@Foofie,
I think the Europeans are just as oriented towards equality, based on one's ability, as Americans.
Most parents want their child to marry someone with abilities fitting into the family.
The Cinderella story is in the royal Scandinavian families.
The Swedish Crown princess is getting married to a man with a fitness studio.
He has now been in the "royal school" for seven years and his now fit to "move on hard wood floors" or "he now knows how to handle knife and fork" as we would say.
The crownprince of Denmark is married to a very well educated young woman, she also had to go to the "royal school"
The Norwegian crown prince married a commoner with a child "out-of wedlock"
As an American, which is a comparatively young country, history began in 1776, and in Europe began with the Renaissance. Prior to that it is all a misty haze, in my opinion, that does not interest me. That prejudiced thought is exacerbated, I believe, by my being Jewish, in that more religious Jews are aware of a Jewish history that goes back to biblical times, and we know that so many people could care less about what happened four thousand, or 3,500 years ago. My point is that one's interest in historical eras might just correlate to one's identity. So, for example, Germans might find their history, going back to what others called a barbaric era, still of interest to them. Others would trivialize it.
What I do think Scandanavians gave much of Europe were their original war-like genes, so that today those of Scandanavian birth have more pleasant peace-like genes (being descended from those that stayed back in Scandanavia). I also think their straight blond hair, blowing in a wind, has a certain panache that many might admire (or be jealous of).
What I believe names of people (Normans, etc.) correlate to, to a certain degree, is a gene pool that sets up a competitive situation in the same land-mass (aka, country). So, assuming that Muslims, with their faith, will have less mixing with other Scandanavians, does that augur well for a peaceful Scandanavia in the future?
@Foofie,
First we do know something about what happened 3-4000 years ago as we as Lutherans concentrate on the OT as well as the NT in the Bible and every Sunday in church there are readings out of the Bible.
Priest - as we call the clergy - often study Hebrew as well as Greek and Latin.
You are wrong if you think there has been no wars since the Viking times.
The last war Sweden was involved in was 1812 whereas the Danes, Finns and Norwegians were fighting in WWII.
But Sweden has had many wars. Karl XII was fighting Russia as well as Denmark and Norway. Gustav II Adolf was involved in the 30 year war 1618-1648.
Beside that Sweden has been in war with Denmark and Norway several times.
Denmark has been fighting Prussia and Austria. I think 1848 as well as 1864. England was fighting Denmark.
Denmark was at one time I think one of the larger countries in Europe and so was Sweden.
@saab,
saab wrote:
First we do know something about what happened 3-4000 years ago as we as Lutherans concentrate on the OT as well as the NT in the Bible and every Sunday in church there are readings out of the Bible.
Priest - as we call the clergy - often study Hebrew as well as Greek and Latin.
You are wrong if you think there has been no wars since the Viking times.
The last war Sweden was involved in was 1812 whereas the Danes, Finns and Norwegians were fighting in WWII.
But Sweden has had many wars. Karl XII was fighting Russia as well as Denmark and Norway. Gustav II Adolf was involved in the 30 year war 1618-1648.
Beside that Sweden has been in war with Denmark and Norway several times.
Denmark has been fighting Prussia and Austria. I think 1848 as well as 1864. England was fighting Denmark.
Denmark was at one time I think one of the larger countries in Europe and so was Sweden.
As a European, you may be aware of the above facts as germane to European history. I believe that many Americans do not know the nuances of European history, nor care. No offense. But, all that water between the two hemispheres might have affected many American's interest ("interest" might not be waterproof)?
I do believe that there are Americans that do relate to English history (aka, Britain), in that the dominant American culture/language came from England. Dickens anyone?
@roger,
roger wrote:
You know, it's kind of fun when we can disagree like this. Brown and I are poles apart 90% of the time, and it's not always worth a
hell yeah, ya gotta have fun with this stuff once in a while. i've had to remind myself of that a little bit lately.
@Foofie,
I have met many Americans who know a lot about European history in general and others who know a lot about the country their ancestors emmigrated from.
My daughter who has studied in USA learnt more about European history in USA than she had in school here in Europe.
@saab,
saab wrote:
I have met many Americans who know a lot about European history in general and others who know a lot about the country their ancestors emmigrated from.
My daughter who has studied in USA learnt more about European history in USA than she had in school here in Europe.
So, do not blame me if your daughter is highly intelligent and went to one of the better universities in the U.S.
And, if you met Americans that know a lot about European history there may be a correlation between interest in European history, and visiting Europe. Duh!
@Foofie,
My daughter went to highschool not a university.
@saab,
Foofie does the same thing as Foxie; they're the only ones who understands history better than everybody else on a2k whether its about the world, the US, or Israel. We're all dumb-heads. They can't see their own prejudice.
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
Foofie does the same thing as Foxie; they're the only ones who understands history better than everybody else on a2k whether its about the world, the US, or Israel. We're all dumb-heads. They can't see their own prejudice.
but "you're missing the point". "i consider it a reliable source". blah, blah blah.
american culture is so fractured these days it's a wonder that anything gets done, ci. it only makes it worse when you have paid members of the piss 'n moan brigade out there making **** up for us all to be mortally outraged about.
frankly, i'm starting to lose my patience with the whole damn thing.
@DontTreadOnMe,
I've lost patience a long time ago, but I will not let these posters who continues to contradict themselves with their opinions get free reign, because they are dangerous if the facts are not spelled out for those sitting on the fence. It's also a good thing many here challenge what they say, and point out with evidence how wrong they are.
I believe those with open minds and common sense will realize that their own contradictions lessens their credibility.
@Foofie,
Don´t be too arrogant about us Scandinavians.
Alfred the Great (849-901) made peace with the Danes 878 but had to give up 2/3 of the Anglosachian area which now went to Danelagen. This way there was a Danish country in England and the first king´s name was Gudrum.
Had Gudrum won the battle instead of making peace with Alfred, Danish would have been the language of the English and you and I would now probably have discussed in Danish instead of English. So would everybody else here on a2k.
@saab,
Does York which was a Viking city have anything to do with that?
@cicerone imposter,
No it was in Wessex or around there. There is a statue of King Alfred in Winchester.
York was founded as Eboracum in AD 71 by the Romans.
After the Angles moved in, the city was renamed Eoforwic
The Vikings captured the city in 866, renaming it Jórvík,
After the Norman Conquest, the name gradually evolved into "York", which was first used in the 13th century.
York comes from a Norwegian place name Jorvik or Gjøvik ,Gjovik, Jøvik.
So New York is really named after some small place in Norway.
@saab,
I just remember visiting York a couple of times many decades ago, and visiting their museum. Your last post kind of reminded me about their history and about Jorvik. Thank you. Also, during my cruise in the South Pacific last Dec-Jan, I met a lady from York, Pat, who sat with me on the flight from Los Angeles to Papeete. We invited her to join us on a private tour of Moorea by a rented car, and she joined us. We talked to each other throughout the 26-day cruise and even shared a few meals together at the buffet.
@saab,
On the other hand, Jórvík is the Norse name for 10th century Northumbria's capital and for the kingdom - the famous
Jorvik-Viking-Centre is an attraction in York.
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
Foofie does the same thing as Foxie; they're the only ones who understands history better than everybody else on a2k whether its about the world, the US, or Israel. We're all dumb-heads. They can't see their own prejudice.
I hear a friendly voice chatting about me over the backyard fence. How interesting.
@Foofie,
Gossip on a2k is a world-wide venue.
@saab,
saab wrote:
Don´t be too arrogant about us Scandinavians.
Arrogant? How was I arrogant? You might be using the wrong word here?
However, I believe history plays itself out, as it has played itself out. Discussing what could have been is just an exercise that I cannot put much value on. So, not only are we talking in English, but the entire world has people learning English, if they do not yet speak it. What people who know English may value is that English has borrowed/incorporated words from many other languages, so when one speaks, and thinks, in English, one can conjure up thoughts that have fine nuances. It affects the national character, I believe. So, I admit there are words in German that have no direct translation in English; however, English just incorporated that German word into the English lexicon (i.e., schadenfreude).
@Foofie,
Right. She probably meant to say 'condescending'.
