Native American legends about the Vikings

[+Pettytalk]

11 minutes ago, Oniomancer said:

Why/how would they have borrow/copied something they wouldn't have known how to reproduce, esp. when they had perfectly serviceable if not superior ones of their own? 

Your motto is to question everything, right? Therefore I'm questioning here. "When you're out of Schlitz, you're out of beer". When one is out of facts it's all bull crap....no one was born in this world knowing things, as we all forget what we know when we come here. How does anyone produce that which we are not knowing at first? If the natives had superior ones they would still be owning their native lands. Although they seem to be rebounding against the invaders, as their casinos are taking back some of what they lost. 

[Oniomancer]

4 minutes ago, Pettytalk said:

Your motto is to question everything, right? Therefore I'm questioning here. "When you're out of Schlitz, you're out of beer". When one is out of facts it's all bull crap....no one was born in this world knowing things, as we all forget what we know when we come here. How does anyone produce that which we are not knowing at first? If the natives had superior ones they would still be owning their native lands. Although they seem to be rebounding against the invaders, as their casinos are taking back some of what they lost. 

I submit in turn that if the vikings and their European tech were so great, how come we aren't all speaking Danish? I'm sure you're familiar with the later story of squanto and the miracle of the loaves and fishes. No wait, wrong story.

[+Pettytalk]

2 hours ago, Hanslune said:

Wow a 'Norse' denier haven't come across one of those in over a decade - congrats.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L'Anse_aux_Meadows

https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/nflds/article/view/140/236

http://www.angelfire.com/nf/mcarey/fullcircle/LAM.html

One of my professors had a teacher who had been against the idea of Norse being here and that the sagas were just stories - when the site above was found he led the fight to denounce it and lost - badly. He felt that the NA had gone to Iceland and Greenland and taken the materials then set up a Norse style settlement........

The Norse in the Americas is a done deal - good luck trying to reverse it.

If that is the case, so is Atlantis in America a done deal too. And no one needs luck if one has the facts, or the people to celebrate it. When we start to commemorate Leif Ericson's day in the USA then I may begin to wonder about it.

[Hanslune]

7 minutes ago, Pettytalk said:

If that is the case, so is Atlantis in America a done deal too. And no one needs luck if one has the facts, or the people to celebrate it. When we start to commemorate Leif Ericson's day in the USA then I may begin to wonder about it.

 

You're just being silly

[+Pettytalk]

6 minutes ago, Oniomancer said:

I submit in turn that if the vikings and their European tech were so great, how come we aren't all speaking Danish? I'm sure you're familiar with the later story of squanto and the miracle of the loaves and fishes. No wait, wrong story.

No wrong story, just a wrong person to deal with, you! We do speak 60% Latin..... Besides, Danish, much like the German language, is too barbaric and harsh sounding for the style and finesse needed to express higher thoughts. And for your information, the 5 loaves and the two fish story rings much truer than this Viking nonsense. 

[+Pettytalk]

2 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

You're just being silly

Truly we all all silly in discussing these things.

[Hanslune]

Just now, Pettytalk said:

Truly we all all silly in discussing these things.

Well it is April 1st

[Hanslune]

5 minutes ago, Pettytalk said:

No wrong story, just a wrong person to deal with, you! We do speak 60% Latin..... Besides, Danish, much like the German language, is too barbaric and harsh sounding for the style and finesse needed to express higher thoughts. And for your information, the 5 loaves and the two fish story rings much truer than this Viking nonsense. 

Sorry I deny your denial.

[+Pettytalk]

If we take the silliness out of the picture, what good is going to come out of all the discussions here? Are we going to, seriously, settle anything that has not already been settled already? Are we going to bring out new facts, and also slay old falsehoods? It's all in jest so as to get a laugh or two out of each other's silliness. If we take each other seriously, it will ruin the fun and puns intended.

[+Pettytalk]

1 minute ago, Hanslune said:

Sorry I deny your denial.

Don't be sorry, be happy! Happiness should be the Mecca of all our pursuits. I deny anything that does not make me happy!

[Piney]

32 minutes ago, Pettytalk said:

Your motto is to question everything, right? Therefore I'm questioning here. "When you're out of Schlitz, you're out of beer". When one is out of facts it's all bull crap....no one was born in this world knowing things, as we all forget what we know when we come here. How does anyone produce that which we are not knowing at first? If the natives had superior ones they would still be owning their native lands. Although they seem to be rebounding against the invaders, as their casinos are taking back some of what they lost. 

2/3rds of our population was wiped out before settlement. It was more a lack of manpower and casinos have done nothing but caused strife. 

[Hanslune]

4 minutes ago, Piney said:

2/3rds of our population was wiped out before settlement. It was more a lack of manpower and casinos have done nothing but caused strife. 

I thought Americas wide it was nearer to 90%? That amount of rapid death loss disrupted the cultures to a point most did not recover their earlier levels of culture.

[Piney]

2 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

I thought Americas wide it was nearer to 90%? That amount of rapid death loss disrupted the cultures to a point most did not recover their earlier levels of culture.

Between 75 to 90 percent is the estimate. With site destruction and looting for 200 years we will never had a true estimate. I always go "low ball".

One of the reasons I don't trust this guy on that new show that was posted above is because he was a lowly DOT archaeologist. They like to bury, wreck and add their own spin to things.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/blue-nelson-37805038

Also he was nothing more than a USAF SP and makes himself out to look like SF. He guarded planes and rounded up drunks. Whoopy Ding!

 

[+Pettytalk]

2 minutes ago, Piney said:

2/3rds of our population was wiped out before settlement. It was more a lack of manpower and casinos have done nothing but caused strife. 

White man diseases brought over decimated 2/3 of the native population at times. Besides, the natives were worst than the Greek city-states, as they warred with each other even more fiercely, thereby destroying themselves more than by the white man's actions. At least the Greeks tried to united themselves at key times, by putting on hold their strife, as some united to fight off non-Greek invaders. The Native Americans did not ever come close to present a common front to the Europeans, except perhaps at Little Big Horn. But that was too small and much too late. But then again, if the natives had prevailed, we would not have Atlantis today at fifty stadia.

Many Native American tribes experienced great depopulation, averaging 25–50 percent of the tribes' members lost to disease. Additionally, smaller tribes neared extinction after facing a severely destructive spread of disease.^[2] The significant toll that this took is expounded upon in the article Population history of indigenous peoples of the Americas. A specific example was Cortes' invasion of Mexico. Before his arrival, the Mexican population is estimated to have been around 25 to 30 million. Fifty years later, the Mexican population was reduced to 3 million, mainly by infectious disease. This shows the main effect of the arrival of Europeans in the new world. With no natural immunity against these pathogens, Native Americans died in huge numbers.

[travelnjones]

On 3/31/2019 at 12:45 AM, Captain Risky said:

so why didn't the early Norse settlers infect the natives with diseases, conquer them with steel and take advantage of all the raw materials and resources of the new world? 

Much of the European diseases where related to people living closely with livestock.  Which was a little less common in the north.  Also vikings has basic hygiene, the combs, ear scoops and what not.  I think that was how they fought so effectively, its easy to kick someones ass who has a cold. 

[Oniomancer]

25 minutes ago, Pettytalk said:

No wrong story, just a wrong person to deal with, you! We do speak 60% Latin..... Besides, Danish, much like the German language, is too barbaric and harsh sounding for the style and finesse needed to express higher thoughts. And for your information, the 5 loaves and the two fish story rings much truer than this Viking nonsense. 

Guess it's safe to say you're not a fan of Kierkegaard then.

[Tatetopa]

It sounds a lot more noble to the European ear to speak of superior minds and technology.   It doesn't go so well when you point out that a lot of our success across the world was due to our being plague rats.  We brought the filth and diseases of our civilization with us.  That did a lot of the work foe us.

 

Makes me wonder if the Cro Magnon triumph over other human cousins was down to the same thing; coming out of Africa with a host of diseases for which those we met had no immunity. 

[Tatetopa]

4 minutes ago, Pettytalk said:

The Native Americans did not ever come close to present a common front to the Europeans, except perhaps at Little Big Horn. But that was too small and much too late.

Well you might consider that much of the American system of government was based on Indian systems of Confederacy and representation.  Iroquois among others had something to offer.

One of our big advantages over the Indians is that early on they did not understand that we did not just want to make a war but to totally obliterate them. 

[+Pettytalk]

Were there any native Americans with this disease before Columbus arrived?

The Vikings and Baron Dupuytren's disease

Dupuytren’s disease (DD) is an ancient affliction of unknown origin. It is defined by Dorland as shortening, thickening, and fibrosis of the palmar fascia producing a flexion deformity of a finger. Tradition has it that the disease originated with the Vikings, who spread it throughout Northern Europe and beyond as they traveled and intermarried. After being present for hundreds of years, DD was named in the 19th century after a famous French surgeon, who was not the first to describe it. This article reviews the history of DD and describes its incidence, clinical manifestations, and treatment.

Dupuytren's most often occurs in males over the age of 50.^[2] It mostly affects white people and is rare among Asians and Africans.^[7] In the United States about 5% of people are affected at some point in time, while in Norway about 30% of men over 60 years old have the condition....

[Piney]

28 minutes ago, Pettytalk said:

the natives were worst than the Greek city-states, as they warred with each other even more fiercely, thereby destroying themselves more than by the white man's actions.

That was the Iroquoian Tribes. Corn was burning up the fields and there was a 200 year old drought. They were fighting over resources. Algonquians didn't fight each other. Although we did chase the Lakota-Dakota off their rice paddies. 

 

[Piney]

34 minutes ago, Pettytalk said:

White man diseases brought over decimated 2/3 of the native population at times. Besides, the natives were worst than the Greek city-states, as they warred with each other even more fiercely, thereby destroying themselves more than by the white man's actions. At least the Greeks tried to united themselves at key times, by putting on hold their strife, as some united to fight off non-Greek invaders. The Native Americans did not ever come close to present a common front to the Europeans, except perhaps at Little Big Horn. But that was too small and much too late. But then again, if the natives had prevailed, we would not have Atlantis today at fifty stadia.

 

Europeans were warring all over the continent over religion during the same time period. We were just warring over food in a limited fashion.

It was disease that got us. Not our "barbarity". 

[+Pettytalk]

10 minutes ago, Oniomancer said:

Guess it's safe to say you're not a fan of Kierkegaard then.

Not in his native tongue. But a Christian is a Christian from any country. Philosophically, I judge all philosophers by using the STANDARD, Socrates' true philosophy. I first got a taste of Kierkegaard from my Humanities 101 class decades ago. I was impressed that he was still able to champion Christianity from his very logical approach and thinking. But then Socrates' true philosophy and Christ's philosophy is much the same, as they both lead any follower to the soul and true existence....at least to a good understanding as to reality and a better understanding of Plato's Cave Allegory.

[Kenemet]

3 hours ago, Piney said:

The technical term is the "Columbian Exchange".

They didn't bring large armies full of disease carrying *****s, laborers and slaves. Nor did they coast up and down the Eastern Seaboard in disease filled slave ships. As for weapons. We rarely find Spanish ones and they brought hundreds of soldiers.  

They were just a small group of healthy people and on the East Coast, iron tools rust pretty quick.  There is only 2 known "trade celts" in existence. Out of hundreds. 

I would have to agree here -- the Vikings were not particularly interested in interacting with any native population - possibly because their own cultural practices really didn't lead to their conquering and taking over a lot of other lands (unlike the Romans or many Christian empires.)  While they may have had their own diseases that they carried, brief interactions with a wandering population meant any disease was unlikely to have a significant hold on the area.  If they'd brought something like smallpox (for instance) and managed to infect a group, the group would likely have made camp and all or most of them died from the disease before they encountered a different group of Inuit (or other Native Americans.)

Had the Vikings come to the Americas in the hundreds of thousands and contacted and lived with native populations up and down the coasts, THEN we would have seen significant epidemics with the Vikings as the initial cause.

[+Pettytalk]

10 minutes ago, Piney said:

Europeans were warring all over the continent over religion during the same time period. We were just warring over food in a limited fashion.

It was disease that got us. Not our "barbarity". 

All mankind is of the same human nature, regardless of where, when, and what skin color.  Underneath the colors, customs, traditions, history, and beliefs, there is a soul which is the same for all of us.

’Have we not found,’ they will say, ’a path of thought which seems to bring us and our argument to the conclusion, that while we are in the body, and while the soul is infected with the evils of the body, our desire will not be satisfied? and our desire is of the truth. For the body is a source of endless trouble to us by reason of the mere requirement of food; and is liable also to diseases which overtake and impede us in the search after true being: it fills us full of loves, and lusts, and fears, and fancies of all kinds, and endless foolery, and in fact, as men say, takes away from us the power of thinking at all.

[Essan]

Why the Vikings didn't establish bigger colonies in North America is an interesting question.  The "new" continent had everything they needed and were rapidly running out of in Iceland and Greenland, notably trees (the reason there are no woods in Greenland and Iceland today is not down to climate!).   Was it because the inhabitants were too aggressive (and the Viking numbers relatively small in comparison)?   Or was there another reason?