Vikings vs. Indians
7347...@compuserve.com
>> This is a sereotype. Not all Norse were "Vikings." Most Norse were
farmers. Most of those who went seaward were explorers, and traders. <<
I absolved the actual Norse victims of culpability. But the fact is, the
Western mentality, overlaid with Christianity (which I believe the Norse had
adopted by then), was pretty much universal throughout Europe. The idea was
(and is) that man stands in opposition to nature; that nature exists to serve
man; that man's proper role is to use and improve (i.e., exploit) that which
God gave him.
Given this fundamental worldview, which contrasts starkly with most Indian
beliefs, conflict was inevitable. It didn't matter if these first Norsemen
were farmers, traders, or explorers. The first wave of Pilgrims weren't
rapacious conquerors either, but their worldview inevitably led them to feel
conquest was necessary--even good.
>> Frankly, Rob, the "Skraelings" didn't see it your way. <<
I'm glad people are being so frank and honest these days. Must be the season!
>> If not for the thought that they had just been poisoned, they would not have
been bothered by having new neighbors. The Indian's welcoming spirit is a
pattern repeated again and again (albeit to their later dismay). <<
The Indians and Europeans were ignorant of each other's worldviews.
Unfortunately, the Indians paid the biggest price for their ignorance. Yes,
they were generally welcoming, as their culture dictated. And yes, the
Europeans quickly took advantage of their welcoming spirit.
As just one example, the Europeans "bought" the land the Indians didn't think
they or anyone could own. They essentially took advantage of the Indians and
cheated them out of their birthright. If they'd had a true multicultural
perspective, the Europeans would've tried to understand the Indians' beliefs
and adapted to meet the Indians' ways.
As you know, that didn't happen. Once the Indians learned of the Europeans'
designs, they quickly lost their welcoming spirit. With greater knowledge
from increased contact, they saw they'd have to fight to retain their land
and resources.
Speaking of patterns, this pattern also was repeated again and again. Once
the Indians learned the truth about the Europeans, they inevitably abandoned
their good neighbor policy. They took up arms and fought to survive.
>> The Indians didn't see it as arrogance to seek new lands, rather than starve
due to lack of land, and neither do I. <<
The Indians probably thought the newcomers were equal in number to them.
That is, if Indians lived in bands of a few dozen, and the Europeans started
a colony of a few dozen, Indians probably saw that as "natural." They
couldn't imagine how a few dozen people could threaten their longstanding
culture.
They had no way of knowing the first few settlers were precursors of a
million or more invaders. These invaders were NOT seeking land as an
alternative to starving, so that premise is flatly false. They were seeking
it to extend their secular and religious empires, to gain a grip on strategic
lands and resources.
In other words, the Indians didn't object to feeding the hapless Pilgrims
when they were about to starve. They objected when the Pilgrims marched into
their lands, cut down their forests, and killed their game. Within a few
decades, the initial peace parties turned to war.
>> Now, treating the native people as less than human is arrogance. But that's
not the record here. <<
It wasn't the record of those particular Norsemen. It was the record of
almost everyone who followed them. Which is why I didn't criticize those
particular Norsemen, but said they earned the fruit of their philosophy.
Rob
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
joshua geller
<7347...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>I absolved the actual Norse victims of culpability.
That's mighty white of you.
> But the fact is, the
>Western mentality, overlaid with Christianity (which I believe the Norse had
>adopted by then), was pretty much universal throughout Europe. The idea was
>(and is) that man stands in opposition to nature; that nature exists to serve
>man; that man's proper role is to use and improve (i.e., exploit) that which
>God gave him.
This isn't the Norse picture of the world at all.
The Norse take on the world was conditioned by the extremely harsh
conditions under which they lived, and by the difficult and dangerous
lives that they led.
The Norse see the world as a hostile place, where the odds are stacked
against you. It is a dangerous place, and eventually it is going to
kill you. If you are very lucky, you might get by for a while. But
really, the best that you can hope for is to go down fighting.
The world before this world ended, this world will end, the next world
will end and so on.
Their ideas about the Sky and the Dead are the traditional ones. Their
terminology is different from American terminology, though
relationships are more common then some people might suppose.
They stem from the same root as the Indians, Iranians, Greeks, Romans,
etc. They have three basic social divisions as opposed to four with
the Indians and the one or two of the American systems I am familiar
with).
They became Christian late, and with less disruption than most
places. They were careful to preserve traditional knowledge, and it is
surprisingly intact. Rural Scandinavia is pretty traditional in a lot
of ways, for all that everyone is a Lutheran Christian. Their
attitudes still owe a lot to the old picture of the world, and the
changes are mostly improvements (Odin, the aristocrat's old God, is
basically the God of treachery).
I do believe that the German and Scandinavian immigrants to North
America (especially the Plain Folks who came in colonial times) had
better relationships with their Indian neighbors than has been the
general run of things, but I don't know this and will accept
correction in this matter.
My best,
josh
fi...@digitalcave.com
dcl...@best.com (joshua geller) wrote:
> I do believe that the German and Scandinavian immigrants to North
> America (especially the Plain Folks who came in colonial times) had
> better relationships with their Indian neighbors than has been the
> general run of things, but I don't know this and will accept
> correction in this matter.
>
> My best,
>
> josh
>
Dear Joshua Geller,
Germans, along with the Scots-Irish (most of whom were actually of Norse
stock from the Scottish Highlands and Islands, rather than Celtic, who had
only lingered in Ireland a few generations before moving to the Americas)
were among the worst butchers and Indian haters along the frontier. Yes,
enough of them got along with Indians to have resulted in MANY "white
families" of German and Scots-Irish descent that also have a trace of Indian
blood, but they were also those most often responsible for land grabs,
murders, and thefts of Indian property.
The "Plain Folk" (Amish, Quaker, Mennonite?) did usually tended to get along
pretty well with the Indians (being strongly pacifistic and with a strong
moral base that precluded too outright a theft of land certainly helped), at
least most of the time. William Penn in particular (and his people)
highlights one of the few shining examples of White honor as regards fair
treatment of Native peoples.
As for the very late (latter 19th century) Scandinavian and German immigrants
to the U.S., what I've heard indicates that they tended to buy into the
general White mentality as regards "manifest destiny" and the "unfortunate
necessity" to get rid of the "savages" (who "would be gone anyway in a few
generations, so why wait to put their lands to civilized usage"). They may
have been no worse than the run of the mill White, but they were certainly no
better.
Frankly, the French tended to get along better with the Indians than anyone
else who came here.
Sincerely,
Wade Wofford.
carte...@my-dejanews.com
> Was this before or after they took the best land?
best,Carter
--
****Remember...Think Ponca!****
Carter
Adam
is football.
trad...@softcom.net
7347...@compuserve.com wrote:
> >> This is a sereotype. Not all Norse were "Vikings." Most Norse were
> farmers. Most of those who went seaward were explorers, and traders. <<
>
> I absolved the actual Norse victims of culpability. But the fact is, the
> Western mentality, overlaid with Christianity (which I believe the Norse had
> adopted by then), was pretty much universal throughout Europe. The idea was
> (and is) that man stands in opposition to nature; that nature exists to serve
> man; that man's proper role is to use and improve (i.e., exploit) that which
> God gave him.
>
Beau Bowen
> Germans, along with the Scots-Irish (most of whom were actually of Norse
> stock from the Scottish Highlands and Islands, rather than Celtic, who had
> only lingered in Ireland a few generations before moving to the Americas)
> were among the worst butchers and Indian haters along the frontier. Yes,
> enough of them got along with Indians to have resulted in MANY "white
> families" of German and Scots-Irish descent that also have a trace of Indian
> blood, but they were also those most often responsible for land grabs,
> murders, and thefts of Indian property.
Well, in the Southeast there were large number of Scotch-Irish, up to
20% in places. So the question is, did they take more land that other
people, in proporation to their numbers?
As for the intermarriage, I think that *does* count, being descended from
such intermarriages myself.
I've been looking into land holding patterns of my family and other around
them; in western North Carolina at least there seemed to be an awful lot of
small holders and free thinkers; a lot of people of miscellaenous descents
in various combinations; when strict miscengenation laws were passed in
VA, lots of people picked up and moved to NC.
In the 1760s western North Carolinians revolted against the aristocratic
culture of eastern NC and ran their own courts, disrupted corrupt courts,
etc, ('The War of the Regulators').
The holdings I've found are small, a few hundred acres, a handful of slaves
-- in contrast with say, Georgia, where estates of ten thousand acres and
one thousand slaves were not unusual (Travelers Rest in Habersham Co
leaps to mind as an example).
So, exactly *which* state and which time period are you referring to? Or
are you just going to make sweeping generalizations without any
supporting facts?
Beau
Mike Cleven
>As for the very late (latter 19th century) Scandinavian and German immigrants
>to the U.S., what I've heard indicates that they tended to buy into the
>general White mentality as regards "manifest destiny" and the "unfortunate
>necessity" to get rid of the "savages" (who "would be gone anyway in a few
>generations, so why wait to put their lands to civilized usage"). They may
>have been no worse than the run of the mill White, but they were certainly no
>better.
I'm not sure about the Midwest - where most Scandinavians wound up -
nor about the American side of the line here in the Pacific Northwest,
but I do know that the Scandinavians that came to BC readily accepted
and worked alongside natives and often intermarried. They may not
have been able to reverse what had been done in the colonization, but
they were not malign factors in exacerbating it (as some other groups
may have).
I'm not sure whether you include Finns in your designation of
Scandinavian, but the Finnish communal settlements in BC worked
closely with neighbouring native communities; the most famous is
Sointula, near the north end of Vancouver Island. But these communal
settlements (and others like them, including the Mennonites mentioned
in the snipped parts of the previous post) were charitaby-minded
communities to start with, as well as being family-defined (much like
native communities). In addition, they were a long way from home and
were "different" from the other settlers and so looked for friends
where they could find them.
Another group in this same context is BC's Doukhobours; the area they
finally settled in had been previously depopulated, but their
relations with surviving natives and with neighbouring native nations
(Ktunaxa, Okanagan, Secwepemc) are said to be most harmonious....
>Frankly, the French tended to get along better with the Indians than anyone
>else who came here.
That may be true of the voyageurs and what happened SE of the Great
Lakes; it's not true of "Canada" (Quebec) or Acadia........."pur
laine" quebecois fanatics are among some of the most virulent
anti-native factions on the continent.......q.v. Oka, James Bay......
Mike Cleven
http://members.home.net/ironmtn/
The thunderbolt steers all things.
- Herakleitos
Mike Cleven
>>> This is a sereotype. Not all Norse were "Vikings." Most Norse were
>farmers. Most of those who went seaward were explorers, and traders. <<
>
>I absolved the actual Norse victims of culpability.
<snip>
>
>>> Frankly, Rob, the "Skraelings" didn't see it your way. <<
>
>I'm glad people are being so frank and honest these days. Must be the season!
Points of definition here: "Viking" is indeed a very loose term, and
comes from "vike" (bay, waterway) - but it was not used by the Norse
settlers/adventurers/farmers/warriors themselves. The term they used
foir themslves was "vaeryngar", which has a loose meaning of "going
out in the world and doing stuff". Norway especially had such poor
farmland (and so little) that once the population began to boom the
young men really had no choice but to seek farmsteads elsewhere. That
they were all highly-trained warriors and larger than other European
peoples was, well, incidental, but it did make "colonization" easier
; )
And it's worth remembering that those that did seek out Greenland and
the North American coast were themselves a refugee people, having fled
political dangers in Norway and the fractious feuding of Iceland to
seek shelter in the New World. This is something of a pattern that
emerged in later settlement of North America - economic, political,
and religious refugees were the _biggest_ pattern, in fact (and still
are).
Another definition: "Skraeling" means "screamer" and the physical
description given in VinlandaSaga doesn't sound much like the Beothuk,
nor even the Micmac. It's such a strange description in fact that
some theorists have made claims that they were some kind of "flying
sasquatch".......hurling huge boulders, IIRC.
I'm not sure, but I don't think there have been any evidence of native
attack at l'Anse aux Meadows, but I may be wrong about that
fi...@digitalcave.com
iro...@bigfoot.com wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Dec 1998 18:32:33 GMT, fi...@digitalcave.com wrote:
>
> >As for the very late (latter 19th century) Scandinavian and German immigrants
> >to the U.S., what I've heard indicates that they tended to buy into the
> >general White mentality as regards "manifest destiny" and the "unfortunate
> >necessity" to get rid of the "savages" (who "would be gone anyway in a few
> >generations, so why wait to put their lands to civilized usage"). They may
> >have been no worse than the run of the mill White, but they were certainly no
> >better.
>
> I'm not sure about the Midwest - where most Scandinavians wound up -
> nor about the American side of the line here in the Pacific Northwest,
> but I do know that the Scandinavians that came to BC readily accepted
> and worked alongside natives and often intermarried. They may not
> have been able to reverse what had been done in the colonization, but
> they were not malign factors in exacerbating it (as some other groups
> may have).
Dear Mike Cleven,
The U.S. and Canada have always had somewhat dissimilar situations as far as
treatment of Natives went (for example, and somebody please correct me if I'm
wrong, but it is my understanding that Canada for the most part avoided
duplicating the large scale massacres that the U.S. shamefully engaged in),
so that it would not surprise me overmuch to find out that Scandinavian
settlers there got along better with the Natives than they did in the U.S.
Frankly, I have not heard much about the ethnic specifics of Canadian
(mis)treatment of Natives, and unless somebody (Chris, are you out there?)
says something to the contrary I will accept your information on at least a
provisional basis.
One bit of history that you might be interested in reading up on is that of
the colonies of New Sweden and New Amsterdam. The Scandinavian (mostly, but
not all Swedish) settlers there did NOT get along with the neighboring
Lenapes, and propagated the standard assortment of rapes, murders, thefts,
intimidations, and seizures of Native land.
> I'm not sure whether you include Finns in your designation of
> Scandinavian, but the Finnish communal settlements in BC worked
> closely with neighbouring native communities; the most famous is
> Sointula, near the north end of Vancouver Island. But these communal
> settlements (and others like them, including the Mennonites mentioned
> in the snipped parts of the previous post) were charitaby-minded
> communities to start with, as well as being family-defined (much like
> native communities). In addition, they were a long way from home and
> were "different" from the other settlers and so looked for friends
> where they could find them.
I do include them as Scandinavian, but was not speaking of them in particular
due to their relatively smaller numbers here in the U.S. Most of what I've
heard about Scandinavian immigrants here dealt with Danes and Swedes.
> Another group in this same context is BC's Doukhobours; the area they
> finally settled in had been previously depopulated, but their
> relations with surviving natives and with neighbouring native nations
> (Ktunaxa, Okanagan, Secwepemc) are said to be most harmonious....
The Doukhobours being pacifists no doubt played a large role in their having
good relations with Natives they came into contact with. But also, the fact
that they came so late (mostly 1890's?) meant that there was far less
opportunity for conflict (given that most of the land had already been stolen
by then, or as you phrased it, "previously depopulated".) Besides, being
ethnic Russians, I'm not sure that they are a good example for comparison
(you were speaking about Scandinavians....).
> >Frankly, the French tended to get along better with the Indians than anyone
> >else who came here.
>
> That may be true of the voyageurs and what happened SE of the Great
> Lakes; it's not true of "Canada" (Quebec) or Acadia........."pur
> laine" quebecois fanatics are among some of the most virulent
> anti-native factions on the continent.......q.v. Oka, James Bay......
>
> Mike Cleven
I would say that it used to be more true of Quebec and Acadia as well, but
that the "Quebecois fanatics" among their numbers have adopted the "if you
are not actively helping me against the Anglais, then you are my enemy as
well" maxim. (They are so engaged in grabbing what they can, towards the
envisaged day when they gain independence, that the niceties of who really
owns what they are grabbing seems to have fallen by the wayside).
Sincerely,
Wade Wofford.
Mike Cleven
I don't think there's been any ethnic-oriented studies of this issue -
they would indeed be very interesting to read if there were! I am
just speaking from general experience and intercommunal reputations
here (in BC), and from what I know of the moral sensibility of the
Scandinavian community, which is by and large tolerant and
broad-minded (at least in the modern era). Ethnically-defined
attitudinal studies are somewhat contrary to the prevailing practices
of Canadian "multiculturalism" policies, although they theoretically
should be valid because of that agenda......
Norwegians were prominent on the coastal fishery in BC, and until the
squabbles of recent years made themselves quite at home among the
local peoples, as did the Finns. My father - a Norwegian-Canadian -
took a sympathetic interest in the affairs and concerns of the native
people of the place we lived in (Shalalth, in the Lillooet country,
where I know three or four native families who are part-Norwegian) and
in previous decades had apparently mingled quite happily with the
native peoples of northern Manitoba; I was raised without any sense of
discrimination _at_all_, and was discouraged from antipathetic
emotions towards any natives or any other non-white (or any immigrant
of any complexion); quite opposite from the bigoted leanings of my
mother's relations in California! (Irish-French-English) One
exception down there, come to think of it, were my cousins via one of
mom's sisters who had married a - you guessed it - Norwegian named
Leifhelm; one of those cousins married a high-born Hawaiian girl, and
one of my aunts also married a Hawaiian......
Can't say about the Swedes and Danes - although it's always been my
impression that immigrant Danes are somewhat more iron-clad "European"
in their attitudes towards anyone in Canada, while the Swedes seem
more interested and broad-minded; but that may only be the highly
liberal milieu of Seattle (the nearest concentration of Swedes in my
part of the world) at work. Icelanders are so rare in North America
it's difficult to suggest anything, although they are so few it would
be an easy study - their two main communities being at Gimli, Manitoba
and Blaine, Washington (where, come to think of it, they are in
opposition concerning fisheries issues, but that's against Canadians
rather than against the local Lummi and Tsawwassen peoples.....)
What I do know about "the old days" on the Coast and in the Interior
is that the Scandinavians of those days (Norwegians and Swedes; the
Finns came later and there are still only a few Danes) took much more
easily to the rustic lifestyle and the practice of "country marriage"
(taking up with a native woman; usually legitimized according to
native custom). Because Scandinavians were treated as "outsiders" by
the equally-outside Britons, they mixed with the local natives as well
as the many Hawaiians and Irish (also outcast peoples in those
days)......
>
>One bit of history that you might be interested in reading up on is that of
>the colonies of New Sweden and New Amsterdam. The Scandinavian (mostly, but
>not all Swedish) settlers there did NOT get along with the neighboring
>Lenapes, and propagated the standard assortment of rapes, murders, thefts,
>intimidations, and seizures of Native land.
Methinks the 17th (18th?) Century was a vastly different time, and
that Scandinavians in those days weren't as "nice" as they became in
the post-Napoleonic era; the Scandinavian presence in the New World in
those days was marginal at best (after the fall of New Sweden); it
wasn't until around the mid-19th Century that they began to come in
any numbers again......
A curious story has it that the advent of pacifist/humanist
inclinations in the formerly very warlike Danish nation can be dated
to the introduction of coffee........hmmmmm.
>
>> I'm not sure whether you include Finns in your designation of
>> Scandinavian, but the Finnish communal settlements in BC worked
>> closely with neighbouring native communities; the most famous is
>> Sointula, near the north end of Vancouver Island. But these communal
>> settlements (and others like them, including the Mennonites mentioned
>> in the snipped parts of the previous post) were charitaby-minded
>> communities to start with, as well as being family-defined (much like
>> native communities). In addition, they were a long way from home and
>> were "different" from the other settlers and so looked for friends
>> where they could find them.
>
>I do include them as Scandinavian, but was not speaking of them in particular
>due to their relatively smaller numbers here in the U.S. Most of what I've
>heard about Scandinavian immigrants here dealt with Danes and Swedes.
Two groups that Norwegians and Finns would quite probably take umbrage
at being included in a negative generalization about.......
>
>> Another group in this same context is BC's Doukhobours; the area they
>> finally settled in had been previously depopulated, but their
>> relations with surviving natives and with neighbouring native nations
>> (Ktunaxa, Okanagan, Secwepemc) are said to be most harmonious....
>
>The Doukhobours being pacifists no doubt played a large role in their having
>good relations with Natives they came into contact with. But also, the fact
>that they came so late (mostly 1890's?) meant that there was far less
>opportunity for conflict (given that most of the land had already been stolen
>by then, or as you phrased it, "previously depopulated".) Besides, being
>ethnic Russians, I'm not sure that they are a good example for comparison
>(you were speaking about Scandinavians....).
I was raising them in the context of religious sects as raised in the
previous post. Some Mennonites, also, were of Russian territorial
origin; others were "plattdeutsch", and therefore _almost_
Scandinavian........point of information, the Doukhobours came to
Canada in the 1890s at the instigation and via the sponsorship of
Count Leo Tolstoy; their original settlements on the Prairies were
largely abandoned due to political-religious turmoils and they
migrated from there to central-southwestern British Columbia (the West
Kootenay-Boundary Districts in the '00s and '10s)
>
>> >Frankly, the French tended to get along better with the Indians than anyone
>> >else who came here.
>>
>> That may be true of the voyageurs and what happened SE of the Great
>> Lakes; it's not true of "Canada" (Quebec) or Acadia........."pur
>> laine" quebecois fanatics are among some of the most virulent
>> anti-native factions on the continent.......q.v. Oka, James Bay......
>>
>> Mike Cleven
>
>I would say that it used to be more true of Quebec and Acadia as well, but
>that the "Quebecois fanatics" among their numbers have adopted the "if you
>are not actively helping me against the Anglais, then you are my enemy as
>well" maxim. (They are so engaged in grabbing what they can, towards the
>envisaged day when they gain independence, that the niceties of who really
>owns what they are grabbing seems to have fallen by the wayside).
Apparently the vast majority of "pur laine" Quebeckers actually have
significant amounts of native blood (probably mostly Huron, but I
don't know about the history of intermarriage). This is something
most of the fanatics will _hotly_ deny, although the Metis and maybe
the Acadiens/Cajuns wouldn't have as much of a hard time dealing with
(as they have less stake in the racist nationalism of the separatist
movement).
7347...@compuserve.com
7347...@compuserve.com
> That's mighty white of you.
Thanks. I'm Anglo-Saxon myself, so I felt it was within my purview.
Rob:
> But the fact is, the Western mentality, overlaid with Christianity (which I
believe the Norse had adopted by then), was pretty much universal throughout
Europe. The idea was (and is) that man stands in opposition to nature;
that nature exists to serve man; that man's proper role is to use and improve
(i.e., exploit) that which God gave him.
Josh:
> This isn't the Norse picture of the world at all.
>
> The Norse take on the world was conditioned by the extremely harsh
> conditions under which they lived, and by the difficult and dangerous
> lives that they led.
>
> The Norse see the world as a hostile place, where the odds are stacked
> against you. It is a dangerous place, and eventually it is going to
> kill you. If you are very lucky, you might get by for a while. But
> really, the best that you can hope for is to go down fighting.
I don't see anything here contradicting what I said above. In fact, that the
Norse saw "the world as a hostile place" tallies with my statement that
the Norse thought "man stands in opposition to nature." In contrast, the
typical Amerindian wouldn't have said the world (i.e., nature) was a hostile
place. Thus, the conflicting worldviews I described.
You also forgot to mention that the Norse tribes conquered much of
Scandinavia, the British Isles, and Northern Europe in their time. Again,
that doesn't equate to a people living in peace and harmony with their
environment.
7347...@compuserve.com
iro...@bigfoot.com wrote:
> The term they used foir themslves was "vaeryngar", which has a loose meaning
of "going out in the world and doing stuff".
Which, again, was a Eurocentric way of looking at the world, not an Amerindian
one.
> Norway especially had such poor farmland (and so little) that once the
population began to boom the young men really had no choice but to seek
farmsteads elsewhere.
Why was their population booming if they didn't have the resources to support
it?
No doubt the Norse felt they had no choice. If they'd had a different
worldview, they might've tried harder to eke out a living on the land rather
than seek greener pastures.
> This is something of a pattern that emerged in later settlement of North
America - economic, political, and religious refugees were the _biggest_
pattern, in fact (and still are).
Mm, I don't know about that. We hear more about the Pilgrims, the starving
Irish, and the persecuted Jews than others, but I'll bet more people have
come to America seeking opportunity than fleeing anything. Maybe it's a
matter of semantics, but in my book, leaving a mediocre situation for a good
one makes you an opportunist, not a refugee. I'd classify only those who had
no options, like the aforementioned three groups, as "refugees."
> I'm not sure, but I don't think there have been any evidence of native
> attack at l'Anse aux Meadows, but I may be wrong about that
"After Eric the Red visited Greenland in 981 or 982, many Norsemen went to
settle permanently on the island. They soon came to know the Eskimos, whom
they called Skraelings, and probably intermarried with them over the years.
But as time went on, friction developed and the two groups clashed violently,
with the Eskimos emerging victorious over a dwindling number of Norsemen."
"America's Fascinating Indian Heritage," p. 389
Mike Cleven
>In article <367db558...@news.nvcr1.bc.wave.home.com>,
> iro...@bigfoot.com wrote:
>
>> The term they used foir themslves was "vaeryngar", which has a loose meaning
>of "going out in the world and doing stuff".
>
>Which, again, was a Eurocentric way of looking at the world, not an Amerindian
>one.
No, it _wasn't_ a "Eurocentric" way of looking at things - as a matter
of fact, in the 9th-11th Century it was a very UN-European way of
looking at things. And if youthful ambitions for a better life in
unknown lands are not a valid "way of looking at the world" to you,
then you've got some inbuilt prejudices that you should do some
serious self-examination over. Further, Norway was only considered
part of "Europe" in recent centuries (culturally _and_ physically).
>
>> Norway especially had such poor farmland (and so little) that once the
>population began to boom the young men really had no choice but to seek
>farmsteads elsewhere.
>
>Why was their population booming if they didn't have the resources to support
>it?
You really do have an anti-white axe to grind, don't you? Why did
variuos North American populations boom and bust, also, then? Or
won't you admit that overpopulation has never happened here?
>
>No doubt the Norse felt they had no choice. If they'd had a different
>worldview, they might've tried harder to eke out a living on the land rather
>than seek greener pastures.
"If they had a different worldview" is just further patronization from
you. If the native North Americans had had a different world view and
made contact with other lands, they would have had resistance to the
diseases which destroyed their communities and society. But they
didn't. History's like that - what you're saying is "if the
Norwegians hadn't had enough sense to build boats and sail "out of the
bay" [which is where the word "viking" came from; "vik" means bay],
then they could have stayed at home and kept the goats company and
starved (which would have kept their population in check). You sound
pretty much towards "whites" as some "white" sound towards natives....
Part of the cultural problem in Norway was a shift from
multiple-inheritance (where _all_ sons got a chunk of the land) to
primogeniture (where only the eldest - or most violent - son did);
compound the fractured ownership landscape (farms too small to support
a family) with the violent political consolidation of Norway's
"kingdoms" (formerly about 200 of them, virtually chieftaincies) and
you have the rest of the situation. "Stay home and die from
starvation or execution" - or go find a new farm somewhere. You can
pontificate about how they should have had a "different worldview" but
the worldview of the time was dictated by necessity, not
pseudo-intellectual nicety.
And one last thing - the "worldview" the Norse acquired as a result of
their (to you) incorrect approach to things made them among the most
sophisticated people in the Old World - some had travelled between
Constantinople and the New World itself; many Icelanders had kin in
Sicily and Ukraine. Most spoke several languages. Again, they were
_nothing_ like "Europeans".
There's always a lot of complaints in this NG about people making
comments about native culture and history without knowing the facts,
and without any sensitivity. Maybe you'd better acquire some of those
facts and sensitivities about non-native peoples yourself (see below).
>
>> This is something of a pattern that emerged in later settlement of North
>America - economic, political, and religious refugees were the _biggest_
>pattern, in fact (and still are).
>
>Mm, I don't know about that. We hear more about the Pilgrims, the starving
>Irish, and the persecuted Jews than others, but I'll bet more people have
>come to America seeking opportunity than fleeing anything.
Get a grip and maybe learn something about people instead of making
vague generalizations based on your OWN ethnocentrism (which here
seems to be specifically American, as you're only mentioning Pilgrims
and Jews). Ever heard of the Irish? The Ukrainians? The Poles? The
Armenians? The bloody Norwegians (who were fleeing a famine and the
occupation of their nation by Sweden)? The Scots who were driven off
their lands by the Enclosures Acts? The Latin Americans who still
come seeking refuge from brutal dictatorships?
As for religious groups, you obviously don't know piffle other than
what your "Americo-centric" high school textbooks have taught you
(amazing you didn't mention the Quakers!). Mennonites, Hutterites,
Doukhobours, Old Believers, Huguenots, Ismailis, and a plethora of
smaller less well-known groups, some no larger than several families
(the Finnish communal groups of my region, for example) - all
religious groups fleeing the reality of persecution and the threat of
death.
Sure, America represented opportunity - but mostly it represented a
chance for a peaceful life. And in many cases, those opportunities
were hard-earned and did not come easily. The Irish remained as
abused here as they had been back in the British Isles; the same is
true of the Poles, who were definitely more "refugee" than
"opportunist". The Norwegians were treated as barely-paid slaves in
New York, where they worked as menials as servants in households and
in factories. The Ukrainians lived in sod huts on the frozen Canadian
Prairie for years before making enough money to build a proper house.
Lumping these people together as "opportunists" rather than the very
_real_ refugees that they were is very cynical on your part. And
every bit as insensitive towards their history and society/culture as
a lot of alt.native'ites complain that white people are towards native
peoples.
One thing I've seen in the native elders (and at least some of the
political leaders) in _my_ area is their recognition and empathy for
the many refugee peoples who make up Canada. They recognize that
people didn't _come_here_ to exploit native losses; they came here
because they HAD TO. The sooner you get a grip on that reality and
learn about the people you hate, the happier a person you will be.
>Maybe it's a
>matter of semantics, but in my book, leaving a mediocre situation for a good
>one makes you an opportunist, not a refugee. I'd classify only those who had
>no options, like the aforementioned three groups, as "refugees."
See above. The list of such groups is _so_long_ it actually DOES
constitute a majority.............
>
>> I'm not sure, but I don't think there have been any evidence of native
>> attack at l'Anse aux Meadows, but I may be wrong about that
>
>"After Eric the Red visited Greenland in 981 or 982, many Norsemen went to
>settle permanently on the island. They soon came to know the Eskimos, whom
>they called Skraelings, and probably intermarried with them over the years.
>But as time went on, friction developed and the two groups clashed violently,
>with the Eskimos emerging victorious over a dwindling number of Norsemen."
Sorry, that's not a quote from Vinlandasaga - it's from some populist
history you've got. The term "skraeling" to my knowledge is only used
in vinlandasaga; I've not seen it in any of the Norse literature
concerning Greenland; the settlements there took place _after_ Vinland
was begun, so even if the word was used there (which I think your
history is wrong about) it was as a result of reading Vinlandasaga,
where the description of the Skraelings (as I noted, but which you
snipped) is very different from the peaceful Beothuk or any other
native people of the region (including the Inuit).
Again, your own version of history is quite "America-centric". Do
some more reading?
fi...@digitalcave.com
iro...@bigfoot.com wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Dec 1998 00:50:09 GMT, fi...@digitalcave.com wrote:
>
> >In article <367bb32c...@news.nvcr1.bc.wave.home.com>,
> > iro...@bigfoot.com wrote:
> >> On Mon, 14 Dec 1998 18:32:33 GMT, fi...@digitalcave.com wrote:
> >One bit of history that you might be interested in reading up on is that of
> >the colonies of New Sweden and New Amsterdam. The Scandinavian (mostly, but
> >not all Swedish) settlers there did NOT get along with the neighboring
> >Lenapes, and propagated the standard assortment of rapes, murders, thefts,
> >intimidations, and seizures of Native land.
>
> Methinks the 17th (18th?) Century was a vastly different time, and
> that Scandinavians in those days weren't as "nice" as they became in
> the post-Napoleonic era; the Scandinavian presence in the New World in
> those days was marginal at best (after the fall of New Sweden); it
> wasn't until around the mid-19th Century that they began to come in
> any numbers again......
Dear Mike Cleven,
I was actually speaking of New Sweden prior to it's takeover by the English
(but including the years when it was basically a not entirely integrated
appendage of New Amsterdam). (In later years, it gets harder to seperate out
the behavior of the Swedish/etc settlers from the non-Scandinavian immigrants
who started crowding them out).
And yes, certainly the specific time period being discussed makes a big
difference concerning the validity of one generalization or another. It goes
to show, I suppose, that the surrounding circumstances had almost as much to
do with determining behavior vis-a-vis Natives as did the actual identity of
the European immigrant population under discussion.
> A curious story has it that the advent of pacifist/humanist
> inclinations in the formerly very warlike Danish nation can be dated
> to the introduction of coffee........hmmmmm.
I can actually see how that might work. Think about it, people start sitting
around in coffee houses and TALKING WHILE SOBER (especially late night
philosophical stuff) as opposed to sitting around in alehouses drinking
beer/Aquavit(?) and then getting into drunken arguments andbrawls! (I seem
to recall that chocolate, in the form of an unsweetened(?) hot cocoa based on
an Aztec beverage recipe, actually hit Europe before coffee did...and that
"cocoa houses" predated and evolved into "coffee houses". If that held true
for Denmark as well, then perhaps their domestication might be partly
credited to chocolate?)
<snip>
> >> >Frankly, the French tended to get along better with the Indians than
> >> >anyone else who came here.
> >>
> >> That may be true of the voyageurs and what happened SE of the Great
> >> Lakes; it's not true of "Canada" (Quebec) or Acadia........."pur
> >> laine" quebecois fanatics are among some of the most virulent
> >> anti-native factions on the continent.......q.v. Oka, James Bay......
> >>
> >> Mike Cleven
> >
> >I would say that it used to be more true of Quebec and Acadia as well, but
> >that the "Quebecois fanatics" among their numbers have adopted the "if you
> >are not actively helping me against the Anglais, then you are my enemy as
> >well" maxim. (They are so engaged in grabbing what they can, towards the
> >envisaged day when they gain independence, that the niceties of who really
> >owns what they are grabbing seems to have fallen by the wayside).
>
> Apparently the vast majority of "pur laine" Quebeckers actually have
> significant amounts of native blood (probably mostly Huron, but I
> don't know about the history of intermarriage). This is something
> most of the fanatics will _hotly_ deny, although the Metis and maybe
> the Acadiens/Cajuns wouldn't have as much of a hard time dealing with
> (as they have less stake in the racist nationalism of the separatist
> movement).
>
> Mike Cleven
Yes, mostly Huron, but also a dash of western tribes like Cree and Ojibway as
well. Not to mention some from various algonqian groups like the Micmac,
Abenaki, Beothuk, etc. There is even a small bit of Iroquois in them, mostly
from captives the Huron (or French) brought back on raids. I believe that
the French gave the Huron guns before the Iroquois got hold of them, and that
they then used this advantage to do their damnedest to wipe out the latter.
This was not a good idea, since when the Iroquois eventually obtained guns as
well, it meant that some of the meanest Indians in North America were now
quite pissed off at the Hurons. (For the benefit of any members of the Six
Nations, I want to assure you that I mean to say "meanest" in a very
complimentary way. You guys are tough!). They were also not too happy with
the French (it had something to do with a murdered Chief, as I recall), which
is one reason that the French eventually lost out in Canada. (It just
doesn't pay to go and make enemies of some people....) Come to think of it,
I wouldn't be surprised to hear about a bit of Osage blood in the Quebecois
as well, voyageurs intermarried among that tribe quite a bit, and it stands
to reason that a few brought their wives or children back home with them.
Sincerely,
Wade Wofford.
fi...@digitalcave.com
7347...@compuserve.com wrote:
> In article <367db558...@news.nvcr1.bc.wave.home.com>,
> iro...@bigfoot.com wrote:
> > Norway especially had such poor farmland (and so little) that once the
> population began to boom the young men really had no choice but to seek
> farmsteads elsewhere.
>
> Why was their population booming if they didn't have the resources to support
> it?
Dear Rob,
I seem to recall that a climatological turn for the worse played a role here.
So it may not have been so much that their population "boomed" (although it
seems to have increased during an earlier spell of good weather), as that the
carrying capacity of their land decreased suddenly and left them with an
"excess" population.
<snip>
> Mm, I don't know about that. We hear more about the Pilgrims, the starving
> Irish, and the persecuted Jews than others, but I'll bet more people have
> come to America seeking opportunity than fleeing anything. Maybe it's a
> matter of semantics, but in my book, leaving a mediocre situation for a good
> one makes you an opportunist, not a refugee. I'd classify only those who had
> no options, like the aforementioned three groups, as "refugees."
I agree with all of the above EXCEPT your classification of the Pilgrims in
the "refugee" catagory. The Mayflower Pilgrims had a good situation going in
Holland (whence they had fled after England persecuted them), and they only
left because it was SO GOOD (= comfortable) that their children were growing
up ethnically Dutch instead of fanatic Puritans.
Not that the move did them all that much good in that respect, since being
free of religious persecution in the New World, their children just didn't
have the same religious imperative as their forefathers did. Without the
type of intense pressure that commonly results in "visions", few of their
progeny qualified for inclusion in the church as full members, and hence were
excluded from political and economic control as well (they were ethnically
"Puritan", but not usually fanatics of the same stripe). There is good
evidence that the Salem witch trials were actual just a smokescreen for
resestablishing control over younger Pilgrims who had broken away and started
their own economic activity ("New Salem") rather than keep working as unpaid
and disenfranchised labor for their elders (at "Old Salem"). Since New Salem
had better soil and better harbor access, it prospered, which made the old
tyrants REALLY pissed (prosperity being a sign of God's approval, according
to Puritan dogma), until they came up with the idea of convicting people at
New Salem of witchcraft and then confiscating their property.
The later Puritan immigrants might have been considered refugees, although
they similarly turned eyes away from cushy havens on the European mainland
and came straight to a place where they could be in the majority....and
immediately start persecuting OTHER PEOPLE! (Try reading up on the
punishments for being a vocal Quaker in Puritan New England, ear cropping and
tar/feathers was the least of it. They also convicted and sentanced to hard
labor anybody who broke the Sabbath...which turned any Indians who were
unfortunate enough to wander in wanting to trade on a Sunday into a source of
free labor for the colony).
Which brings up a question, if a people WERE genuine refugees fleeing
persecution, but then came to America BECAUSE it had more oppoortunity for
profit than did the MANY alternative havens, are they still to be considered
refugees? (opportunistic refugees?). If they began persecuting/exploiting
other people once they came here, are they still to be considered as
"refugees"?
> > I'm not sure, but I don't think there have been any evidence of native
> > attack at l'Anse aux Meadows, but I may be wrong about that
>
> "After Eric the Red visited Greenland in 981 or 982, many Norsemen went to
> settle permanently on the island. They soon came to know the Eskimos, whom
> they called Skraelings, and probably intermarried with them over the years.
> But as time went on, friction developed and the two groups clashed violently,
> with the Eskimos emerging victorious over a dwindling number of Norsemen."
>
> "America's Fascinating Indian Heritage," p. 389
>
> Rob
Mentioning the history of Greenland is not a particularly valid retort to the
specific issue of Norse-Native relations in Newfoundland, which is what Mike
Cleven brought up. (To reply to him, there is no archaeological evidence of
Native attack on Norse settlers, but the Icelandic sagas do mention several
pitched battles, and largely ascribe the failure of the Vinland colony to
Native resistance). To reply to you, hypothesizing "intermarriage" during
the main period of Norse settlement might be presumptious, given the lack of
documented evidence supporting the idea and the well documented poor
relations between Norsemen and "Skraelings". It is more likely that the
Norse ancestry in the Greenland Eskimo population (the occasion Eskimo with
blue or grey eyes, a bit more facial hair, etc) was either the result of rape
by Norsemen or else the result of the last few survivors of the settlements
throwing in their lot with the Eskimo as a means of last resort. The climate
was getting a LOT COLDER, and it literally froze out the settlers. Only an
arctic adapted culture could survive in Greenland during those years. (The
Eskimo didn't drive out the Norse so much as nature did).
Mike Cleven
>Come to think of it,
>I wouldn't be surprised to hear about a bit of Osage blood in the Quebecois
>as well, voyageurs intermarried among that tribe quite a bit, and it stands
>to reason that a few brought their wives or children back home with them.
The modern term "Quebecois" in reference to the voyageurs is quite
inaccurate and very misleading; the word "canadien" is much more
accurate. The French were not only from what is now Quebec, and those
that got into the voyageur business tended to settle in the
out-country of northern Ontario and out through the Prairies - thus
the birth of Metis culture and identity, as well as the large French
population of northern Ontario. The voyageur songs came back to
Quebec; but the voyageurs for the most part settled down elsewhere (I
think the constraints of heavily-Catholic village society might have
been too much for these free-wheeling adventurers).
It's true that some might have brought back native wives from other
parts of the continent, be they Osage, Mandan, Blackfoot, or whatever;
but such women would have had a hard time among
canadiennes.......which is one reason why I think most canadien who
_did_ take native wives settled down in the out-country, rather than
risk their wives' unhappiness by expecting them to be expected in
Riviere du Loup or Charlevoix....
fi...@digitalcave.com
no-spa...@netgsi.com wrote:
> fi...@digitalcave.com wrote:
>
> > Germans, along with the Scots-Irish (most of whom were actually of Norse
> > stock from the Scottish Highlands and Islands, rather than Celtic, who had
> > only lingered in Ireland a few generations before moving to the Americas)
> > were among the worst butchers and Indian haters along the frontier. Yes,
> > enough of them got along with Indians to have resulted in MANY "white
> > families" of German and Scots-Irish descent that also have a trace of Indian
> > blood, but they were also those most often responsible for land grabs,
> > murders, and thefts of Indian property.
>
> Well, in the Southeast there were large number of Scotch-Irish, up to
> 20% in places. So the question is, did they take more land that other
> people, in proporation to their numbers?
>
> As for the intermarriage, I think that *does* count, being descended from
> such intermarriages myself.
Dear Beau,
If you will look at my words (see above), you will notice that I DID NOT say
that it “didn’t count”. I merely implied that any such intermarriage (which
occurred at a noticeably lower rate for them than it did for many other
groups of White immigrants.) neither excused nor exonerated the less ethical
actions undertaken by members of those groups. (I assume that you are NOT
trying to say that the blame for the many murders and thefts have been
negated by a few intermarriages?) The significance of any intermarriage must
be weighed against those factors as well. And frankly, it is my
understanding that much (not all, but much) of the Indian blood in the
“German and Scots-Irish” families at issue came via intermarriage with
“socially White” mixed bloods rather than via direct unions with “actual”
Indians, often long after a region had ceased to be part of the frontier.
This fact would no doubt also weigh into the considerations.
As for land taking by the Scots-Irish (and Germans, don’t forget them!), more
important (in my eyes, at least) than the question of proportionality of
seizures is the issue of HOW they got hold of land as well as how they
treated Indians aside from the land issue. I’d be more concerned with
outright "squatting” (and/or murder of objecting Indians) than I would be
with purchase or homesteading of lands previously ceded (however
fraudulently) to the U.S. government. In the first case, it would be a
direct (and more aggressive) taking of lands, in the latter situation it
would be an indirect (and less violent) “sharing out of spoils” resulting
from the governments actions. (Similarly, massacres of Indians by
non-landholding immigrants are still massacres, "land taking" is NOT the only
issue at concern here).
> I've been looking into land holding patterns of my family and other around
> them; in western North Carolina at least there seemed to be an awful lot of
> small holders and free thinkers; a lot of people of miscellaenous descents
> in various combinations; when strict miscengenation laws were passed in
> VA, lots of people picked up and moved to NC.
>
> In the 1760s western North Carolinians revolted against the aristocratic
> culture of eastern NC and ran their own courts, disrupted corrupt courts,
> etc, ('The War of the Regulators').
>
> The holdings I've found are small, a few hundred acres, a handful of slaves
> -- in contrast with say, Georgia, where estates of ten thousand acres and
> one thousand slaves were not unusual (Travelers Rest in Habersham Co
> leaps to mind as an example).
Geographical considerations played a MAJOR role in affecting landholding and
slave ownership demographics. If you’ll notice, much of western NC is a bit
shy of flat land, and the abundance of hilly (and rocky!) ground played a
role in keeping farm sizes small. (Higher labor requirements kept farm sizes
smaller, as did natural barriers such as mountains and ridges. Labor costs
and smaller acreages in combination with the poorer soil, resulted in lower
profit margins, and hence in less opportunity to expand by puchasing
additional lands. Being further from markets and having decreased export
opportunities in the form of port access also hurt their bottom line). It
was only in the flatter, more fertile piedmont regions that land holding
sizes could really reach large extents, with proportionally larger (or more
so) slaveholdings as well. Period of settlement also played a role, the
piedmont land was more likely to have been settled earlier, hence more likely
included in largescale purchases or landgrants from the Crown. (or to have
been consolidated into large landholdings over time).
Anti-miscegenation laws? Have you now decided that your ancestry includes
African descent (which is usually what anti-miscegenation legislation
concerned itself with, at least as far as laws that were ENFORCED went) as
well as White with a dab of Indian? You’ve so far to my knowledge denied
(somewhat vehemently, I thought) the chance of having any black ancestors
(although I did notice one post of yours, Message-ID:
<36434F...@netgsi.com>, in which you said that you were “wrong about
Apache descent”, had “proof of Creek descent for your particular blood line”,
and then asked if your family should call itself a
“Creek/Cherokee/Chickasaw/Jewish/Scotch-Irish/African/PennsylvaniaDutch/maybe
oth erstufftoo family?” (Please rest assured that I’m NOT trying to quibble
here, but rather trying to keep things clear in my mind.) Or were you then
(and now, in the above comment about people moving to NC ) speaking only of
your extended family (= includes all traceable relatives) rather than your
actual lineage?
> So, exactly *which* state and which time period are you referring to? Or
> are you just going to make sweeping generalizations without any
> supporting facts?
>
> Beau
You are getting a bit uncivil here, aren’t you? If you had bothered to pay
attention to the words you are replying to, you would have noticed that I
said “along the frontier”. This by definition includes ALL states, but
varies as to time period depending on the specific area involved. (The
frontier MOVED, Beau, and once Whites had come in and pretty well eradicated
all the Indians in a given area it ceased being part of the frontier).
Frankly, it seems to me that you are taking too closely to heart ANY
generalization I’ve made about the Southeast. Statements CAN be made without
applying directly to your family in particular, and conversely, the history of
your family is NOT the history of the entire region!
fi...@digitalcave.com
> >I wouldn't be surprised to hear about a bit of Osage blood in the Quebecois
> >as well, voyageurs intermarried among that tribe quite a bit, and it stands
> >to reason that a few brought their wives or children back home with them.
>
> inaccurate and very misleading; the word "canadien" is much more
> accurate. The French were not only from what is now Quebec,
Dear Mike Cleven,
All true, at least as far as the specific time period went (voyageurs"). But
I went ahead and used the term Quebecois since I was referring to their
modern descendents in Quebec.
> and those
> that got into the voyageur business tended to settle in the
> out-country of northern Ontario and out through the Prairies - thus
> the birth of Metis culture and identity, as well as the large French
> population of northern Ontario. The voyageur songs came back to
> Quebec; but the voyageurs for the most part settled down elsewhere (I
> think the constraints of heavily-Catholic village society might have
> been too much for these free-wheeling adventurers).
>
> It's true that some might have brought back native wives from other
> parts of the continent, be they Osage, Mandan, Blackfoot, or whatever;
> but such women would have had a hard time among
> canadiennes.......which is one reason why I think most canadien who
> _did_ take native wives settled down in the out-country, rather than
> risk their wives' unhappiness by expecting them to be expected in
> Riviere du Loup or Charlevoix....
>
> Mike Cleven
Again, no doubt true.... but there was nothing to stop their thinner blooded
(and more assimilated/settled)descendents from moving to Quebec several
generations hence. And I was of the understanding that there has been a
tendency for French Canadians living in other parts of Canada to have
resettled in Quebec over the last few generations (Ne C'est Pas, if I recall
my high school french?).
Mike Cleven
>> It's true that some might have brought back native wives from other
>> parts of the continent, be they Osage, Mandan, Blackfoot, or whatever;
>> but such women would have had a hard time among
>> canadiennes.......which is one reason why I think most canadien who
>> _did_ take native wives settled down in the out-country, rather than
>> risk their wives' unhappiness by expecting them to be expected in
>> Riviere du Loup or Charlevoix....
>>
>> Mike Cleven
>
>Again, no doubt true.... but there was nothing to stop their thinner blooded
>(and more assimilated/settled)descendents from moving to Quebec several
>generations hence. And I was of the understanding that there has been a
>tendency for French Canadians living in other parts of Canada to have
>resettled in Quebec over the last few generations (Ne C'est Pas, if I recall
>my high school french?).
"n'est-ce pas", pronounced roughly "nesspaw"
I haven't heard anything about French Canadians in other parts of
Canada resettling in Quebec in the last few generations; quite the
opposite. There are some Acadien and Manitobaine performers who moved
there as a result of their stature in the franco-canadien
entertainment business, but the Acadien, Ontarien, and Manitobaine
communities have not signficantly relocated to Quebec, if at all.
Most non-Quebecois French Canadians don't like Quebec very much
because of its xenophobic cultural isolationism, and also are quite
loyal to their own efforts to maintain their francophone communities
outside of Quebec; this is especially even more true of the
much-smaller communities of Saskais and Cap-Bretonnais. The Acadien
population has, I believe, grown significantly in recent decades, as
has the Ontarien (the latter partly from migration from Quebec to
Sudbury).
In my own experience, those Quebeckers who have moved to BC don't want
to move back, unless family obligations demand it (they usually don't;
I have one good friend who went back but it's rare). Why? The looser
lifestyle, the greater acceptance of different lifestyles and peoples
in BC, etc. - such that some small BC towns have significant
francophone communities, and all for that there are some concerns
among "colombiens" about government policies concerning education,
most of my formerly Quebecois friends here don't want any part of the
smalltown mentality of francophone Quebec.......
Toolawlass
>Not that the move did them all that much good in that respect, since being
>free of religious persecution in the New World, their children just didn't
>have the same religious imperative as their forefathers did.
And, IMHO, one of their reasons for coming here was to be able to impose their
strict beliefs on their "whole world", as much as they complained of
persecution, they were flaming biots themselves, and wanted to make sure
everyone in their world was the same.
PEace
Mary
Randy McDonald
>
> On Mon, 21 Dec 1998 01:19:36 GMT, fi...@digitalcave.com wrote:
>
> >> It's true that some might have brought back native wives from other
> >> parts of the continent, be they Osage, Mandan, Blackfoot, or whatever;
> >> but such women would have had a hard time among
> >> canadiennes.......which is one reason why I think most canadien who
> >> _did_ take native wives settled down in the out-country, rather than
> >> risk their wives' unhappiness by expecting them to be expected in
> >> Riviere du Loup or Charlevoix....
> >>
> >> Mike Cleven
> >
> >Again, no doubt true.... but there was nothing to stop their thinner blooded
> >(and more assimilated/settled)descendents from moving to Quebec several
> >generations hence. And I was of the understanding that there has been a
> >tendency for French Canadians living in other parts of Canada to have
> >resettled in Quebec over the last few generations (Ne C'est Pas, if I recall
> >my high school french?).
Well, the proportion of French Canadians living inside the province of
Québec has been steadily rising since the 1931 census, though not
because of emigration on the part of French Canadians to Québec, but
rather because of the assimilation of the French Canadians outside
Québec. Save in the Acadien communities of New Brunswick, in particular,
but also in some of the homogenously French Canadian communities of
Ontario like Hearst and Kapuskasing in the far north and
Prescott-Russell country in the far east, French Canadian minorities are
gradually assimilating into the English Canadian majority of population.
PEI, for instance, had, at the turn of the century, an Acadian,
French-speaking population that formed 15% of the provincial population
-- the third-highest rate in all of Canada after Québec, then new
Brunswick. Now, it's down to 5%. Thing is, it's _still_ proportionally
the third-largest Francophone community of any Canadian province, though
equally so with Ontario and Nova Scotia.
I fear that nearly all of the French Canadian populations to the west of
the Ottawa river and east of New Brunswick are doomed to gradual
assimilation.
> "n'est-ce pas", pronounced roughly "nesspaw"
>
> I haven't heard anything about French Canadians in other parts of
> Canada resettling in Quebec in the last few generations; quite the
> opposite. There are some Acadien and Manitobaine performers who moved
> there as a result of their stature in the franco-canadien
> entertainment business, but the Acadien, Ontarien, and Manitobaine
> communities have not signficantly relocated to Quebec, if at all.
> Most non-Quebecois French Canadians don't like Quebec very much
> because of its xenophobic cultural isolationism, and also are quite
> loyal to their own efforts to maintain their francophone communities
> outside of Quebec; this is especially even more true of the
> much-smaller communities of Saskais and Cap-Bretonnais. The Acadien
> population has, I believe, grown significantly in recent decades, as
> has the Ontarien (the latter partly from migration from Quebec to
> Sudbury).
>
> In my own experience, those Quebeckers who have moved to BC don't want
> to move back, unless family obligations demand it (they usually don't;
> I have one good friend who went back but it's rare). Why? The looser
> lifestyle, the greater acceptance of different lifestyles and peoples
> in BC, etc. - such that some small BC towns have significant
> francophone communities, and all for that there are some concerns
> among "colombiens" about government policies concerning education,
> most of my formerly Quebecois friends here don't want any part of the
> smalltown mentality of francophone Quebec.......
>
> Mike Cleven
> http://members.home.net/ironmtn/
>
> The thunderbolt steers all things.
> - Herakleitos
--
__________________________________________________________________
R.F. McDonald
rmcd...@upei.ca
Home E-mail: mcdo...@isn.net
"What! call a Turk, a Jew, and a Siamese, my brother? Yes, of course;
for are we all not children of the same father, and the creatures of
the same God?"
- Voltaire, from Treatise on Tolerance, 1763
__________________________________________________________________
Mike Cleven
wrote:
I stand corrected - although my impression of franco-manitobaines is
that they do not intend to be assimilated, at least not
easily.......but it's a different social context in the West anyway,
where English is the lingua franca for a hundred different
ethnicities, among which French is only one of many (and the Metis are
looking to Michif, if to anything).
Randy McDonald
I agree -- from the documentation, it seems as if the
franco-Manitobain(e)s do seem likely to persist. There are still a few
Francophone-majority communities on the Red River valley, and
Saint-Boniface -- the so-called "French Quarter" of Winnipeg -- has a
Francophone population that makes up one-quarter of the population. The
nucleus for a sustainable franco-Manitobain community does seem to
exist. However, at an assimilation rate of 50% per generation outside
Québec, most of Acadien New Brunswick, and scattered franco-Ontarien and
Acadien communities -- well, suffice it to say I don't think that there
will be more than a half-million French Canadians outside of Québec
within a couple of generations.
The same process of language shift has been going on for the native
peoples -- here's a link from the Montreal _Gazette_:
http://www.montrealgazette.com/PAGES/981221/2121932.html
> Mike Cleven
> http://members.home.net/ironmtn/
>
> The thunderbolt steers all things.
> - Herakleitos
__________________________________________________________________
7347...@compuserve.com
I defer to your wisdom concerning the Pilgrims as "refugees"--especially
since you agreed with me about everything else. <g> I usually don't check my
history books before posting these off-the-cuff replies. I have only a vague
recollection that the Pilgrims felt persecuted in Holland.
Good point about the "opportunistic refugees." Regardless of their status
before they came to America, the earliest settlers found a land of unbounded
opportunity. Since they were free to establish a society of their choosing,
it behooved them (morally speaking) to establish one that didn't exploit the
native people or resources. As we know, they failed miserably at that task.
As for my retort about Greenland, let's be thankful I came up with a retort
at all. Nevertheless, I think it's not too risky to assume that Norse/Native
relations were similar in Greenland and Newfoundland.
As for the rest, again I defer to you. I do think it unlikely that the Norse,
from a culture based on expansion and conquest, would settle peaceably among
their Skraeling brethren. Are there ANY examples of the Norse trying to adapt
to a culture they encountered rather than dominate it?
Rob
In article <75jfcb$dor$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
Mike Cleven
>Wade,
>
>I defer to your wisdom concerning the Pilgrims as "refugees"--especially
>since you agreed with me about everything else. <g> I usually don't check my
>history books before posting these off-the-cuff replies. I have only a vague
>recollection that the Pilgrims felt persecuted in Holland.
>
>Good point about the "opportunistic refugees." Regardless of their status
>before they came to America, the earliest settlers found a land of unbounded
>opportunity. Since they were free to establish a society of their choosing,
>it behooved them (morally speaking) to establish one that didn't exploit the
>native people or resources. As we know, they failed miserably at that task.
>
>As for my retort about Greenland, let's be thankful I came up with a retort
>at all. Nevertheless, I think it's not too risky to assume that Norse/Native
>relations were similar in Greenland and Newfoundland.
>
>As for the rest, again I defer to you. I do think it unlikely that the Norse,
>from a culture based on expansion and conquest, would settle peaceably among
>their Skraeling brethren. Are there ANY examples of the Norse trying to adapt
>to a culture they encountered rather than dominate it?
Very many, in fact. Normandy being the prime example, but also Sicily
and Novgorod and Kiev. They dominated in each of these countries, but
they also adopted the local language and culture, and in each case the
integrated political-social thing that resulted became the basis of
great states in the long run (Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, Kingdom of
France, and the Russian grand duchies). The same eventually happened
in Ireland, Scotland and England.
They also served as the palace guard in Constantinople, which they
called Miklagard (Great Fortress), and were the (Greek) emperor's most
trusted bodyguards and emissaries. In this capacity, they served as
mercenaries in the Holy Land on behalf of the Christian Emperor (and
the King of Sicily and the Duke of Normandy, et al).
Your average Norseman was worldly, washed, and spoke half a dozen
languages; quite cross-cultural, rather than the "ugly barbarian"
image Christian historians have black-named them with.
fi...@digitalcave.com
iro...@bigfoot.com wrote:
<snip>
> Your average Norseman was worldly, washed, and spoke half a dozen
> languages; quite cross-cultural, rather than the "ugly barbarian"
> image Christian historians have black-named them with.
>
> Mike Cleven
Dear Mike Cleven,
Saying the "average Norseman" would be quite an exaggeration ("half a dozen
language?")given that most Norsemen never left their homelands!.
As for the "washed" part, while I realize that Scandinavia has a tradition
(modern, at least) of saunas, I also recall reading of an ARAB historian
(Muslim, not Christian)who came across a group of Norse traders (along the
shores of the Black Sea?). He said that they were the "filthiest people" he
had ever met, and that "they never bathed, not even after having sex."
Perhaps you should simply say that there was considerable variation in
both couthness and hygiene among the Norse, and leave it at that?
Mike Cleven
>In article <36a0dc8b....@news.nvcr1.bc.wave.home.com>,
> iro...@bigfoot.com wrote:
><snip>
>> Your average Norseman was worldly, washed, and spoke half a dozen
>> languages; quite cross-cultural, rather than the "ugly barbarian"
>> image Christian historians have black-named them with.
>>
>> Mike Cleven
>
>
>Dear Mike Cleven,
>
>Saying the "average Norseman" would be quite an exaggeration ("half a dozen
>language?")given that most Norsemen never left their homelands!.
I was speaking of the "Viking" contingent, and should have been more
specific; those that stayed at home knew only the local dialect of
Norse, of course - but the statement stands in the context of anyone
that went aa vaeryngar (to go adventuring). And actually, although I
don't have the statistics, it just so happens that the _majority_ of
males went abroad due to overpopulation and land pressures and
internecine politics at home.......
>
>As for the "washed" part, while I realize that Scandinavia has a tradition
>(modern, at least) of saunas, I also recall reading of an ARAB historian
>(Muslim, not Christian)who came across a group of Norse traders (along the
>shores of the Black Sea?). He said that they were the "filthiest people" he
>had ever met, and that "they never bathed, not even after having sex."
Must've been talking about Swedes.... :-) (I'm Norwegian)......
>
>Perhaps you should simply say that there was considerable variation in
>both couthness and hygiene among the Norse, and leave it at that?
Fine; but in comparison to other European cultures of the same period,
they were extraordinarily clean _and_ urbane.
fi...@digitalcave.com
iro...@bigfoot.com wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jan 1999 19:09:08 GMT, fi...@digitalcave.com wrote:
>
> >In article <36a0dc8b....@news.nvcr1.bc.wave.home.com>,
> > iro...@bigfoot.com wrote:
> ><snip>
> >> Your average Norseman was worldly, washed, and spoke half a dozen
> >> languages; quite cross-cultural, rather than the "ugly barbarian"
> >> image Christian historians have black-named them with.
> >>
> >> Mike Cleven
> >
> >
> >Dear Mike Cleven,
> >
> >Saying the "average Norseman" would be quite an exaggeration ("half a dozen
> >language?")given that most Norsemen never left their homelands!.
>
> I was speaking of the "Viking" contingent, and should have been more
> specific; those that stayed at home knew only the local dialect of
> Norse, of course - but the statement stands in the context of anyone
> that went aa vaeryngar (to go adventuring). And actually, although I
> don't have the statistics, it just so happens that the _majority_ of
> males went abroad due to overpopulation and land pressures and
> internecine politics at home.......
Dear Mike Cleven,
Thank you for the clarification. But I suspect that your answer is still
somewhat misleading (you might want to investigate those "statistics" after
all.). Are you implying that the "majority of ALL Norse males went abroad"
(as averaged over the many centuries of their culture's history), or merely
that the "majority" of them during a NARROW historical period did so, or
merely that of those who DID go abroad, the "majority" did so for the reasons
that you state?
Similarly, are you seriously claiming that even Norse males who only went
abroad for a single voyage (or two) also "learned half a dozen languages"?
What about the many Vikings who didn't continue voyaging due to such things
as premature mortality (having met up with someone who strenuously and
successfully objected to involuntarily fueling the Norse economy!), or
because they didn't like it, or because they were successful enough to then
stay home, or because they ended up grabbing a chunk of land in Normandy,
Baltic Russia, Iceland, Greenland, Ireland, Scotland, or such? THESE Vikings
would have had neither the opportunity nor the inclination to learn so many
languages. So unless the "old hacks" who staid the course all learned three
or four dozen languages apiece (nothing else to do on those long scandinavian
nights, or on those long voyages? Or perhaps they needed the languages to
ask sailing directions?), the AVERAGE Viking would NOT have spoken "half a
dozen languages". (Knowing only the words needed to order booze and loose
women in foreign pubs doesn't count!).
Say rather that the most accomplished of the Vikings (whether raiders or
traders, given that the distinction was often blurred) spoke that many
languages, and that they might have made up a significant fraction of the
Viking (not Norse, but "Viking") populations at times.
> >As for the "washed" part, while I realize that Scandinavia has a tradition
> >(modern, at least) of saunas, I also recall reading of an ARAB historian
> >(Muslim, not Christian)who came across a group of Norse traders (along the
> >shores of the Black Sea?). He said that they were the "filthiest people" he
> >had ever met, and that "they never bathed, not even after having sex."
>
> Must've been talking about Swedes.... :-) (I'm Norwegian)......
I suspect that you hit that nail right on the head. Norse along the Black Sea
would likely have been Swedish Rus, with perhaps a Finn or two along for the
ride.
> >Perhaps you should simply say that there was considerable variation in
> >both couthness and hygiene among the Norse, and leave it at that?
>
> Fine; but in comparison to other European cultures of the same period,
> they were extraordinarily clean _and_ urbane.
> Mike Cleven
> http://members.home.net/ironmtn/
Certainly cleaner and urbane than the Germans and the various Slavs. The
Celts and the Romans were almost certainly cleaner. Urbanity would naturally
be subject to debate (If you are comparing the Vikings, as the presumed
"urbane creme de la creme" of Norse society, to their professional
counterparts elsewhere, it is one thing. If you are comparing the Norse
overall to whole populations, peasants and slaves included, it is another
ball of sailing twine entirely. The Norse descended population of Iceland
has been shown by geneticists to be 80% Irish by ancestry, due to the Vikings
tendency to go slave raiding. Would people that the Norse had ENSLAVED, but
who who WERE part of their society and whose genes predominate among many
Norse descendants, be so "clean_and_urbane"?)
What about just saying that the Norse were in the top 30% of cultures as
regards Europe? (Remember, we are talking about the continent that was
forced to invent the lice pick!)
Sincerely, (glad that his Native American ancestors took regular sweats, and
bathed religiously on a daily basis, but not all that upset over having a few
Vikings in his family tree as well)
Wade Wofford
Mike Cleven
The historical period is not so narrow - from the 9th Century through
to the 12th or thereabouts as far as the "Viking Age" goes; although
the earlier period of the Volkerwanderungen (3rd-5th Century, more or
less) had many of the same demographic impulses (the Germanic tribes
who pressed the Roman Empire had their roots in the
Scandinavian-Baltic area), and the scale of the territories
overwhelmed in that expansion give a clue as to the population crisis
in the North at the time.
And I meant that the majority of males went abroad. The reasons for
this were overpopulation and land pressures (inheritance issues) and
politics. etc.......In the case of Norway, the old system of giving
land equally to each son just wasn't working out in a very limited
landscape as the population boomed; it was not practiceable to cut up
the farm in eight pieces, one for each son; so six or seven of the
sons would set out, either in search of fortunes as military men or
traders, or in search of new homesteads; often both.
>
>Similarly, are you seriously claiming that even Norse males who only went
>abroad for a single voyage (or two) also "learned half a dozen languages"?
>What about the many Vikings who didn't continue voyaging due to such things
>as premature mortality (having met up with someone who strenuously and
>successfully objected to involuntarily fueling the Norse economy!), or
>because they didn't like it, or because they were successful enough to then
>stay home, or because they ended up grabbing a chunk of land in Normandy,
>Baltic Russia, Iceland, Greenland, Ireland, Scotland, or such? THESE Vikings
>would have had neither the opportunity nor the inclination to learn so many
>languages. So unless the "old hacks" who staid the course all learned three
>or four dozen languages apiece (nothing else to do on those long scandinavian
>nights, or on those long voyages? Or perhaps they needed the languages to
>ask sailing directions?), the AVERAGE Viking would NOT have spoken "half a
>dozen languages". (Knowing only the words needed to order booze and loose
>women in foreign pubs doesn't count!).
It doesn't? Works for me..... :-)
"One voyage" is a bit of a misconception; once someone left the home
valley it would be a long time and an epic journey before they came
home. Can't remember the source for the tale, but descriptions of the
markets at Birka and Novgorod describe the Norse chattering in a wide
variety of tongues; presumably everything from Irish to one of the
Baltic tongues to some kind of Slavonic to Greek to French and perhaps
Arabic or Persian. Knowledge of closely related languages (Old
English, Low German, Frisian, Pomeranian) plus the existence of two
main stocks of Norse (East and West) make for a real linguistic gumbo.
The polyglot and ultimately worldly character of Norse society is
remarked upon in most modern versions of their history; the quickest
reference I have for you is Tre Tryckare's "The Viking", published by
Crescent Books.
BTW, as far as people coming home after one voyage, that was far more
the exception than the rule. I asked my cousins in Norway about the
Vikings, and the response was "Oh, they were bad people. They moved
away from here a long time ago" (our island is in the midst of one of
the main source districts for out-migration, Rogaland).
I suppose that some of the lummoxes who ran off and served in the
guard of the Jarls of Orkney or York might not have had reason to
learn anything but the local tongue; as to whether these were
"average" either is up to debate. World-wandering was at least as
popular as taking up residence in a damp, cold Scottish castle......
>
>Say rather that the most accomplished of the Vikings (whether raiders or
>traders, given that the distinction was often blurred) spoke that many
>languages, and that they might have made up a significant fraction of the
>Viking (not Norse, but "Viking") populations at times.
That's maybe a better way to put it; but the descriptions I've heard
were that even the "common man" among Viking trading parties was quite
versatile.....
>
>> >As for the "washed" part, while I realize that Scandinavia has a tradition
>> >(modern, at least) of saunas, I also recall reading of an ARAB historian
>> >(Muslim, not Christian)who came across a group of Norse traders (along the
>> >shores of the Black Sea?). He said that they were the "filthiest people" he
>> >had ever met, and that "they never bathed, not even after having sex."
>>
>> Must've been talking about Swedes.... :-) (I'm Norwegian)......
>
>I suspect that you hit that nail right on the head. Norse along the Black Sea
>would likely have been Swedish Rus, with perhaps a Finn or two along for the
>ride.
I was just being funny. The Swedes are impeccably clean, and the
difference with what Ibn Fadlan describes always struck me as odd.
Where they got in the habit of not bathing is quite beyond me, as
Norse descriptions of the English and French and other southern
peoples comment on how smelly _they_ were and how _they_ didn't
wash......
It +might+ be, also, that Ibn Fadlan was talking about anal washing
after defecation (or sex), as prescribed by Islamic law, rather than
the daily practice of common hygeine - for which the Norse (and Finns)
elsewhere were and are quite noteworthy.
Ibn Fadlan was also scandalized (not surprisingly) upon being brought
to an audience with a muscular, blond Rus chieftain who was being
sexually serviced by three slave-women during the meeting........
>
>> >Perhaps you should simply say that there was considerable variation in
>> >both couthness and hygiene among the Norse, and leave it at that?
>>
>> Fine; but in comparison to other European cultures of the same period,
>> they were extraordinarily clean _and_ urbane.
>> Mike Cleven
>> http://members.home.net/ironmtn/
>
>Certainly cleaner and urbane than the Germans and the various Slavs. The
>Celts and the Romans were almost certainly cleaner.
The Romans certainly, and continental and British Celts probably (due
to their Romanization). Irish and Scots, on the other hand......
>Urbanity would naturally
>be subject to debate (If you are comparing the Vikings, as the presumed
>"urbane creme de la creme" of Norse society, to their professional
>counterparts elsewhere, it is one thing. If you are comparing the Norse
>overall to whole populations, peasants and slaves included, it is another
>ball of sailing twine entirely. The Norse descended population of Iceland
>has been shown by geneticists to be 80% Irish by ancestry, due to the Vikings
>tendency to go slave raiding. Would people that the Norse had ENSLAVED, but
>who who WERE part of their society and whose genes predominate among many
>Norse descendants, be so "clean_and_urbane"?)
I'd thought it was about 50-55% Irish, but I haven't seen any recent
research (other than the news that the Icelanders are debating
copyrighting their communal DNA as a research product.....). One note
about the Irish who were enslaved - they were mostly nobility - but
the culture of Iceland (including the affection for steambaths and
hotsprings) remained wholly Norse. Besides, with hotsprings on every
other chunk of land and one long, cold, dark winter ahead of you, who
_wouldn't_ want a hot-tub?
>What about just saying that the Norse were in the top 30% of cultures as
>regards Europe? (Remember, we are talking about the continent that was
>forced to invent the lice pick!)
That's "acceptable"......
>
>Sincerely, (glad that his Native American ancestors took regular sweats, and
>bathed religiously on a daily basis, but not all that upset over having a few
>Vikings in his family tree as well)
Har det bra!