Print Page | Close Window

Vikings in South America and racism

Printed From: WorldHistoria Forum
Category: REGIONAL HISTORY
Forum Name: Modern Americas
Forum Description:
Moderators: WH

URL: http://www.worldhistoria.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=126716
Printed Date: 29 Oct 2020 at 23:32
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Vikings in South America and racism
Posted By: Carcharodon
Subject: Vikings in South America and racism
Date Posted: 21 Jun 2011 at 19:36
On the net one can still see people who make references to the wild theories of Jacques de Mahieu. This man had some wild ideas about South America being colonised by people from Scandinavia in prehistoric time. He even speculated that Troja was occupied by Scandinavians and when they had to abandon the city in the wake of the Trojan war they simply went to the Americas and started colonies there.
 
Mahieu was from the beginning french. He partok in WWII as a part of the Waffen SS division Charlemagne which consisted of french volunteers. After the war he moved to Argentine where he published books and where an active right wing extremist. Some of his ideas he got from the extreme racist anthropologist Georges Montandon who was a collaborator during WWII.
 
Some of the so called evidence de Mahieu put forward to show that ancient Scandinavians colonized South America was petroglyphs that he interpreted as runes.
 
He was a racist that thought that South American natives could not have created the civilisations found there, but instead they must have been created by higher and more developed peoples from northern Europe.
 
One of his books are even published in Swedish.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_de_Mahieu - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_de_Mahieu



Replies:
Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 22 Jun 2011 at 00:40
Certainly. There are many racists like that guy. There are still ignorants in this world that attribute the developments of the Amerindian civilizations to Nordics, Celts, Romans, Greeks, Phoenicians, Jews, Chinese, Japanese, Hindus, Arabs, Solutreans and Blacks.... The stupidity with the history of the Americas began in the 15th century, when dumb Europeans didn't find the New World in the Bible Confused


Posted By: Goban
Date Posted: 24 Jun 2011 at 15:11

Pinguin, don't forget about the "extraterrestrial theorists" Big smile



Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 24 Jun 2011 at 20:45
There are a bunch of such pseudo-historians. He is just one of maybe one hundred out there saying their theory about who colonized america, who the Trojans and Atlanteans were.

Btw, I remember a book I read from a Scientologist speculating that Greeks build temples in central and south America. He based the hole theory on 4-5 glosses in Ketsua that were the same in Greek. Of course such things happen randomly in geographically unrelated languages in some amount. It is pure coincidence, the rest is bullsh*t.


-------------
FΑΝΑΚΤΟΥ ΜΙΔΑ ΓΟΝΟΣ
http://www.palaeolexicon.com" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 25 Jun 2011 at 11:56
Originally posted by Goban Goban wrote:

Pinguin, don't forget about the "extraterrestrial theorists" Big smile



Yeap. At least, those are known lunatics, and lack credibility on the average educated people.


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 25 Jun 2011 at 11:59
Originally posted by Flipper Flipper wrote:

There are a bunch of such pseudo-historians. He is just one of maybe one hundred out there saying their theory about who colonized america, who the Trojans and Atlanteans were.

Btw, I remember a book I read from a Scientologist speculating that Greeks build temples in central and south America. He based the hole theory on 4-5 glosses in Ketsua that were the same in Greek. Of course such things happen randomly in geographically unrelated languages in some amount. It is pure coincidence, the rest is bullsh*t.


It seems every single lunatics want to claim New World's civilizations for other cultures.

I wonder why so many people robb the heritage of Amerindians. They are the worst kind of robbers, because they grab others peoples past for theirs own use.

When will be the time people would say: Wow! These Amerindians developed wonderful cultures all by themselves! These Amerindians were quite smart people.

I bet only locals of the New World, particularly Latin Americans, recognize the glory that was the pre-Columbian Americas and its extraordinary civilisations and cultures: our heritage.

 


Posted By: Mixcoatl
Date Posted: 25 Jun 2011 at 12:06
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:


I bet only locals of the New World, particularly Latin Americans, recognize the glory that was the pre-Columbian Americas and its extraordinary civilisations and cultures: our heritage. 

In my experience those theories are more popular in Latin America than in the rest of the world. I've never met so many people who claimed Quetzalcoatl was Saint Thomas or a Viking, and the Mayans Chinese or Aliens than in Mexico. Strange but true.

Of course part of the explanation may be that in the rest of the world people are just not interested in the topic either way.

Quote I wonder why so many people robb the heritage of Amerindians. They are the worst kind of robbers, because they grab others peoples past for theirs own use.

Hmmm, I'm never really too sure what to make of that kind of argument. On the one hand it's true that racism may be involved, but on the other hand just shouting 'racism!' or 'stop robbing our heritage!' is not exactly the most effective way to debunk those theories. The most remarkable thing about this kind of crankery is not how racist it is, but rather how completely unsupported it is.


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 25 Jun 2011 at 12:35
It is plain racism of the worst kind. Some people still believe Amerindians are mentaly retarded, so they couldn't develop civilisations by theirs own. Therefore, they needed help!

Any person that assign a non-Amerindian origin to the pre-Columbian civilisations of America is a racist, and period.


Posted By: Mixcoatl
Date Posted: 26 Jun 2011 at 06:17
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

It is plain racism of the worst kind. Some people still believe Amerindians are mentaly retarded, so they couldn't develop civilisations by theirs own. Therefore, they needed help!Any person that assign a non-Amerindian origin to the pre-Columbian civilisations of America is a racist, and period.

Name one contemporary pseudohistorian (with a following outside of the neonazi or similar community) who claims Amerindians are mentally retarded.

Besides, even if somebody ascribes a non-Amerindian origin to a pre-Columbian civilization because of racist motives it's not racism that makes the claims spurious, it not being corroborated by the facts is.


Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date Posted: 26 Jun 2011 at 07:41
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:


Any person that assign a non-Amerindian origin to the pre-Columbian civilisations of America is a racist, and period.

Nonsense. I'm thinking if I should elaborate, but you are so fanatical I doubt you'd take reason: for anyone else I'd be preaching to the already convinced. Short though: you give way too little credit to sheer ignorance and the allure of mysticism.


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 26 Jun 2011 at 10:49
Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:


Nonsense.


You may believe so, but you haven't proved it. And you are wrong.
Behind every "theorists" that claim an external origin to the Amerindian civilisations lies a racist.

Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:


I'm thinking if I should elaborate, but you are so fanatical I doubt you'd take reason: for anyone else I'd be preaching to the already convinced. Short though: you give way too little credit to sheer ignorance and the allure of mysticism.


Of course, I am convinced. It is just common sense.

There is no way to study the Americas but from recognizing it was an isolated continent were man developed its own cultures in parallel of the rest of the world. That's the beauty of this place.

People that for whatever reason denies it, follow the next routine.

(1) First, they claim there is a "mystery". The fact, the only mystery they solve is theirs own ignorance on the topic.

(2) They put on place a theory that explains how "those Indians" invented anything, and the answer is always the same: "they received the teachers from somewhere else"

What else could it be but plain racism?





Posted By: King John
Date Posted: 26 Jun 2011 at 10:53
Out of curiosity, how is this different from claiming the US Constitution is based on Amerindian (read Iroqouis) social structure? 
 
I'm not trying to start a side conversation, just trying to point out the hypocracy in the stance that attributing pre-Columbian accomplishments to non-Amerindian origins is racist but attributing Amerindian origins to things/accomplishments of non-Amerindians is not racist.  THe fact of the matter is that both stance "rob" cultures of their heritage and are both based in, at the least, ignorance and possibly racism/nationalsim/anti-Westernism/any other -ism you can think of.


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 26 Jun 2011 at 11:05
The Iroquouis constitution was the first democratic and federal constitution that ever existed in the whole New World. It was in place by at least three centuries before Columbus arrived to the Americas. That's something no historian can put in doubt.

Now, the case of the "influences" of the Iroquois into the colones is more controversial. There is no doubt that there was some influences, of course. Any rational mind could deny there were "some" influences. For instance, it is not a coincidence the bald eagle, that was the sacred totem of the Iroquois, was addopted by the U.S. as a symbol. Now, this debate is about the degree of influence, rather than if existed or not. And it is a legitimate debate and has nothing to do with the other topic.

And, of course robbing the heritage of certain etnics groups is racist, whether it is done knowing or not.

Next time you read about other of those wonderful pre-contact travels, try to catch the racist that wrote them in the first place. Nazis loved and love wonderful myths, starting from the holed earth, for example.









Posted By: Mixcoatl
Date Posted: 26 Jun 2011 at 17:36
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

You may believe so, but you haven't proved it. And you are wrong.Behind every "theorists" that claim an external origin to the Amerindian civilisations lies a racist.

You make a claim, so you're the one who has to prove it. Just repeating an assertion does not constitute an argument.

Quote What else could it be but plain racism?

That question has already been answered.

Also I'm still waiting for a name of pseudohistorian who claims Amerindians are retarded.


Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date Posted: 26 Jun 2011 at 18:58
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:


Nonsense.


You may believe so, but you haven't proved it. And you are wrong.
Behind every "theorists" that claim an external origin to the Amerindian civilisations lies a racist.

Nonsense. You made the claim: you prove it. And to do that it you need to go through every single one of those theorists and show that they had racist opinions (stating aliens built pyramids is not racist, as everyone but you realizes). 


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 27 Jun 2011 at 01:06
Originally posted by Mixcoatl Mixcoatl wrote:


You make a claim, so you're the one who has to prove it. Just repeating an assertion does not constitute an argument.


I don't have to prove the sun shines on the sky.
I don't have to prove, either, that somebody who doesn't believe natives can invent theirs own things, it is a racist.

Originally posted by Mixcoatl Mixcoatl wrote:


Also I'm still waiting for a name of pseudohistorian who claims Amerindians are retarded.


They never said it. Of course those hypocrites take care of that.
But they think it.

The very fact they INVENT pseudohistories to "explain" how inventions "came" to the Americas is a proof of theirs racism.






Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 27 Jun 2011 at 01:21
Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:


Nonsense.


Don't call "nonsense" to things you ignore.

Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:


You made the claim: you prove it. And to do that it you need to go through every single one of those theorists and show that they had racist opinions (stating aliens built pyramids is not racist, as everyone but you realizes). 


Well, go to the study of the Nazis and theirs strange beliefs, and compare those with the beliefs of theirs sucessors: our contemporary lunatics that preaches UFO contact with ancient civilisations and transoceanic contacts all over the place.

To undestand it, you must known about Nazi beliefs, such as the myth of the holed earth, and the central point that the Atlantis had in theirs myths. And I am not talking about Plato's Atlantis, but Nazi's Atlantis.

The Atlantis, the origins of all civilisations. A superior race that tought the barbarians everything.

Just take a look at the roots of all that stupidity.








Posted By: Mixcoatl
Date Posted: 27 Jun 2011 at 02:05
Quote I don't have to prove the sun shines on the sky.

You don't. However, if you really had to you could prove that the sun shines in the sky; as in providing empiral data supporting that clame rather than calling your opponent names.

Quote
I don't have to prove, either, that somebody who doesn't believe natives can invent theirs own things, it is a racist.

Yes you do. You're making a claim (and a potentially libellous one at that), so it's up to you to back it up. You've been repeating the same assertion over and over again, but you haven't yet given a single shred of evidence.

If it's so blatantly obvious that the pseudohistorians we are talking about are motivated by racism then surely it's easy to produce some evidence for your claim.

Do you realize that you're using the same tactics the Afrocentrists use?
"Olmecs were black, stop stealing our heritage. If you deny that you're racist."


Posted By: Mixcoatl
Date Posted: 27 Jun 2011 at 02:15
Let's use an example:

One somewhat famous theory states that in the first century AD Saint Thomas travelled to Mexico and introduced Christianity there. The Virgin of Guadalupe was not painted by Juan Diego but dates from the first century and was Thomas' mantle. Quetzalcoatl was really Thomas, the stories about hit visit having been corrupted during the next 15 centuries, and Tonantzin was of course originally Mary.

I give you that this is nonsense, but why would this theory be racist?


Posted By: Guest
Date Posted: 27 Jun 2011 at 02:40
It's highly unlikely the Vikings colonised South America. They only returned to Vinland to get timber


Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 27 Jun 2011 at 02:54
Responsible scholarship has little assocation with contemporary dingbats, even if these have seized upon the musings of 19th century "art experts" and amateur "archaeologists" for their flights of fancy.   Of course this declaration brings to mind good old Carch and his musings about new "methods" and innovative "technolgies" [e.g. osteology, genetics], which heavily lace the ravings of individuals such as Ivan van Sertima or Constance Irwin. I can fondly recall the claims made for Phoenicians in the late 50s and early 60s with respect to the Olmec but then just as now such nonsense was heartily rejected within the circles of professionalism. That such nonsense continues is really more than a function of merchandizing with respect to sensationalism in the book trade and now in the visual medium that is television and the History Channel. Racism? I do not thinks so since exploitation of the gullible has long been traditional when the object is the making of mucho dinero.
 
Of course there is a bit of humor here with respect to our esteemed Forum addict, the Penguin, who elsewhere argued on behalf of the African origins of Cubism! Talk about a sun-setting...


-------------
Honi soit qui mal y pense


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 27 Jun 2011 at 04:50
Originally posted by Nick1986 Nick1986 wrote:

It's highly unlikely the Vikings colonised South America. They only returned to Vinland to get timber


As strange as may sound, the Vikings were the only Europeans that reached the Americans in pre-Columbian times. We know it because the evidence is undeniable. The site of a Viking town exists, and there there was found archeological pieces of Norse manufacture. There are the Icelandic Sagas that describe the events. And also, there is the knowledge of how it was done and the precise dates of these events.

But there is no single evidence, norses reached South from Canada.


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 27 Jun 2011 at 04:55
Originally posted by Mixcoatl Mixcoatl wrote:

...
Yes you do. You're making a claim (and a potentially libellous one at that), so it's up to you to back it up. You've been repeating the same assertion over and over again, but you haven't yet given a single shred of evidence.


The proof is simple. Trace the origin of the Nazi beliefs in the Atlantis, and the the same mecanism is in action here.

Originally posted by Mixcoatl Mixcoatl wrote:

...
If it's so blatantly obvious that the pseudohistorians we are talking about are motivated by racism then surely it's easy to produce some evidence for your claim.


I didn't say pseudohistorians are motivated by racism. They are racists and some not even know it.
They are racist for the simple fact they DENY Amerindians theirs own culture, development and creations. Now, the motivation of pseudohistorians is more simple than that: it is money. They know the world is covered with ignorance, and that exploiting it produces money, so they go for the dollar.

Originally posted by Mixcoatl Mixcoatl wrote:

...
Do you realize that you're using the same tactics the Afrocentrists use?
"Olmecs were black, stop stealing our heritage. If you deny that you're racist."


I don't know who are the Afrocentrists, and what one should learn from them.
Olmecs were Amerindians, and anyone that say otherwise lies.






Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 27 Jun 2011 at 04:58
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Responsible scholarship has little assocation with contemporary dingbats, even if these have seized upon the musings of 19th century "art experts" and amateur "archaeologists" for their flights of fancy.   Of course this declaration brings to mind good old Carch and his musings about new "methods" and innovative "technolgies" [e.g. osteology, genetics], which heavily lace the ravings of individuals such as Ivan van Sertima or Constance Irwin. I can fondly recall the claims made for Phoenicians in the late 50s and early 60s with respect to the Olmec but then just as now such nonsense was heartily rejected within the circles of professionalism. That such nonsense continues is really more than a function of merchandizing with respect to sensationalism in the book trade and now in the visual medium that is television and the History Channel. Racism? I do not thinks so since exploitation of the gullible has long been traditional when the object is the making of mucho dinero.


I agree with you on this topic, and, of course, exploiting ignorance produce a lot of money, and these books of "mysteries" are targeted to the ignorant public. I bet a pseudohistorian make more bucks that a legion of academics.

 
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Of course there is a bit of humor here with respect to our esteemed Forum addict, the Penguin, who elsewhere argued on behalf of the African origins of Cubism! Talk about a sun-setting...


That was another topic. There is nothing strange that artists get inspired and influenced in exotic cultures, and Picasso wasn't the exception.



Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 27 Jun 2011 at 05:14
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

To undestand it, you must known about Nazi beliefs, such as the myth of the holed earth, and the central point that the Atlantis had in theirs myths. And I am not talking about Plato's Atlantis, but Nazi's Atlantis.

The Atlantis, the origins of all civilisations. A superior race that tought the barbarians everything.

Just take a look at the roots of all that stupidity.
None of those are 'Nazi beliefs'. An occasional Nazi might possibly have held one of them, but that's just as true as the rest of the world's population.
 
Holding one of those beliefs does not make anyone a Nazi, and equally, being a Nazi did/does not mean you believed any of them.
 
A lot of garbage is talked about the Nazis and esoteric beliefs, just as it was about the Templars and theirs. The famous expedition to Tibet can hardly, when you think about it, have been a search for Atlantis, which in all the mythologies lies to the West. Granted some of the Nazi theorisers talked about an orignal home of the Aryans, and granted they got it wrong, most Nazis coldn't have cared less about Atlantis: they had more practical issues to contend with.


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.



Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 27 Jun 2011 at 06:58
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

None of those are 'Nazi beliefs'. An occasional Nazi might possibly have held one of them, but that's just as true as the rest of the world's population.
 
Holding one of those beliefs does not make anyone a Nazi, and equally, being a Nazi did/does not mean you believed any of them.
 
A lot of garbage is talked about the Nazis and esoteric beliefs, just as it was about the Templars and theirs. The famous expedition to Tibet can hardly, when you think about it, have been a search for Atlantis, which in all the mythologies lies to the West. Granted some of the Nazi theorisers talked about an orignal home of the Aryans, and granted they got it wrong, most Nazis coldn't have cared less about Atlantis: they had more practical issues to contend with.


Nazi beliefs are well researched and studied. You well know that the swastica cames from the East, and that the link with the Tibetians shouldn't be ridiculised. After all, Tibetians died deffending the Reich capital during the fall of Berling.

Now, one of the principles of Nazism is that there are superior and inferior peoples. One of the myth of the nazism is that the superior race started in Atlantis, and spread its knowledge worldwide. So, how could we wonder when those same reclycled myths are used to steal the heritage of Amerindians?




Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 27 Jun 2011 at 09:22
It is one of the wonders of modern "fuzzy thinking" that there are certain contemporary idiots that actually believe the NAZI party had any type of coherent ideology or a structured "sense of history". One could attempt to bore themselves to death by reading the Volkischer Beobachter after the advent of Alfred Rosenberg to the editorship in 1923 and the most one could assert is that they have suffered through an exercise in specious intellectualizations. Certainly there was no intellectual constuct behind NAZI concepts on government or governance. And anyone who claims otherwise has hit one too many bottles of high-proof elixir. And I am surprised that the Penguin did not notice the underlying truth here: Government by Gorilla criminality (with all due apologies to the simian). There were no "principles" behind the NAZIs other than criminal opportunism and the megalomania of very minor intellects acting out their psychological insecurities.  

-------------
Honi soit qui mal y pense


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 27 Jun 2011 at 11:06
Of course Nazi didn't have a coherent ideology. But they believed in many stupid thinks, and had many myths, from the holed earth, Atlantis, the white Christ and the cycle of the Ring. That's something an historian as yourself should know.
And I don't agree that Gorillas lacked principles. One of the principles of Hitler and Pinochet was to exterminate all "subhuman" communists to save mankind. As an historian you should also know that.




Posted By: drgonzaga
Date Posted: 27 Jun 2011 at 13:51
Who is "they"? After all there were crackpots muttering such garbage long before a ne'er-do-well Austrian crossed into Bavaria! As for "historians", they have certainly analyzed the manner and style of force utilized by Hitler to consolidate power and therein there is not a single quality that could be identified as "principle". Perhaps you should pick up and read Peter Gay's Weimar Culture: The Outsider as Insider (1968) in order to understand the actual intellectual currents of Germany in the 1920s.

-------------
Honi soit qui mal y pense


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 27 Jun 2011 at 14:21
I have studied Nazis for a long time. The first think I recomend you study on the topic is theirs origins in the Thule lodge. That will open yours eyes.
If you believe Nazis were intellectuals, you are dead wrong. Nazis were ignorant shamans that brought Europe 1500 years backwards in time, with the mentality of the Vikings and the violence of the Mongols.


Posted By: Mixcoatl
Date Posted: 27 Jun 2011 at 18:18
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

The proof is simple. Trace the origin of the Nazi beliefs in the Atlantis, and the the same mecanism is in action here.

Graham as already dealt. With that. And I'd like to add that whatever the Nazis might have believed about Atlantis is irrelevant to the question if, say, Gavin Menzies is a racist for saying China had colonies on Puerto Rico.

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:


Originally posted by Mixcoatl Mixcoatl wrote:

...If it's so blatantly obvious that the pseudohistorians we are talking about are motivated by racism then surely it's easy to produce some evidence for your claim.
I didn't say pseudohistorians are motivated by racism. They are racists and some not even know it. They are racist for the simple fact they DENY Amerindians theirs own culture, development and creations.

Please make up your mind before you engage in a debate. What you're saying here is "They are not motivated by racism. They are motivated by racism." So are they or not?

Quote Now, the motivation of pseudohistorians is more simple than that: it is money. They know the world is covered with ignorance, and that exploiting it produces money, so they go for the dollar.

Since you agree the world is full of ignorance, why do you deny the possibility that the pseudohistorians themselves are victims of that themselves?

Quote
Originally posted by Mixcoatl Mixcoatl wrote:

...Do you realize that you're using the same tactics the Afrocentrists use?
"Olmecs were black, stop stealing our heritage. If you deny that you're racist."
I don't know who are the Afrocentrists, and what one should learn from them.Olmecs were Amerindians, and anyone that say otherwise lies.

Well, yeah, but they are lies because the evidence for the Afrocentrists' claims is extremely flimsy of not unexistant. The question if Afrocentrists are racists or not is irrelevant to the question if they are right or not. What I am saying is, if you got into a debate with an Afrocentrists there is no way for an observer do make out who's right because both you and the Afrocentrists' argument is "you're racist".

Is it really that hard to understand that "A claims that X. There's something objectionable about A. Therefore X is false." is a logical fallacy?


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 27 Jun 2011 at 22:25
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

None of those are 'Nazi beliefs'. An occasional Nazi might possibly have held one of them, but that's just as true as the rest of the world's population.
 
Holding one of those beliefs does not make anyone a Nazi, and equally, being a Nazi did/does not mean you believed any of them.
 
A lot of garbage is talked about the Nazis and esoteric beliefs, just as it was about the Templars and theirs. The famous expedition to Tibet can hardly, when you think about it, have been a search for Atlantis, which in all the mythologies lies to the West. Granted some of the Nazi theorisers talked about an orignal home of the Aryans, and granted they got it wrong, most Nazis coldn't have cared less about Atlantis: they had more practical issues to contend with.


Nazi beliefs are well researched and studied.
Putting drgonzaga's point another way, there are/were no 'Nazi beliefs' and myore than there were 'Fascist beliefs' exept in the sense that Nazis and Fascists believed that if you fell off a cliff you would probably kill yourself.
Quote
You well know that the swastica cames from the East, and that the link with the Tibetians shouldn't be ridiculised. After all, Tibetians died deffending the Reich capital during the fall of Berling.
The swastika didn't come from 'the east', though it is a symbol there are well as in the west. It was used, inter alia, by various pre-contact peoples in the Americas. The Nazis used the backward swastika as an emblem because of its prevalence in Indo-European cultures.
 
I wasn't ridiculing Tibetans, but merely pointing out that no-one would go to Tibet to look for the origins of a myth about the Atlantic, which is in the opposite direction. Even Rosenberg and co thought the Aryans originated in northern Europe,
Quote
Now, one of the principles of Nazism is that there are superior and inferior peoples.
Not only Naziism, of course. It's misleading to call it a 'Nazi belief'. 
Quote
 One of the myth of the nazism is that the superior race started in Atlantis, and spread its knowledge worldwide. So, how could we wonder when those same reclycled myths are used to steal the heritage of Amerindians?
I don't know of any Nazi who ever believed the superior race started in Atlantis. Basically you are spouting tommy-rot here. If the nazis had all been members of the Hermitic Order of the Gold Dawn they wouldn't have been a tenth as dangerous as they were.
 
What are you doing? Trying to set up a defence that the Nazis weren't guilty necause they weere insane?


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.



Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 27 Jun 2011 at 22:27
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Of course Nazi didn't have a coherent ideology. But they believed in many stupid thinks, and had many myths, from the holed earth, Atlantis, the white Christ and the cycle of the Ring. That's something an historian as yourself should know.
It's something only an ignoramus would believe. The Nazis were far from crazy.


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.



Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 27 Jun 2011 at 22:33
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

I have studied Nazis for a long time.
No you haven't. You've just read a lot of sensationalist invented nonsense.
Quote
The first think I recomend you study on the topic is theirs origins in the Thule lodge. That will open yours eyes.
The only significant Nazi in the Thule society was Hess. And I grant you Hess was crazy. INcidentally you are contradicting yourself here. The Thule soiciety didn't believe the original homeland was Atlantis, bu that it was Thule. That's why it was called the Thule Society.
Quote
If you believe Nazis were intellectuals, you are dead wrong. Nazis were ignorant shamans that brought Europe 1500 years backwards in time, with the mentality of the Vikings and the violence of the Mongols.
Maybe. But none of those were crazy either.


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.



Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date Posted: 27 Jun 2011 at 23:15
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Nazis were ignorant shamans that brought Europe 1500 years backwards in time, with the mentality of the Vikings and the violence of the Mongols.
Tsk, tsk, no self-respecting viking would gas a poor Jewish girl for the sake of her being Jewish. He would sell her for good profit.


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 28 Jun 2011 at 01:25
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

It's something only an ignoramus would believe. The Nazis were far from crazy.


I didn't say they were crazy. They were a bunch of dogs that followed the leader that barked stronger. And if the leader barked them about the Atlantis, they listen it.


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 28 Jun 2011 at 01:32
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

It's something only an ignoramus would believe. The Nazis were far from crazy.


I didn't say they were crazy. They were a bunch of dogs that followed the leader that barked stronger. And if the leader barked them about the Atlantis, they listen it.
 
Except the leader didn't bark about Atlantis, and like most people though unlike some apparently, he realised that Atlantis was supposed to be in the Atlantic, which is why the Atlantic is called the Atlantic.


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.



Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 28 Jun 2011 at 01:35
Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:


Tsk, tsk, no self-respecting viking would gas a poor Jewish girl for the sake of her being Jewish. He would sell her for good profit.


Certainly. Ancient norse were a lot more human than the Nazis. The nordic legends, processed by people like Wagner, though, were used with a different purpose.




Posted By: Guest
Date Posted: 28 Jun 2011 at 01:36
Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Nazis were ignorant shamans that brought Europe 1500 years backwards in time, with the mentality of the Vikings and the violence of the Mongols.
Tsk, tsk, no self-respecting viking would gas a poor Jewish girl for the sake of her being Jewish. He would sell her for good profit.


LOL That made reading through this thread worthwhile.


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 28 Jun 2011 at 01:39
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

...
Except the leader didn't bark about Atlantis, and like most people though unlike some apparently, he realised that Atlantis was supposed to be in the Atlantic, which is why the Atlantic is called the Atlantic.


It is quite clear by know that the Nazi founders met in the strange Thule lodge, inspired by esoteric works of, among others, Mme. Blavatsky. By the way, Thule means the Atlantis.
If you see the pictures of Himmler S.S. headquarters, you will realize they followed a pseudo-pagan religion.


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 28 Jun 2011 at 01:41
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Who is "they"? After all there were crackpots muttering such garbage long before a ne'er-do-well Austrian crossed into Bavaria! As for "historians", they have certainly analyzed the manner and style of force utilized by Hitler to consolidate power and therein there is not a single quality that could be identified as "principle". Perhaps you should pick up and read Peter Gay's Weimar Culture: The Outsider as Insider (1968) in order to understand the actual intellectual currents of Germany in the 1920s.


Sorry drgonzaga, but studying lunatics as the Nazis can confuse the more rational historian. Welcome to the madhouse.



Posted By: Guest
Date Posted: 28 Jun 2011 at 01:49
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

...
Except the leader didn't bark about Atlantis, and like most people though unlike some apparently, he realised that Atlantis was supposed to be in the Atlantic, which is why the Atlantic is called the Atlantic.


It is quite clear by know that the Nazi founders met in the strange Thule lodge, inspired by esoteric works of, among others, Mme. Blavatsky. By the way, Thule means the Atlantis.
If you see the pictures of Himmler S.S. headquarters, you will realize they followed a pseudo-pagan religion.


From the way it looks, they incorporated any belief that accorded with their own. Anyways, Thule does not mean Atlantis, it was only the Nazi equivalent of the story. Thule was named by the Greeks after a mythical northern country. Maybe Norway, Iceland or some other Scandinavian country?


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 28 Jun 2011 at 02:06
Originally posted by Panther Panther wrote:


From the way it looks, they incorporated any belief that accorded with their own. Anyways, Thule does not mean Atlantis, it was only the Nazi equivalent of the story. Thule was named by the Greeks after a mythical northern country. Maybe Norway, Iceland or some other Scandinavian country?


According to Seneca, that mentiones Thule in Medea, it seems it was Iceland, but that all the islands from that region of the Atlantic were called Thule. In any case, for the Nazis, that followed Blavatsky and other esoteric writers and mythmakers, Thule was somewhere in the Atlantic.


Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 28 Jun 2011 at 05:01
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

...
Except the leader didn't bark about Atlantis, and like most people though unlike some apparently, he realised that Atlantis was supposed to be in the Atlantic, which is why the Atlantic is called the Atlantic.


It is quite clear by know that the Nazi founders met in the strange Thule lodge, inspired by esoteric works of, among others, Mme. Blavatsky. By the way, Thule means the Atlantis.
Utter absolute nonsense. Atlantis was a country supposed to have sunk beneath the waves to the west of Gibraltar/Tangier. Thule was the extreme north:  Pliny claimed that Thule was six days sail NORTH of the British Isles. . Thule is seen as an icy northern coutry, rather Scandinavian. Atlantis if seen as a Mediterranean climate countrs that conquered parts of Iberia and the Mediterranean coast as far as Athens (which it failed to take.) Atlantis was supposed to be an advanced ciilisation. Thule was supposed to be a primitive one. Above all, Arlantis is probbaly completely fictional while Thule is probably another name for a genuine country like Norway or Sweden. 
 
The two have nothing whatsoever in common.
Quote
If you see the pictures of Himmler S.S. headquarters, you will realize they followed a pseudo-pagan religion.
Most of the Nazis were Christian. It would be untrue of course to say that most Gernam Christians were Nazis, but there were some significant Christian leaders who were. As of 1940 94% of Germans identified themselves as either Protestant or Catholic. A lot more than 6% were supporters of the party.
 
 
Also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Christians - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Christians  


-------------
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.



Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 28 Jun 2011 at 06:09
Nonsense. Nazism was not a Christian movement.

I bet it is time for you, dear gcle2003, to go back to college.


Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date Posted: 28 Jun 2011 at 06:20
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Nonsense. Nazism was not a Christian movement.

I bet it is time for you, dear gcle2003, to go back to college.

And you to preschool, to learn English: he never said that. The theory of relativity is not a Jewish theory just because Einstein had his religious preferences.


Posted By: King John
Date Posted: 28 Jun 2011 at 06:27
Do we need a rehashing of the CoC here?  Ad hominem attacks are not acceptable here.  Consider this a friendly reminder.


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 28 Jun 2011 at 06:49
OK. I leave the thread. It is impossible to discuss about Nazi beliefs in a civilised manner.
I'll come back when someone mentions the alliens that landed in Tiahuanaco.


Posted By: King John
Date Posted: 28 Jun 2011 at 07:10
Who said that Nazism was a Christian movement?
 
But you might want to read up on the impact of German Christian, Protestant, concepts on the early development of Nazi "dogma"/political policy.  This impact is at time more specifically seen in Nazi "dogma"/political policy towards Jews, but can be seen in the official policy of the early years of attempting to establish a unified Protestant Church under the control of the Reich.  A good read on the subject of the relationship between Nazism and Christianity is http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=7658 - The Holy Reich: Naxi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919-1945 .
 
Now none of this means that Nazism was a Christian Movement; it just means that Nazism had elements that were shaped by Christianity and owed their origins to Christian theology.


Posted By: King John
Date Posted: 28 Jun 2011 at 07:14
But we should all get back to the orginal topic at hand.


Posted By: Guest
Date Posted: 06 Apr 2014 at 20:32
Vikings in South America???
 
More quasi scientific drivel-fodder for the masses.
 
When it's proven by science, then I'll accept it as true.


Posted By: pinguin
Date Posted: 07 Apr 2014 at 02:21
The only Norse that ever reached South America are the descendants of German and immigrants of Nordic countries that can be find in several places in the region. In Brazil in particular, there are millions. By the way, many Germans reached the Americas very early with the conquistadors and early colonial settlers. The Chilean aristocracy, in particular, traces its roots to a German of last name "Blumen" who was translated to "Flores", and who married a local "Indian princess" 


Posted By: Guest
Date Posted: 07 Apr 2014 at 13:07
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

The only Norse that ever reached South America are the descendants of German and immigrants of Nordic countries that can be find in several places in the region. In Brazil in particular, there are millions. By the way, many Germans reached the Americas very early with the conquistadors and early colonial settlers. The Chilean aristocracy, in particular, traces its roots to a German of last name "Blumen" who was translated to "Flores", and who married a local "Indian princess" 
 
I'm not disagreeing with you.
 
Unfortunately we have a brand new crop of "History Revisionists" who want to twist historical fact to suit their own agenda.
 
You are quite right in saying that there are idiots who wants to claim the advances in other cultures for their own, and in the process denigrate the original culture.
 
But the truth is a pretty big hurdle to get over, so we ignore these people where we can.


Posted By: fantasus
Date Posted: 07 Apr 2014 at 18:20
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

The only Norse that ever reached South America are the descendants of German and immigrants of Nordic countries that can be find in several places in the region. In Brazil in particular, there are millions. By the way, many Germans reached the Americas very early with the conquistadors and early colonial settlers. The Chilean aristocracy, in particular, traces its roots to a German of last name "Blumen" who was translated to "Flores", and who married a local "Indian princess" 
 
I'm not disagreeing with you.
 
Unfortunately we have a brand new crop of "History Revisionists" who want to twist historical fact to suit their own agenda.
 
You are quite right in saying that there are idiots who wants to claim the advances in other cultures for their own, and in the process denigrate the original culture.
 
But the truth is a pretty big hurdle to get over, so we ignore these people where we can.
What is all this about? Who are those "revisionists"? I find it hard to believe such a "viking South America" theory is very widespread since the only place I have seen it mentioned is in this thread.
And why confuse "norse" and "german"?


Posted By: Guest
Date Posted: 07 Apr 2014 at 18:39
fantasus: The "Revisionists" are precisely those people who are the subject of the original post.
 
Every now and then some idiot pokes their head up with a new version of historical facts, which ignores the science and everything that's gone before.
 
Does the name Fomenko ring any bells?
 
And I don't think penguin "confused" Norse and German, as the Norse became the Germans and Normans, and I think he may have been talking about more recent times.


Posted By: fantasus
Date Posted: 07 Apr 2014 at 18:47
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

fantasus: The "Revisionists" are precisely those people who are the subject of the original post.
 
Every now and then some idiot pokes their head up with a new version of historical facts, which ignores the science and everything that's gone before.
 
Does the name Fomenko ring any bells?
 
And I don't think penguin "confused" Norse and German, as the Norse became the Germans and Normans, and I think he may have been talking about more recent times.
Now it is me who are a bit confused. "The norse became the germans"? 
No, I think they did not, they are not the same though somewhat related, as the different "british" and "iriish" are related or as english and french or spaniards and italians. And what has Fomenko to do with theories about "vikings"?


Posted By: Guest
Date Posted: 07 Apr 2014 at 18:59
I think you're deliberately misconstruing what I said.
 
The German language, afaik, is of Norse origin, isn't it?(Or is that they belong to the same Language family)
 
Were not the Saxons a Germanic Tribe with Norse origins?
 
The word "Norman" is a derivative of "Norsemen" is it not?
 
Fomenko is a History Revisionist, isn't he?
 
 
But, back to the point, the subject of Vikings in South America is total rubbish, balderdash, codswallop, isn't it?
 
Did you even read the first post?
 
Also:
 
  • Jacques de Mahieu was a French Argentine anthropologist and Peronist. He wrote several books on esoterism, which he mixed with anthropological theories inspired by scientific racism
  • A http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaboration_with_the_Axis_Powers_during_World_War_II" rel="nofollow - collaborationist in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vichy_France" rel="nofollow - Vichy France , he became an http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peronist" rel="nofollow - Peronist ideologue in the 1950s, mentor to a Roman Catholic nationalist youth group in the 1960s, and later in life, head of the Argentine chapter of Spanish neo-Nazi group http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CEDADE" rel="nofollow - CEDADE .
     
    and more:
     
    De Mahieu wrote on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Columbian_America" rel="nofollow - pre-Columbian America and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esoteric_Nazism" rel="nofollow - esoteric Nazism . He travelled to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraguay" rel="nofollow - Paraguay for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropological" rel="nofollow - anthropological studies, and claimed the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guayaki" rel="nofollow - Guayaki tribes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norse_colonization_of_the_Americas" rel="nofollow - were descendants of the Vikings . He allegedly travelled to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil" rel="nofollow - Brazil in 1974, where he visited the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sete_Cidades" rel="nofollow - Sete Cidades park in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piau%C3%AD" rel="nofollow - Piauí and considered it a Viking establishment. His books on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knights_Templar" rel="nofollow - Knights Templar allege they settled in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Columbian_Mexico" rel="nofollow - Mexico before Columbus .
     
     
    Now, would you call this guy a revisionist or simply a fool?
     
     
     


    Posted By: fantasus
    Date Posted: 07 Apr 2014 at 20:53
    Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

    I think you're deliberately misconstruing what I said.
    No. It was not clear to me.
     
    Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

    The German language, afaik, is of Norse origin, isn't it?(Or is that they belong to the same Language family)
    The other way . Norse languages are of germanic origin, like english, gothic and dutch
    Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

    Were not the Saxons a Germanic Tribe with Norse origins?
     
    The word "Norman" is a derivative of "Norsemen" is it not?
    see above

    Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

    Fomenko is a History Revisionist, isn't he?
    not the same as "Nazi"
     
    Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

    But, back to the point, the subject of Vikings in South America is total rubbish, balderdash, codswallop, isn't it?
    I think so.
    Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

    Did you even read the first post?
    Yes
    Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

    Also:
     
  • Jacques de Mahieu was a French Argentine anthropologist and Peronist. He wrote several books on esoterism, which he mixed with anthropological theories inspired by scientific racism
  • A http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaboration_with_the_Axis_Powers_during_World_War_II" rel="nofollow - in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vichy_France" rel="nofollow - , he became an http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peronist" rel="nofollow - ideologue in the 1950s, mentor to a Roman Catholic nationalist youth group in the 1960s, and later in life, head of the Argentine chapter of Spanish neo-Nazi group http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CEDADE" rel="nofollow - .
     
    and more:
     
    De Mahieu wrote on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Columbian_America" rel="nofollow - and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esoteric_Nazism" rel="nofollow - . He travelled to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraguay" rel="nofollow - for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropological" rel="nofollow - studies, and claimed the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guayaki" rel="nofollow - tribes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norse_colonization_of_the_Americas" rel="nofollow - . He allegedly travelled to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil" rel="nofollow - in 1974, where he visited the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sete_Cidades" rel="nofollow - park in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piau%C3%AD" rel="nofollow - and considered it a Viking establishment. His books on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knights_Templar" rel="nofollow - allege they settled in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Columbian_Mexico" rel="nofollow - .
     
     
    Now, would you call this guy a revisionist or simply a fool?
     
     
     
    Both. And outdated too.


    Posted By: Guest
    Date Posted: 08 Apr 2014 at 01:10
    Then, by whatever stick you measure it, we agree.
     
    That's what I call a "win win".
     
    And, no, I didn't call Fomenko a Nazi, but this other jerk was, and so was Hitler and a number of his higher eschelon, like Himmler for example.


    Posted By: pinguin
    Date Posted: 04 May 2014 at 09:47
    Strange. I agree with Toyomotor in this thread.

    -------------
    A point of view from the antipodes


    Posted By: Guest
    Date Posted: 04 May 2014 at 14:18
    Pinguin:
    Strange days indeed.  Clap



    Print Page | Close Window

    Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
    Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net