And…? For all I know, that’s just modern U.S. history, and you studied nothing about this topic at all. That certainly seems to me to be the case.
I talked circles around someone who was not only a history major, but a history teacher, for this very reason. The area of history they studied was very narrow, and they had no experience learning on economics.
They believed the party line on the Great Depression, because they had no means to know better.
“Iceland was settled in 874 AD. The first settler was Ingólfur Arnarson, who settled in Reykjavík. Many of the early settlers of Iceland were small lords and kings from Norway who were fleeing the tyrrany of Harald the Fairhaired who wanted to unify Norway under one king, namely himself.”
What can I say? It’s almost like I studied this.
I have not studied about the motives of Leif Erikson when he went to Iceland and Greenland, but I do know something about the Vikings who invaded England during the same period. They did not come as settlers and political refugees. They came as conquerors.
They nearly defeated Alfred the Great (871 to 899) who was a Christian leader. The Vikings were pagans for most of this period. They continued to attack England a fairly steady basis until 1066 when Harold II defeated them at Stamford Bridge in 1066. Almost immediately after that Harold went to Hastings where he beaten and killed by William the Conqueror at the Battle of Hastings thus changing British History.
There were good Viking kings, like Cnut who was also known “the great.” He ruled England and Denmark wisely from 1016 to 1035. But, by in large, the Vikings in England were a war-like group of marauders who brought death and destruction with them.
I know this from my extensive studies British coinage and the kings who issued those pieces. It’s hard to believe that the Vikings who sailed west were different from the ones who invaded England.
You mean the people, who kicked Erikson’s ancestors out of Norway?
And yet they were; they were refugees from Norway. Just like how many Americans were refugees from England.
Considering we’re speaking to a timespan of two hundred years, it’s no stretch that by calling them the same, it’s no different than if you called the Brits and us the same.
Well, AS, if history can’t support your support your position, your ideology will do it for you.
You have given me a whole new perspective on how to interpret history. Now I realize that those German soldiers who went into France, Holland and Belgium during World War II were not invaders. They were refugees who were fleeing Hitler! Who knew? What an insight!
Thank you for setting me straight.
To think I’ve been wrong for all of these years …
Send, I just quoted a source from Cornell stating the original settlers of Iceland were running from the Norwegian king. Did you not read it?
Erik the Red, Erikson’s father, was doing the same thing when he founded the first settlements in Greenland.
How about you look these things up Send? You just admitted that you’re not familiar with Erikson or his background.
you said Erickson and his ancestors. and it seems to me…weren’t we discussing Greenland?
seems to me you conveniently move around when it suits you.
well. Icelandic history is not my forte…at all…but even a cursory glance disputes your interpretation. LOLOL
I mentioned all three.
And as I just said (look one post above you), Greenland was first settled by Erickson’s father, who was considered a fugitive by the Norwegian court.
Eventually the King died, and Erik the Red sent Erikson to Norway to check things out.
Debunked. You should have looked up Erik the Red and why he settled in Greenland in the first place.
Or Harald the Fairhaired and his mass exile of Norwegians who wouldn’t bend the knee.
um…I believe it was his brother and it was for murder, if I recollect.
look dude. I get it. You got a bone to pick with this country. You don’t like it.
Because Erik the Red was an American and i hate him for some reason?
Wow… that wasn’t random at all. Smooth Caroline, very smooth.
But the real answer is: you made an accusation about the Catholic Church.
I gave you your comeuppance. Should have had your facts straight.
odd. I don’t feel like I’ve had any comeuppance at all. I do see that you have a revised history for your source though.
Yet you were wrong.
Revised history doesn’t sound right, when I quoted a person who lived in the 16th century. That’s what you call an original source.
okay…so now you back to las casas or what?
Caroline, I don’t care. You didn’t your due diligence here.
Your degree doesn’t mean you don’t have to make an effort. That was your mistake.
don’t put this on me dude. The folk here have your number as do I.
Why not? You kept making mistakes. Mistakes you wouldn’t have made, had you done any research before making comments.
It just goes back to a lack of effort on your part.
Having a degree should make you understand that much. You know there’s work involved; no excuse.