhabitant of Mauretania" (Roman northwest Africa, a region now corresponding to northern Algeria and Morocco)."
Pick up book, bro.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kefabenysraal7687 Exactly. Blacks were the original Europeans who invented and built everything Europeans are given the credit for. They were the original nobility until white Europeans came and kicked them out of their castles and stole their identities and noble heritage and noble heraldry and coats of arms. UNTIL whites got enough power and then secretly, leaving absolutely no evidence, killed or captured ALL blacks and secretly shipped them to the Americas, but destroying all the records and forcing all the people in Europe and America at the time to both deny it ever happened and to never write about it or pass down oral stories to their descendants, including as especially the blacks themselves. Then, the whites destroyed or altered all the images and records of native black europeans, except of course, any records or images of blacks who were slaves transported from slave territories. And, if that weren't enough, they even dug up ALL the black graves in Europe and destroyed all the evidence (or just transposted all the graves to the Americas) so that one day, no future scientist would be able to use DNA testing to prove they existed. Clever devils, those white people. And, super hard working. That would have taken generations of hard work to do all that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jorad4887 So, it sounds like all your "evidence" is just circumstantial and anecdotal, which is very unreliable "evidence." I have circumstantial and anecdotal evidence too, which proves just the opposite, but I would never use it to prove anything to anyone (btw, I'm a Scandinavian American, whose family also comes from a Scandinavian community, who also has relatives in Scandinavia. And, even though my daughter is almost 6 foot and my son is 6'5", I would never use that as evidence for anything). Besides contemporary descriptions of the Norse and Vikings by outsiders, who described them as significantly taller than other people, including other Europeans. Scandinavians today, are also among the world's tallest people. Harold Hardrada, a Viking, was over 7 feet tall. However, the best and most reliable, evidence is the study of Norse burials, which show the Vikings to be almost as tall, on average, as modern Scandinavians and are shown to have been, on average, taller than other contemporary Europeans. However, if you've ever studied height averages, you'd understand that averages can be misleading because you can have a lot of tall people, but then a few really short people can skew your averages. Any way, if you really want to know the truth, instead of just listening to a few of your friends and calling more informed people a 'liar," you'll need to pick up a book and read it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Many Swedes naively think that they can have unlimited immigration and their way of life WON'T CHANGE. This is NOT TRUE. What makes Sweden Sweden is not the land, resources, or even it's laws. It's the PEOPLE. If you change the people, Sweden will change, and likely not in a way that native Swedes, of all different political and cultural beliefs, want. Muslim culture and beliefs, for example, are, not just different, but are in oppostition to the majority of Swedish values, and they refuse to ever intergrate. What do you thin will be the result? When they are enough of the population, they will begin to make cultural and political demands that go counter to native values. It could also eventually lead to the "balkanizaton" of Sweden. It doesn't matter if the Swedish government tries to settle muslims all over the country. The process has already begun in other European countries. Recently, a large group of French military generals sent a commucation to the French government that civil war is inevitable unless something can be done to stop the increased balkanization of France due to the unrestricted muslim immigration. Think this through, people, before it's too late. If some people are legitimate war refugees (most aren't, by far), allow them temporary safety, but repatriate them to their native countries as soon as possible.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I agree and it's true that the US government played a role in the destruction of the black family. It was mostly accomplished through targeted government welfare programs, which resulted in the need for black fathers and completely destroyed their purpose as men and fathers. So, the solution ISN'T MORE OF THE SAME (i.e. more government programs, more welfare, free hand-outs, reparations, etc.), because THAT was the cause in the first place. The solution is to do just opposite (remove all of government programs, free hand-outs, quotas, welfare, etc.). If you want to completely destroy the black family (by destroying the purpose and manhood of black men/fathers), reparations would accomplish that completely.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lac8494 "I want the source of who she bought her freedom from, Name of owner, Ship she came on, relationship to slave owner, and receipts, thank you." It's ironic how you demand such detailed proof regarding something which goes against your desired belief, but when you make the most absurd unfounded extreme claims (i.e. all the black negro nobility in Europe, and that it was so common as to be considered normal), you don't have to be held to the same standard of proof. So, be consistent. What's your proof in the same detail you require of others (btw, you won't be able to provide it, because it's not true).
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lac8494 Your last comment, "Ok, It's obvious you're an idiot, who is upset about his ws being challenged. Have you done any research for yourself or are you just a mindless sheep? I'm going with the latter, I am not saying that slavery didn't exist, what I am saying is that not all black people were slaves neither did they all come from the same place in 1619. Your assumptions are getting on my nerves, did I say my main source was the internet? You have not heard of Government records? you know Births, deaths, Marriages, migration records, war records, Burke's peerage. No sounds too much like hard work to you. Read what Benjamin Franklin, your home boy said and then research what he said and then come back with an intelligent argument, until then have a nice day and keep dreaming about slavery cos you might just get your wish, if you have "white guilt" that on you. I have no inferiority complex, in fact you're beneath me."
ALL I SAID WAS THAT YOU DIDN'T DESCEND FROM A BLACK NEGRO SCOTTISH NOBLE, BECAUSE THERE ISN'T SUCH A THING. THAT'S IT. AND, YOU STILL HAVEN'T OFFERED ANY EVIDENCE.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lac8494 "Go and research for yourself, if you had done that in the first place you wouldn't have responded in ignorance." I have. Can't find any proof for what you claim, which is why I asked YOU, THE ONE WITH THE BURDEN OF PROOF, to even just give me a specific example of what you claim***. And, yet again, like most Afrocentrists, you hide behind generalizations or try to shift the burden of proof on to anyone but yourself. So typical.
So, white people (I assume you mean all Indo-European types) didn't exist until a few hundred years ago? I give up. You figured us out and I'll finally just admit the truth. The truth is we came from outerspace on space ships, in 1805. We used our advanced technology to subdue the native earthlings (which were all black negroes), destroyed every bit of black negro history, moved into their villages and castles, took over their names and invented fake geneologies, changed all the art that depicted blacks negroes and replaced them with art depicting ourselves, and transported them all to sub saharan Africa.
***IN CASE YOU FORGET, HERE ARE MY QUESTIONS (FOR WHICH YOU WILL FOREVER AVOID ANSWERING): Who is the black negro princess? And, who is your black negro Scottish noble ancestor? I predict you'll never provide a real answer (because you can't).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@offgridprincess133 This video makes the claim that black slaves were used for leather on a large scale, starting with those on slave ships as well as in large numbers, as a general practice, during slavery. THIS NEVER HAPPENED. There is only a single account from a dubious source that a medical school used the skin of it's cadavers for a few leather products, but the same story claims to have used the skin from white people as well (you can look it up). In fact, if you read the accounts from all of history, though rare, most of the examples of human leather being used, were not from black people. This video, as well as all the videos produced by Black Journals, are meant to incite and anger black people against white people over events that, at best, are gross exaggerations, or at worst, outright fabrications. It worked on you. Because of this video, you actually fell for the claim that the use of black leather was a widespread practice, for which there is NO ACTUAL EVIDENCE (not even stories). You should read the comments in this, and all the videos made by Black Journals. Black people are so angered, they want to take revenge against all white people, even threatening to KILL them, for things they not only didn't do, but actually no one ever did. You yourself are demanding "due justice." From who? Modern white people who had nothing to do with your ancestor's mistreatment (slavery, not as human leather, which didn't happen as claimed in this video)? At slavery's height, a total of only 4.25% of people were slave owners. Most white Americans, by far, never even had ancestors who participated in slavery. On the other hand, most white Americans DO have ancestors who fought (some died) to free your ancestors. And yet, white people have never received reparations for that sacrifice (nor even a thank you).
1
-
@offgridprincess133 "Nor does it cover or pay for losses and damages incurred." Speaking of losses and damages, when are black people going to provide reparations for all the loss and damages caused by your race to this country? Unlike every other race in this country, you all have been a net loss, economically. Multi generational welfare, way over represented crime rates, incarceration rates, turning once vibrant cities and neighborhoods into ruins, the highest black on white murder rates (way way higher than the reverse), etc. Slavery was an economic net loss for this country (not even counting the Civil War). However, the black contributions to this country since slavery, is also a net loss.
Btw, don't you get why the black race, generally, are in the condition you are? It doesn't have to do with slavery. It's because of two related things. Several decades ago, the welfare carrot was dangled in front of you and you took it, hook, line, and sinker, far more than any other race or group of people in this country. The result was black men and fathers, as providers and protectors, WERE NO LONGER NEEDED. Their role was completely supplanted by the government. What happens to men (of any race) when they no longer have a purpose? They turn into a menace to society. Then, it's made worse over generations with no black men in the home, exacerbating the situation. WELFARE HAS DESTROYED THE BLACK FAMILY AND DESTROYED THE BLACK COMMUNITY. What do you think would be the result of reparations? After squandering all that unearned money, blacks would eventually be even worse off (and you'd never stop demanding more). Look what "reparations" did to the native Americans. It turned their men into ambitionless drunks and petty criminals and their communities into money sucking failures. Reparations would be the final nail in the coffin of the black family.
1
-
1
-
1
-
IT HAS BECOME increasingly popular to speak of racial and ethnic diversity as a civic strength. From multicultural festivals to pronouncements from political leaders, the message is the same: our differences make us stronger.
But a massive new study, based on detailed interviews of nearly 30,000 people across America, has concluded just the opposite. Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam -- famous for "Bowling Alone," his 2000 book on declining civic engagement -- has found that the greater the diversity in a community, the fewer people vote and the less they volunteer, the less they give to charity and work on community projects. In the most diverse communities, neighbors trust one another about half as much as they do in the most homogenous settings. The study, the largest ever on civic engagement in America, found that virtually all measures of civic health are lower in more diverse settings.
"The extent of the effect is shocking," says Scott Page, a University of Michigan political scientist.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@angelnumber_444-o9h Why don't the Anglo Saxons still exist if the Scotts and Welsh do? The Scotts and Welsh aren't purely of Scotch or Welsh ancestry. DNA has shown that English people actually do have a great deal of Anglo Saxon (and Jutish) ancestry, some even have a majority of that as their ancestry.
Your description of Welsh history could be used to describe the Anglo Saxon as well. "The "Anglo Saxon" (Welsh) were never fully absorbed into the indigenous kingdoms and retained their own identity, especially through their language and customs." English is a descendant of the Anglo Saxon language, is it not? English, just means Anglo, does it not?
"Historically, "England" (Scotland) was divided into various tribes and kingdoms, such as the Anglos and Saxons (and Jutes), before a unified kingdom." See how it works? If the Scotts and Welsh still exist, then so does the Anglo Saxon.
Btw, I'm not Anglo Saxon (though I do have some ancestry) and don't claim that identity, so I don't have a personal bias (I'm an American of mostly Scandinavian ancestry), but this just make sense to me.
1
-
1
-
@angelnumber_444-o9h Let's continue applying the same standard with your comments. IF the Norman conquest caused the end of the Anglo Saxons, then it would have caused the demise of the Scotts and Welsh as well (the Scotts were controlled by the Normans and most of Wales was conquered). And yet, we consider them to continue as an distinct ethnicity, despite their being conquered/occupied and despite their Scottish or Welsh ethnicity not remaining pure.
Regarding language, modern English is a direct descendant of the original Anglo Saxon language (even if additonal elements have been introduced. All languages do this). Btw, what language do the modern Scotts and Welsh speak? Even though there are a few pockets who retained their original language to a very small degree (though they were still influenced by English), they all both speak English, don't they? By your standard, wouldn't the Scotts and Welsh no longer exist, then? And, in fact, the modern English still speak a language that dirctly descended from the Anglo Saxon, so they're closer than the Welsh and Scotts, in regard to language retention as being a factor.
"But what’s helped them keep their unique identities is holding on to their cultures, languages, and traditions over the years, even with all the outside influences." People often assume some people don't have any culture or retained any of their original culture but that's largely due to the fact that the dominant culture of the Anglo Saxon people has been spread around the world and has become the dominant culture around the world. You seem to assume that the only people to have retained their culture are just those of more "primitive" cultures that haven't spread much beyond their own people, so it's more easily distinguished. Asking someone if they recognize Anglo Saxon or English culture would be like asking a fish if he recognizes water.
So, if the Welsh and Scotts still exist, so do the Anglo Saxon.
1
-
@angelnumber_444-o9h "the way of life and language of the Anglo-Saxons aren’t really part of modern England anymore." Sorry, but you are SO wrong. Like I said before, you just don't recognize Anglo Saxon/English culture because it's so dominated the west that it would be like asking a fish if he reconized water. The Scots may have retained a few cute little traditions, but that's nothing by comparison to the system and framework of laws that originated from the Anglo Saxons and have spread to the rest of the world (among many other things that are just taken for granted). How about the English language (despite additions, it's origins were the Anglo Saxons), which is spoken at least as a second language by the entire world. For much of the world, things that orignated from the Anglo Saxons are just consider "normal" or "everyday."
Btw, I don't consider myself Anglo Saxon (I'm a Scandinavian American, though I do have some AS ancestry too), so I don't think I have a personal bias towards the Anglo Saxons, but truth is truth.
1
-
@charleshayes2528 I think you're missing the point. I don't anyone who claims at least a degree of anglo saxon heritage (and legacy) denies the truths you mentioned in regard to the racial history of Britain. However, what is happening is that there are political forces (all in an effort to gain power) who are doing all they can to erase any sense of identity that Western Europeans have, so that they'll be less resistant to the massive changes (non-Western, non-European, massive immigration, etc.) being forced on their country. If a people don't have any kind of an identity (including an ethnic one), for many of them, there's nothing left to defend so they're easily overrun and overpower. They don't even care about the future of their descendants or their country.
Btw, you're mistaken that "no one" is trying to deny that those people even existed. It only starts small, by denying they existed as a distinct group (which, they eventually did, even before the Norman invasion, but especially during the Norman invasion), but eventually evolves into claiming that they were only a small group of oppressors, and that modern English aren't descended from them, or even things like they were "black," etc. All of these things are also being pushed. Eventually, their history won't be taught or remembered at all, which is the same as denying their existence at all.
1
-
@charleshayes2528 The results of a resent study (conducted over several years) showed that the social results of ethnic diversity were all the opposite of what those promoted diversity claim. Rather than being a strength, it has proven to be the opposite. They found people are way less likely to be civic minded, way less unified, way less lawful, way less likely to be charitable, way less freedom but way more laws, way more crime, way more corruption, way more on welfare, way more environmental problems and neglect, etc. Why is that? Because there's very little community mindedness long sightedness and way more self-interest and shortsightedness, when people don't have a community identity. Iceland, for example (and although this is starting to change) largely see themselves as a large extended family. You behave differently towards your extended family than you do to a people with whom you have no association, not connection, no history, and instead see them as alien, and protentional threats (or even hate them, especially if the media is convincing you to).
NO ONE has a RIGHT to immigrate to another country, unless invited. However, a host country does have the right (even moral obligation) to both limit and even expel immigrants if they are seen as a threat to the wellbeing of it's citizens.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I agree and it's true that the US government played a role in the destruction of the black family. It was mostly accomplished through targeted government welfare programs, which resulted in the need for black fathers and completely destroyed their purpose as men and fathers. So, the solution ISN'T MORE OF THE SAME (i.e. more government programs, more welfare, free hand-outs, reparations, etc.), because THAT was the cause in the first place. The solution is to do just opposite (remove all of government programs, free hand-outs, quotas, welfare, etc.). If you want to completely destroy the black family (by destroying the purpose and manhood of black men/fathers), reparations would accomplish that completely.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Many Danes naively think that they can have unlimited immigration and their way of life WON'T CHANGE. This is NOT TRUE. What makes Denmark Denmark is not the land, resources, or even it's laws. It's the PEOPLE. If you change the people, Denmark will change, and likely not in a way that native Danes, of all different political and cultural beliefs, want. Muslim culture and beliefs, for example, are, not just different, but completely in opposition to that of native Danes, and they refuse to ever integrate. What do you thin will be the result? When they are enough of the population, they will begin to make cultural and political demands that go counter to native values. It could also eventually lead to the "balkanizaton" of Denmark. It doesn't matter if the Danish government tries to settle muslims all over the country. The process has already begun in other European countries. Recently, a large group of French military generals sent a communication to the French government that civil war is inevitable unless something can be done to stop the increased balkanization of France due to the unrestricted muslim immigration. Think this through, people, before it's too late. If some people are legitimate war refugees (most aren't, by far), allow them temporary safety, but repatriate them to their native countries as soon as possible.
Such incompatible values and cultures can't live side by side. One will destroy the other.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Perhaps you've heard the claims: Were it not for the genius and energy of African-American inventors, we might find ourselves in a world without traffic lights, peanut butter, blood banks, light bulb filaments, and a vast number of other things we now take for granted but could hardly imagine life without.
Such beliefs usually originate in books or articles about black history. Since many of the authors have little interest in the history of technology outside of advertising black contributions to it, their stories tend to be fraught with misunderstandings, wishful thinking, or fanciful embellishments with no historical basis. The lack of historical perspective leads to extravagant overestimations of originality and importance: sometimes a slightly modified version of a pre-existing piece of technology is mistaken for the first invention of its type; sometimes a patent or innovation with little or no lasting value is portrayed as a major advance, even if there's no real evidence it was ever used.
Unfortunately, some of the errors and exaggerations have acquired an illusion of credibility by repetition in mainstream outlets, especially during Black History Month (see examples for the traffic light and ironing board). When myths go unchallenged for too long, they begin to eclipse the truth.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bigcoop3717 He never said they were black. Though he really wasn't an "eyewitness" and much and was just conjecture based on very limited knowledge and assumptions (he based all Germans on just one group he encountered from western Germany), he said they, along with much of the rest of Europe, were "swarthy," which did not mean negro then, and doesn't mean negro now. He then went on to describe other races, including negroes, using differernt terminology ("All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny"). Swarthy, a European term, refers to Europeans who resemble southern Europeans (Spanish, Italian, etc.) and even other Europeans with dark hair and "dark" features ("dark" Europeans aren't negro. They just have dark hair and eyes and olive skin). Btw, you are aware that there's a lot more to the difference between a negro and a Caucasian than just complexion, right?
Also, NO negro dna has ever been found in Europe. If the Swedes, etc. were negro, there would absolutely have to be DNA evidence. ALL DNA found in Europe, including Scandinavia, is all Caucasian and matches modern white Europeans and Scandinavians. The oldest finds in Scandinavia are 11,000 years old, were Caucasian, and modern white Scandinavians are their descendants, proven by DNA. You guys are deluisonal.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Very few of those non Scandinavians (and even some Scandinavians) who are drawn to Norse paganism, do so out of a sincere belief in the divinity of Odin or the tenants of it as a religion. THEY'RE DRAWN TO THE CULTURE (or, perceived culture). You can't separate Norse paganism from the culture. And, as essentially a pracitce of honoring Norse culture, traditions, and ancestors, why would any non Scandinavian (or at least, non germanic) even want to pracitce it? It's not at all like Christianity, which is meant for all people, regardless of race or heritage. It's just meant for those for whom it's their heritage.
Those non Scandinavians and non Germanics who practice the Norse religion, will eventually try to insert themselves into the heritage, because the two are inseperable. They will start by fantasizing, leading to concocting theories of just how their ancestors were really Norse (or that the Norse were really of their race). They might even, eventually, deny the Norse were even Scandinavian or Germanic. Sounds ridiculous and yet it's already happening. I've talked with a black guy who started practicing Asatru as, what he claims, his ancestor's "old ways." This has led him to claim that his one and only Norman ancestor from a thousand years ago, is the only source of his genetics and ancestry (and claims not to have any black african heritage, though it's clearly his dominant ancestry), claims the Norse were really all black/asians, and that my Scandinavian ancestors were really from Africa.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Here's what a people with the world's biggest racial inferiority complex do. 1) They first envy your heritage. 2) Then they fantasize about having your heritage with you. 3) Then, they take your heritage and deny that it's even your heritage anymore. Over the last few decades, blacks have been doing this same thing with the following peoples: Egyptians, Japanese, Chinese, British, Anglo Saxons, Celts, Vikings, Russians, European nobility, all Europeans, Jews, all Israelites, native Americans. In fact, I think the only heritage they won't claim is AFRICAN.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I agree that any stolen art ought to be returned if a rightful heir can be found. However, before anything should be "returned" to any potential heirs, it should be first checked if the art was sold for a reasonable price. Then, price should be compared to the price at which the art was originally purchased by the Jewish owners. They're often finding that the price at which the art was sold was at the market price at the time and are even finding out that in many cases, much of the art acquired by Jewish art dealers were at basement level prices, even lower than the price they sold it for, as a result of desperate people during the great depression. Two wrongs don't make a right.
And, in every case, even though the art is being portrayed and some kind of a long-time Jewish family heirloom, in reality, most of it was only owned for a brief period (often just a few years), and in many cases had been acquired from original owners who had possessed it for a very long time, often hundreds of years, in some cases. The Jewish heir's emotional "attachment" to the restituted art is clear in that in virtually every case, it's immediately sold it to the highest bidder. In most cases, in my opinion, the art's rightful owner ought to be the Dutch people and displayed in Dutch museums.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
While you're after reparations for slavery, shouldn't you also be getting reparation payments from your fellow Africans, who enslaved you in first place? Maybe the most equitable idea so far would be for them to repay you in the form of African land, so you can emigrate back to Africa. You guys hate America any way, and it's such a horrible place to live and so racist, so why would you want to live here? Plus, if white Americans "stole" this land anyway, by staying here, you're an accomplice, so in order to not be a hypocrite, it would be best if you all left. It's a win win for everyone.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
While you're after reparations for slavery, shouldn't you also be getting reparation payments from your fellow Africans, who enslaved you in first place? Maybe the most equitable idea so far would be for them to repay you in the form of African land, so you can emigrate back to Africa. You guys hate America any way, and it's such a horrible place to live and so racist, so why would you want to live here? Plus, if white Americans "stole" this land anyway, by staying here, you're an accomplice, so in order to not be a hypocrite, it would be best if you all left. It's a win win for everyone.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I agree that any stolen art ought to be returned if a rightful heir can be found. However, before anything should be "returned" to any potential heirs, it should be first checked if the art was sold for a reasonable price. Then, price should be compared to the price at which the art was originally purchased by the Jewish owners. They're often finding that the price at which the art was sold was at the market price at the time and are even finding out that in many cases, much of the art acquired by Jewish art dealers were at basement level prices, even lower than the price they sold it for, as a result of desperate people during the great depression. Two wrongs don't make a right.
And, in every case, even though the art is being portrayed and some kind of a long-time Jewish family heirloom, in reality, most of it was only owned for a brief period (often just a few years), and in many cases had been acquired from original owners who had possessed it for a very long time, often hundreds of years, in some cases. The Jewish heir's emotional "attachment" to the restituted art is clear in that in virtually every case, it's immediately sold it to the highest bidder. In most cases, in my opinion, the art's rightful owner ought to be the native people and displayed in native museums.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I believe YOU'RE the one affected by racism. You clearly have a personal bias. Often, I've noticed that people who are either mixed race or are of a non-Nordic race but living among Nordic people, they tend to have a racial inferiority complex. You've tried to be accepted by the majority race and considered equal but because you don't feel accepted, you instead try and destroy their racial identity which you think will result in your being accepted (if everyone is of mixed race, then you're not the exception anymore). The fact is, though every race has had some admixture in it's past, the Scandinavians are largely Nordic which is a very unique racial identity. The first Europeans weren't black. This is based on a misinterpretation of a single find that the scientists themselves have alreayd debunked. And, Norwegians haven't always been "dark." This is absurd and goes contrary to all scientific evidence. If you're Filipino (short, dark skin, hair, and eyes, asian eyes, flat face, etc.) you wouldn't fit in very well so so wonder you want to try and destroy Nordic Identity.
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