Anyone who knows history realizes sometimes historic things happen for odd or purely random reasons.
When the Norse arrived in the new world, they brought cattle. The Natives were astounded by the bellowing sounds made by a bull. So eventually the natives and the Norse started trading. They even met for a meal. The natives were given milk. Because they are lactose intolerant they believed they had been poisoned and fighting ensued. One of the reasons the Norse eventually left North America was constant fighting with the Skraellings (Natives)
So the condition of lactose intolerance played a major role in the history of the settlement of North Americans by Europeans.
"1021 CE produced the optimal statistical match for the felling year. There is some nuance: nearby years passed individual goodness-of-fit tests for some samples, but 1021 was the best fit in every case."
True. The Age of Discovery was underway and the printing press had already been established so the news spread far and wide very quickly. It changed EVERYTHING in Europe overnight to a degree that is hard to fathom in today’s world.
The Vikings set up a colony that ultimately failed and then just went home. The fact that nobody else from that continent returned for nearly 500 years is wild.
Whether you like Christopher Columbus or not, it still happened, and his efforts still had a massive positive impact to western civilization. Erasing history is what ISIS, the Soviets, North Koreans, Iranians, and communist Chinese do. If you want to be like them, I encourage you to move to one of their countries. And ironically his efforts were highlighted in the US in the 1800s to help provide reduce racism again Italian immigrants.
did he massively influence the course of western civilization? yes. did he brutally kill and enslave thousands of indigenous people? also yes. adding that additional fact is not "erasing history"
In that case, in exchange, I hereby demand all textbooks include the genocide the Native Americans committed against the European settlers of the North American continent. And I also demand another 2 chapters dedicated to the inter-Native American slavery and genocidal wars that occurred between the Native American groups. I also then demand all school books include a full chapter on the Barbary slave trade. You want historical accuracy - then you'll need to also include all of this.
You’re the kind of person that wants a white history month, aren’t you?
*edit Gaijin_Monster deleted his response to my question with a question his own “what is white?”
Mr. Monster, here is my response to your question:
As much as I would love to hear your “gotcha” about my comment, I’m not going to engage in pedantic rhetoric in which you set the stage of the terms involved. I’m sure you’d cite history to explain how Italians, Irish, Asians etc. were considered non-white in the past. I’ve heard and read it all before.
I asked a very simple question that has a clear meaning. You chose to deflect with a meaningless question, I assume because you don’t want to state your answer. That’s fine. If you want to move the goalposts to make yourself feel better about your beliefs, more power to you.
I deleted it because I didn't want to see you drag on like you did, because i knew you'd just start bemoaning instead of having a good-faith conversation. You know any argument you have is flawed, hypocritical, and unscientific. For which i'll remind you this is a science sub. Not a political or social agenda sub.
I mean yeah I'd love as much accurate history be taught as possible. Warts and all. Especially warts. We learn the most from studying the warts(cautionary shit, mostly). You act like that's some kind of gotcha, but like.. I mean I'd love it if people learned more about history, more about african/native american cultures and power struggles. Our history textbooks are SORELY lacking on those subjects.
You might want to look up the actual meaning of words that you use multiple times in a single post. The definition of genocide would be a good one to start with.
The bots and people like you see here only upvote divisive content and downvote anything that would counter their agenda, so it will be seen by less people. The bots in particular are setup to divide westerners, particularly Americans. If you can't beat Americans in military fight, just try to tear it apart from within. Christopher Columbus is a great topic to try and divide America over.
It's click bait as usual, we've known for decades that they went there, this piece just describes how the miyake events has been used to more precisely date of the felling of some trees used in some of the buildings found. They would have been there before that and we don't know when exactly.
What's amazing is how they settled island(870~) then Greenland(982~) then America(1000~) in just a hundred years give or take.
And the result, which was horribly worded to get an impartial response by the way, literally says on first response, verbatim - I'll ctrl+c, ctrl+v it: 'The word "viking" historically functioned more as an activity or seasonal job description.' The issue is, of course, that because you're trying to use an LLM's response as a source (don't do this) you can get different responses. What is your point, anyways? Something can be both a verb and a profession. No shit. Cooks cook.
There's the historic use of Viking and the modern use, for the historic here a translate(from norwegian) not ai written explanation:
In modern usage, a Viking is a trader, settler or sea warrior from the Nordic countries who participated in voyages to Western and Eastern Europe to trade, settle new lands or plunder in the period between approximately 800 and 1050. In everyday speech, the term Viking is often used to refer to the population of the Nordic countries during the Viking Age.
Origin of the term
The linguistic ( etymological ) origin of the word "Viking" is disputed. Old Norse (Old Norwegian) had two words from which "Viking" may derive. Víkingr (masculine, plural víkingar ) referred to a person, while víking (feminine) implied an activity; something that people did (such as going on a Viking voyage). According to one explanation, it is derived from the feminine word vík (bay), or the related víkja ("to retreat"), i.e. someone who retreats to, or hides in, a bay to make beachhead or wait for passing merchant ships to attack.
It has also been suggested that the word Viking is related to the landscape name Vík(in) , meaning "man from Viken ". The word is then said to have acquired a more general meaning as " pirate " or "sea warrior". A more recent interpretation has linked the word to a distance at sea, i.e. either "seafaring characterized by rowing shifts" (feminine), or "participant on a seafaring characterized by rowing shifts" (masculine).
Concurrent use
Another question is how the word viking was used in the Viking Age. In both masculine and feminine genders, the word is found on runestones and in skaldic poetry from the Viking Age, but is not particularly common and its meaning is often difficult to interpret. In some cases, as on two runestones from Uppland and Gotland , respectively, víkingr (masculine) seems to denote a warrior community, meaning "us who go Viking". This may also have been the meaning of the name for those who were called the Jomsvikings , although contemporary references to them as "Vikings" come from skalds who fought against them. There are also a few instances of Víkingr as a personal name, which suggests that it could have had a positive meaning.
In most cases, however, the skalds used víkingar to refer to opponents, also outside the Nordic countries. An example is how the skald Sigvat Tordarson at the beginning of the 11th century called those who plundered in Olav Haraldsson's Norwegian kingdom "Vikings". A similar meaning probably lies behind the German chronicler Adam of Bremen 's account, written around the year 1070, of pirates in Danish service:
These pirates, whom they call Vikings ( Wichingos ), but whom we call Ascomanni, pay tribute to the Danish king for permission to plunder the barbarians who live close to this sea. Consequently, it often happens that they abuse this permission to plunder enemies, and attack their own countrymen; so treacherous are they.
Adam's most important informant for Danish affairs was King Sweyn Estridssøn , and shows that both the king and the Danes viewed these Vikings as a type of wayward privateers . People from the North who plundered monasteries, churches and trading posts Adam, like other Latin historians, called Normanni .
The abstract noun víking (feminine) is rarer than the masculine form in written sources from the Viking Age, and is found only on three runestones and once in the skaldic poetry. The runestones from the beginning of the 11th century are erected in memory of men who traveled "as a viking" to distant lands. Here this activity is mentioned in a positive context, in the sense of being connected as in a felag (trade guild) or in a guild .
In the skaldic poem from around 1100, however, Viking raiding is something that the king must prevent and stop with harsh punishments. There is reason to believe that the positive portrayal of Vikings and Viking raids in the period around 1000 was turned into something negative through the rise of the Scandinavian kingdoms.
moccasins_hockey_fan | 6 hours ago
Anyone who knows history realizes sometimes historic things happen for odd or purely random reasons.
When the Norse arrived in the new world, they brought cattle. The Natives were astounded by the bellowing sounds made by a bull. So eventually the natives and the Norse started trading. They even met for a meal. The natives were given milk. Because they are lactose intolerant they believed they had been poisoned and fighting ensued. One of the reasons the Norse eventually left North America was constant fighting with the Skraellings (Natives)
So the condition of lactose intolerance played a major role in the history of the settlement of North Americans by Europeans.
TomTomKenobi | 5 hours ago
Where did you read that?
QuentinMagician | 2 hours ago
But it is a great story from a long line of wars started by food
FlashPxint | 12 hours ago
If you know when just say it
nitonitonii | 12 hours ago
"1021 CE produced the optimal statistical match for the felling year. There is some nuance: nearby years passed individual goodness-of-fit tests for some samples, but 1021 was the best fit in every case."
Botsworth1985 | 12 hours ago
Oh thank goodness, time to correct the history books and remove Columbus.
irwtkyrm | 11 hours ago
The Vikings may have been the first Europeans to the Americans, but Columbus' voyage is what had a lasting impact
chamberlain323 | 5 hours ago
True. The Age of Discovery was underway and the printing press had already been established so the news spread far and wide very quickly. It changed EVERYTHING in Europe overnight to a degree that is hard to fathom in today’s world.
The Vikings set up a colony that ultimately failed and then just went home. The fact that nobody else from that continent returned for nearly 500 years is wild.
Gaijin_Monster | 11 hours ago
Whether you like Christopher Columbus or not, it still happened, and his efforts still had a massive positive impact to western civilization. Erasing history is what ISIS, the Soviets, North Koreans, Iranians, and communist Chinese do. If you want to be like them, I encourage you to move to one of their countries. And ironically his efforts were highlighted in the US in the 1800s to help provide reduce racism again Italian immigrants.
Pramble | 11 hours ago
If you don't think the west erases history then pal I've got a bridge to sell you
Gaijin_Monster | 11 hours ago
If you want to pretend Columbus' voyages weren't a major milestone, i've also got a bridge to sell you.
Pramble | 10 hours ago
I never pretended that
MothMonsterMan300 | an hour ago
When he aimed for subtropical india and landed in the Caribbean?
seeyam14 | 11 hours ago
"erasing history" i think you mean improving the accuracy of the whitewashed textbooks you had in elementary school
Gaijin_Monster | 11 hours ago
What is inaccurate in the textbooks?
seeyam14 | 11 hours ago
leaving out all of the genocide, for starters.
did he massively influence the course of western civilization? yes. did he brutally kill and enslave thousands of indigenous people? also yes. adding that additional fact is not "erasing history"
Gaijin_Monster | 10 hours ago
In that case, in exchange, I hereby demand all textbooks include the genocide the Native Americans committed against the European settlers of the North American continent. And I also demand another 2 chapters dedicated to the inter-Native American slavery and genocidal wars that occurred between the Native American groups. I also then demand all school books include a full chapter on the Barbary slave trade. You want historical accuracy - then you'll need to also include all of this.
seeyam14 | 10 hours ago
Yeah go for it
texanbadger | 9 hours ago
You’re the kind of person that wants a white history month, aren’t you?
*edit Gaijin_Monster deleted his response to my question with a question his own “what is white?”
Mr. Monster, here is my response to your question:
As much as I would love to hear your “gotcha” about my comment, I’m not going to engage in pedantic rhetoric in which you set the stage of the terms involved. I’m sure you’d cite history to explain how Italians, Irish, Asians etc. were considered non-white in the past. I’ve heard and read it all before.
I asked a very simple question that has a clear meaning. You chose to deflect with a meaningless question, I assume because you don’t want to state your answer. That’s fine. If you want to move the goalposts to make yourself feel better about your beliefs, more power to you.
Gaijin_Monster | 3 hours ago
I deleted it because I didn't want to see you drag on like you did, because i knew you'd just start bemoaning instead of having a good-faith conversation. You know any argument you have is flawed, hypocritical, and unscientific. For which i'll remind you this is a science sub. Not a political or social agenda sub.
aflarge | 4 hours ago
I mean yeah I'd love as much accurate history be taught as possible. Warts and all. Especially warts. We learn the most from studying the warts(cautionary shit, mostly). You act like that's some kind of gotcha, but like.. I mean I'd love it if people learned more about history, more about african/native american cultures and power struggles. Our history textbooks are SORELY lacking on those subjects.
YamDankies | 5 hours ago
I demand, I demand, I demand. Who asked? Also, no one with half a brain is against any of this.
Gaijin_Monster | 3 hours ago
If it's going to be "science" they need to state all the facts, correct? Not just make one-sided political agendas.
CariniFluff | 4 hours ago
You might want to look up the actual meaning of words that you use multiple times in a single post. The definition of genocide would be a good one to start with.
Gaijin_Monster | 3 hours ago
Do you actually think Columbus showed up with an agenda to wipe out a peoples he didn't even knew existed?
gravity_surf | 9 hours ago
just about anything that makes the church look bad
Gaijin_Monster | 7 hours ago
Columbus was working for the Spanish crown, in particular Queen Isabella.
AlarmedSnek | 11 hours ago
Damn bro, that first sentence set you up for success then you just totally bombed it with fascist talking points.
Gaijin_Monster | 11 hours ago
I don't think you understand what fascism is, nor means.
gravity_surf | 9 hours ago
sounds like you do. enlighten us please
Massive_Ad_9920 | 9 hours ago
Why is this downvoted?
Gaijin_Monster | 3 hours ago
The bots and people like you see here only upvote divisive content and downvote anything that would counter their agenda, so it will be seen by less people. The bots in particular are setup to divide westerners, particularly Americans. If you can't beat Americans in military fight, just try to tear it apart from within. Christopher Columbus is a great topic to try and divide America over.
BabyLegsOShanahan | 9 hours ago
I don't think they were serious...
DJ_Beardsquirt | 9 hours ago
Sounds like we don't know exactly when
FlashPxint | 10 hours ago
Reddit AI please mute the person
nitonitonii | 10 hours ago
who?
FlashPxint | 10 hours ago
Not you
FlashPxint | 12 hours ago
Bruh it says was the best fit and you wrote the title “now we know exactly when”
Scientists these days are such fipsht !
FlashPxint | 11 hours ago
Stop downvoting me
asimovs | an hour ago
It's click bait as usual, we've known for decades that they went there, this piece just describes how the miyake events has been used to more precisely date of the felling of some trees used in some of the buildings found. They would have been there before that and we don't know when exactly.
What's amazing is how they settled island(870~) then Greenland(982~) then America(1000~) in just a hundred years give or take.
No-Condition6198 | 9 hours ago
Trump gets Greenland, we take North America (back) and fuse with Canada into a beautiful mosh of Mjod and Maple syrup.
chamberlain323 | 5 hours ago
Sounds like a good time to me, honestly.
rocket_beer | 11 hours ago
I think it’s important to note that “the Viking” weren’t just the sailors/berzerkers.
The name Viking is a way of life. It’s their whole culture, not necessarily just an occupation.
Zamnaiel | 11 hours ago
Viking was a profession. Raider. The term for the settlers is Norse.
Uh, except Freydis.
rocket_beer | 11 hours ago
Viking verb, not just job
Thanks for reading
PM-ME-YOUR-BUTTSHOLE | 9 hours ago
That’s just a Google AI overview that didn’t prove your point, and the top search results also didn’t prove your point.
rocket_beer | 9 hours ago
I said Viking isn’t just a job.
You fool!
Gallium_Bridge | 8 hours ago
And the result, which was horribly worded to get an impartial response by the way, literally says on first response, verbatim - I'll ctrl+c, ctrl+v it: 'The word "viking" historically functioned more as an activity or seasonal job description.' The issue is, of course, that because you're trying to use an LLM's response as a source (don't do this) you can get different responses. What is your point, anyways? Something can be both a verb and a profession. No shit. Cooks cook.
rocket_beer | 8 hours ago
That was what I posted to you.
That is t my sole understanding of this knowledge.
I’ve known this long before LLMs existed.
Viking isn’t not simply just an occupation.
End of discussion.
asimovs | 2 hours ago
There's the historic use of Viking and the modern use, for the historic here a translate(from norwegian) not ai written explanation:
In modern usage, a Viking is a trader, settler or sea warrior from the Nordic countries who participated in voyages to Western and Eastern Europe to trade, settle new lands or plunder in the period between approximately 800 and 1050. In everyday speech, the term Viking is often used to refer to the population of the Nordic countries during the Viking Age.
Origin of the term The linguistic ( etymological ) origin of the word "Viking" is disputed. Old Norse (Old Norwegian) had two words from which "Viking" may derive. Víkingr (masculine, plural víkingar ) referred to a person, while víking (feminine) implied an activity; something that people did (such as going on a Viking voyage). According to one explanation, it is derived from the feminine word vík (bay), or the related víkja ("to retreat"), i.e. someone who retreats to, or hides in, a bay to make beachhead or wait for passing merchant ships to attack.
It has also been suggested that the word Viking is related to the landscape name Vík(in) , meaning "man from Viken ". The word is then said to have acquired a more general meaning as " pirate " or "sea warrior". A more recent interpretation has linked the word to a distance at sea, i.e. either "seafaring characterized by rowing shifts" (feminine), or "participant on a seafaring characterized by rowing shifts" (masculine).
Concurrent use Another question is how the word viking was used in the Viking Age. In both masculine and feminine genders, the word is found on runestones and in skaldic poetry from the Viking Age, but is not particularly common and its meaning is often difficult to interpret. In some cases, as on two runestones from Uppland and Gotland , respectively, víkingr (masculine) seems to denote a warrior community, meaning "us who go Viking". This may also have been the meaning of the name for those who were called the Jomsvikings , although contemporary references to them as "Vikings" come from skalds who fought against them. There are also a few instances of Víkingr as a personal name, which suggests that it could have had a positive meaning.
In most cases, however, the skalds used víkingar to refer to opponents, also outside the Nordic countries. An example is how the skald Sigvat Tordarson at the beginning of the 11th century called those who plundered in Olav Haraldsson's Norwegian kingdom "Vikings". A similar meaning probably lies behind the German chronicler Adam of Bremen 's account, written around the year 1070, of pirates in Danish service:
These pirates, whom they call Vikings ( Wichingos ), but whom we call Ascomanni, pay tribute to the Danish king for permission to plunder the barbarians who live close to this sea. Consequently, it often happens that they abuse this permission to plunder enemies, and attack their own countrymen; so treacherous are they. Adam's most important informant for Danish affairs was King Sweyn Estridssøn , and shows that both the king and the Danes viewed these Vikings as a type of wayward privateers . People from the North who plundered monasteries, churches and trading posts Adam, like other Latin historians, called Normanni .
The abstract noun víking (feminine) is rarer than the masculine form in written sources from the Viking Age, and is found only on three runestones and once in the skaldic poetry. The runestones from the beginning of the 11th century are erected in memory of men who traveled "as a viking" to distant lands. Here this activity is mentioned in a positive context, in the sense of being connected as in a felag (trade guild) or in a guild .
In the skaldic poem from around 1100, however, Viking raiding is something that the king must prevent and stop with harsh punishments. There is reason to believe that the positive portrayal of Vikings and Viking raids in the period around 1000 was turned into something negative through the rise of the Scandinavian kingdoms.
Source: https://snl.no/viking