Vikings were 'model immigrants who lived happily alongside Ancient Britons'

[Beorn]

Vikings were 'model immigrants who lived happily alongside Ancient Britons'

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/03/13/article-0-03B754370000044D-371_468x286.jpg

For more than a thousand years they have had a reputation for raping, pillaging and engaging in violent conquests.
But new research suggests that this violent image of the Vikings may be a little unfair.
In fact, some academics claim that the Norsemen were 'model immigrants' who lived side-by-side in relative harmony with the Anglo-Saxon and Celtic locals.

In 793 the Vikings launched their first brutal raid on England, hacking monks to death and terrifying villagers at a priory in Lindisfarne.
But they soon became an 'integral part of the fabric of social and political life', according to academics at Cambridge University.
Dr Fiona Edmonds said: 'The latest evidence does not point to a simple opposition between 'Vikings' and 'natives'.
'Within a relatively short space of time - and with lasting effect - the various cultures in Britain and Ireland started to intermingle.'
Researchers say the Vikings should been seen as an early example of immigrants who were successfully assimilated into British and Irish culture.

A combination of new archaeological evidence and analysis of the language, literature and coinage of the period was used to come to this surprising new conclusion.
The findings appear to fly in the face of accepted theories about the Vikings and their barbarous ways.
But researchers are insistent that this is more than just an attempt to manipulate history to fit modern-day political correct attitudes.
Dr Maire Ni Mhaonaigh, who is co-organising the three-day conference in Cambridge on the subject, genuinely believes modern-day Britons today can learn from such positive immigration. :rolleyes:
She said: 'Most people's image of the Vikings centres on their arrival and disruption but that only continued for a very short period of time.
'Afterwards they started building settlements and interacting with the locals and became assimilated into their culture and influenced them in many ways.

'As such they provide a clear example of how a particular group came into a sophisticated established society and the resulting interaction was positive.

'Both societies profited and modern day people can take a lesson from this that two cultures coming together can learn from each other.'

Dr Edmonds said: 'Investigating that process provides us with a historical model of how political groups can be absorbed into complex societies, contributing much to those societies in the process,'
'There are important lessons that can be gained from this about cultural assimilation in the modern era.'

After the initial - inevitably violent - conquest, Vikings became an integral part of social and political life in Britain and Ireland between the 9th and 13th centuries, the research suggests.

It also shows the Vikings, Celts and Anglo-Saxons exchanged a lot of cultural ideas such as story-telling and ship building.

There is even evidence that suggests that Vikings adopted Christianity and intermarried with their English and Irish counterparts.
Recent studies of regional coinage from the period also show that Viking rulers developed economies influenced by cultures they encountered on arrival.


Source (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1161728/Vikings-model-immigrants-lived-happily-Ancient-Britons-claim-academics.html)


Manipulating history to further the cause of multiculturalism. What will they think of next?

[Psychonaut]

What will they think of next?

Dontcha know? The Huns and Mongols were model immigrants wherever they went too.

[Fortis in Arduis]

Haha, read the comments at the bottom of this article. I am surprised that they are even getting through. LOL

That said, when I last covered this part of history, it was suggested that history had treated the Norsemen unkindly so as to embolden the Christian cause.

[Aemma]

Yep excellent PC multicult spin-doctoring for sure.

But your average brainwashed reader will read this and go, "Awww isn't that nice. They all learned to play nicely together. :rolleyes: We can learn from history and well these people have PhDs by golly they must be right." Gimme a break!

I just wish that the modern retelling of history could be less revisionistic. :(

[Vargtand]

Okay let me get this straight.. a model immigrant is the immigrant who trough force steals from you then takes a big chunk of land and build their own culture there? and then when they are established neighbours they start to trade..

Right... sounds more like colonialism but then again if that is model immigration then I don't quite see why us natives are not allowed to violently defend our self’s... as after all that is what the natives did back then.


With the same reasoning you could call hells angels or any other such syndicate for model citizens because they are building small mafia like structures inside society.. oh maybe we can exchange ideas from them too then?

[Galloglaich]

Yep excellent PC multicult spin-doctoring for sure.

...I just wish that the modern retelling of history could be less revisionistic. :(

I hate to be "that guy", but there's plenty of evidence to suggest that the Vikingr were quite willing to integrate in varying degrees with local populations wherever they went. The historiographical interpretation (unkempt barbarians mindlessly killing everything in their path) that prevails in the mentality of so many is a dramatic oversimplification and probably stems from the fact that so many contemporary chroniclers were writing from a Christian mindset. Less biased sources (such as the Sagas, but I'd hesitate to call them "History"), show a much more complex and dynamic social psyche. Sure the Vikings were terrible, fierce, and warlike :thumbs up, but that's certainly not the sum total of their culture. They were raiders AND traders. They mixed quite frequently with the local populace in the Isles (oh no! The Vikings were Race Traitors! :eek:), and were willing to set up kingdoms that incorporated elements of the local power structure.

Where I do feel the piece is revisionist (and what most of you have commented on) lies in the sections that BeornWulfWer has highlighted in bold. The subtlety is that I don't think the piece has the "history" wrong so much per se as revising the subtext of the presentation. There is a clear social agenda underscoring the motive for presenting the piece in such a manner. That's the manipulation. End result...Niall Firth should be blood eagled.

[Aemma]

I hate to be "that guy", but there's plenty of evidence to suggest that the Vikingr were quite willing to integrate in varying degrees with local populations wherever they went. The historiographical interpretation (unkempt barbarians mindlessly killing everything in their path) that prevails in the mentality of so many is a dramatic oversimplification and probably stems from the fact that so many contemporary chroniclers were writing from a Christian mindset. Less biased sources (such as the Sagas, but I'd hesitate to call them "History"), show a much more complex and dynamic social psyche. Sure the Vikings were terrible, fierce, and warlike :thumbs up, but that's certainly not the sum total of their culture. They were raiders AND traders. They mixed quite frequently with the local populace in the Isles (oh no! The Vikings were Race Traitors! :eek:), and were willing to set up kingdoms that incorporated elements of the local power structure.

Where I do feel the piece is revisionist (and what most of you have commented on) lies in the sections that BeornWulfWer has highlighted in bold. The subtlety is that I don't think the piece has the "history" wrong so much per se as revising the subtext of the presentation. There is a clear social agenda underscoring the motive for presenting the piece in such a manner. That's the manipulation. End result...Niall Firth should be blood eagled.

Oh I agree with you wholeheartedly Gall, no ifs, ands or buts. You've hit the nail bang on the head, on all counts. It is indeed the tacit social agenda in this revisionist spin-doctoring that is most detrimental and that people will not readily grasp. People aren't taught or don't take the time to read things critically very well anymore. I guess in my own flippant way, this is what I was getting at.

Indeed current anthropological studies have shown the Vikings to be more than what they had currently been portrayed as. It's just unfortunate that the new interpretation of that which the Vikings left us as their social legacy is insiduously manipulated in a PC multicult framework is all.:(

By the way, you can be "that guy" anytime. You're a good, intelligent and very tacful "That guy". :) :D

Cheers Gall!...Aemma :)

[Treffie]

Dr Maire Ni Mhaonaigh, who is co-organising the three-day conference in Cambridge on the subject, genuinely believes modern-day Britons today can learn from such positive immigration.

But on occasions they also sided with the Celts to drive the Anglo-Saxons away.:D

[SPQR]

Hahaha! So conquest counts as immigration now? Makes sense..

[Osweo]

But on occasions they also sided with the Celts to drive the Anglo-Saxons away.:D
Yeah yeah! :p

At the siege of Chester, the attacking Norsemen had brought along a load of Irish as allies. The Mercians persuaded the Irish to stab their erstwhile Norse friends in the back (never too difficult a task with temperamental Celts...), and beat off the besiegers, thus crippled by infighting and desertion... :tongue

[Jägerstaffel]

Some of us wouldn't be here if it weren't for those race-mixing multiculturalist Vikings.

[Gooding]

Wracking my brain to find an argument, but I can't.Jägerzen's quite right..:D

[Vargtand]

Some of us wouldn't be here if it weren't for those race-mixing multiculturalist Vikings.

Yes, would not the world be a better place :p

[Jägerstaffel]

Yes, would not the world be a better place :p

Eh, screw you. :)

[Birka]

Some of us wouldn't be here if it weren't for those race-mixing multiculturalist Vikings.

I might not be understanding this correctly, but how is Nordic Viking mixing with Anglos or Saxons or Celts considered race mixing? The Nordics and Anglo-Saxons are all Germanic after all, how is that race mixing? The Celts have a disputed origin, but surely cannot be that much different from the Germanic tribes.

I know I have read many other threads about how the Celts are similar and/or different for the Germanic tribes.

[Jägerstaffel]

I might not be understanding this correctly, but how is Nordic Viking mixing with Anglos or Saxons or Celts considered race mixing? The Nordics and Anglo-Saxons are all Germanic after all, how is that race mixing? The Celts have a disputed origin, but surely cannot be that much different from the Germanic tribes.

I know I have read many other threads about how the Celts are similar and/or different for the Germanic tribes.

I don't consider it race mixing. I was saying it tounge-in-cheek in response to the idea that the recent attention paid to the fact that Vikings settled peacefully (to a degree) in the British isles is a multiculturalist ploy.

[Gooding]

I don't consider it race mixing. I was saying it tounge-in-cheek in response to the idea that the recent attention paid to the fact that Vikings settled peacefully (to a degree) in the British isles is a multiculturalist ploy.

It is a simple pattern, almost a scientific truth, that was constantly repeated in the settlement of contested lands by newcomers.Back in those days, the native inhabitants of a rich and fertile land, such as Great Britain and Ireland, would enjoy prosperity and trade. Harsher and more impoverished peoples would learn of these rich countries and begin to raid them for things they could take home with them, such as gold or slaves.The peoples under attack would record the depradations against them with understandable bitterness and more than a little poetic exaggeration.As these raiders and pirates would see that the land is a pleasant one to live on and the people already there strong and fine, they would begin to trade with them and to build up settlements.Cross cultural exchange would then take place, with each people learning about the other.Celts, Saxons and Vikings were not so dissimilar as to be physically repulsive to each other, so proper marriages would take place, not forgetting that rapine and elopment in previous ages had already effected the gene pool .One language would prevail, either the native language or that of the newcomers, but in any event, they would influence one another to a degree.I seriously doubt that after awhile the descendants of the Vikings thought of themselves as immigrants at all, although perhaps certain ancient Britons might have seen them in that light. A bit simplistic maybe, but all the same those are my thoughts about it.:D

[Baron Samedi]

Let's use the Norman invasion of England as an example of immigration :p

I certainly would not be here if it weren't for them <3

[Gooding]

Gooding will use the Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain as his example of peaceful immigration.I wouldn't be enjoying life were it not for them.:P

[Baron Samedi]

Gooding will use the Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain as his example of peaceful immigration.I wouldn't be enjoying life were it not for them.:P

Nothing really peaceful about it, but I'm assuming that was the sarcastic intent of the statement :thumb001:

[Gooding]

Guilty! :D:thumb001: I'm sure Lord Godwin would be spinning in his grave ( with hysterical laughter). :D

[Barreldriver]

I like how it said two different cultures merging as if they had no common ground I guess the Anglo-Saxons didn't use runes or honor Wodin as the Norsemen used runes and honored Odin, they had a language that shared similar roots, and the ancient Anglos came from the homelands of the Norsemen in some cases others from regions not too different in origin. What are these people trying to do? It's one thing for two different societies of similar persuasion to merge, it's another when someone of completely alien persuasion attempts to merge(more like usurp)

[Albion]

But on occasions they also sided with the Celts to drive the Anglo-Saxons away.:D

...That went well did it?... :D:p

The Vikings didn't initially settle peacefully, but it wasn't all about raids and conquest, some would have settled down as farmers and amongst the ordinary folk.
Lets not forget that both Anglo-Saxons and Vikings were Germanic peoples and still had closely related languages and cultural traits. The only major difference was religion.

However saying this I believe it is just a multiculturalist ploy yet again, whenever historians try telling us stuff we already know like this about some sort of positive aspect of immigration you know its someone whispering in their ear. :rolleyes2:


Anglo-Saxons didn't use runes or honor Wodin as the Norsemen used runes and honored Odin

They did both of those things, but switched to Christianity eventually and along with it adopted the Latin alphabet. There are Anglo-Saxon runes, but they are somewhat rarer than Norse one's.

[Liffrea]

The Anglo-Saxons most certainly did worship Woden (he is probably the most concrete deity in Old English paganism). However his relation to the Norse Odin is a long and complex question (to much to go into here), naturally we should expect differences over some 600 years or so between our Old English and Icelandic sources, religions and beliefs evolve.

The Anglo-Frisian rune futhark represents one of the three main futharks. Again there is speculation over their use (there is for runes in general) but we know for fact that the Old English used them.

[Osweo]

The Anglo-Frisian rune futhark represents one of the three main futharks. Again there is speculation over their use (there is for runes in general) but we know for fact that the Old English used them.

It's worth specifying that the futhorc was applied very readily to Christian purposes, in a VERY prominent fashion. There are HUGE monuments with Christian runic texts.

Look up Bewcastle and Ruthwell crosses. Hmm...... what else? The smaller inscriptions at Lancaster (several there), Urswick, ....... there's plenty more.

[Murphy]

So we were the real bad guys and not the invading Vikings?

[Devils Advocate]

We are being overrun by "model immigrants" today in Britain. Unlike the Vikings of old these ones worship Allah and are ethnically prone to bugger young girls and boys and cannibalise those who aren't willing to succumb to their will.

Tsk! I should apologise! I sounded terribly racist there then.

[Cato]

lolwhut

[Magister Eckhart]

American pioneers in the Western territories were model immigrants. They settled and have built hugely successful communities, and they only eradicated the native population and subjugated them for a little over a hundred years. That's a hell of a good track record by these standards.

So a "model immigrant" is someone who shows up, rapes, murders, burns, and pillages for a while, then after his reputation is established and the native people are thoroughly afraid of him, leaves and comes back with a ton more people just like him? I can see how these academics can draw parallels between the Vikings and the Pakis.

[Agrippa]

Yep excellent PC multicult spin-doctoring for sure.

But your average brainwashed reader will read this and go, "Awww isn't that nice. They all learned to play nicely together. :rolleyes: We can learn from history and well these people have PhDs by golly they must be right." Gimme a break!

I just wish that the modern retelling of history could be less revisionistic. :(

I would wish there is a time machine and you can put all those "scientists", which talk about the "peaceful past" and that "only the 20th century knew the unspeakable barbarism", in it and send them back in the times they spoke about.

Then we can watch how long they make it - even more so without changing their attitude. Would be fun to watch... :thumb001:

I'm sure the monks of Lindisfarne would have agreed with the mentioned assertions :rolleyes2:

[blan]

We are being overrun by "model immigrants" today in Britain. Unlike the Vikings of old these ones worship Allah and are ethnically prone to bugger young girls and boys and cannibalise those who aren't willing to succumb to their will.

Tsk! I should apologise! I sounded terribly racist there then.

ahhaha thought you were from vatican city? suddenly you are speaking of your of your life in England? merry christmas sir and have a ((pint)) on me :thumb001:
not to much now jhonny boy

[Cato]

So, if the Danes were such model immigrants, why did they not get along with Alfred?

The Danes were also close kin to the Anglosaxons, and many of them converted to Christianity. What say you, o sagacious article, of the hordes of Afroasiatics overrunning England now?

[Beorn]

ahhaha thought you were from vatican city? suddenly you are speaking of your of your life in England? merry christmas sir and have a ((pint)) on me :thumb001:
not to much now jhonny boy

I'm flattered you are imagining me in every dark corner, but at some point some arsehole will make you aware that you are obsessed.

I am an arsehole. You are obsessed.

[blan]

I'm flattered you are imagining me in every dark corner, but at some point some arsehole will make you aware that you are obsessed.

I am an arsehole. You are obsessed.

i would say you are an asshole and your obsessed because i do not troll every post and every comment you make, you do that to me so of course when some unknown user out of the blue attacks me after you were banned i will expect it to be you.
you do not leave me alone for a second. but yes half of your statement is true.
you are a asshole.