Woodbridge poem

A Misbegotten Rune on the Ruthwell Cross?

2023.05.31 21:24 Hurlebatte A Misbegotten Rune on the Ruthwell Cross?

Here's a short paper I was working on. A while ago I submitted it to Futhark: International Journal of Runic Studies and although it wasn't accepted, I got some critiques that I used to make this latest version of the paper.
Abstract
An unusual runic shape ᛤ appears on the Ruthwell Cross. Raymond Page and others have supposed that this runic shape is an innovative rune which was invented to stand for an allophone of /k/ in the words ᛤᚣᚾᛁᛝᚳ and ᚢᛝᛤᛖᛏ. This paper proposes instead that the runic shape may be the result of a mistake which was made twice, noticed, and not repeated. This paper proposes that there is evidence for general confusion and mistakes on the cross concerning the runes ᚸ and ᛣ, along with their parent runes ᚷ and ᚳ. This paper also questions to what degree ᛤ actually appears as a shape, along with the supposed use for this strange runic shape.
Body
There are four main sides to the cross, and two of them bear runic text. The text is essentially a short version of the Old English poem The Dream of the Rood, which can be found in The Vercelli Book. By comparing the runic text on the Ruthwell Cross with matching text from The Dream of the Rood, one can make an informed guess as to which side of the cross bears the first half of the runic text, and therefore determine which side’s inscription is more likely to have been planned and/or carved first. When we map out the representation of /k/ on the cross, we are said to find it represented with ᛤ twice on the first runic side, and with ᛣ twice on the second runic side. Why not ᛣ all four times? The common explanation is that the first two instances of /k/ are special allophones of /k/ which appear before secondary fronted vowels, the idea being that ᛤ was deliberately invented to stand for this special allophone. I think attributing this strange runic shape to a mistake might be more straightforward. My first issue with interpreting ᛤ as a legitimate rune is its design, since if ᛤ were an innovative rune invented to stand for an allophone of /k/, then why does ᚸ, a rune for /g/, seem to serve as its visual base? ᛤ is sometimes said to be a mirrored ᛣ, but a mirrored ᛣ would look like the 18th calendar rune ᛯ, and one has to wonder why this neater and simpler design were not chosen. My second issue with ᛤ is its supposed role. It is true that ᛣ was invented to stand for an allophone of /k/, which at first makes it seem plausible that ᛤ could have been as well, but the invention of ᛣ had a real effect, since it allowed people to more easily distinguish between certain clashing pairs like chin and kin (spelled cinn/cin/cinne/cynne/cyne and cynn/cyn/kynn/kyn/cinn respectively in Old English Latin alphabet texts). What ambiguity was alleviated by ᛤ? What confusion could have arisen from writing ᛣᚣᚾᛁᛝᚳ and ᚢᛝᛣᛖᛏ instead of ᛤᚣᚾᛁᛝᚳ and ᚢᛝᛤᛖᛏ? One can argue that ᛤ may simply have been more fanciful than practical, but that would be unexpected for an epigraphical futhorc text. Futhorc does contain fanciful runes like cƿeorð ᛢ (equivalent to ⟨q⟩) and stan ᛥ (equivalent to ⟨st⟩), but these runes are only found in manuscripts, and these manuscripts are notorious for including strange and apparently unused runes in their rune-lists. Epigraphical futhorc is rarely as quirky as manuscript futhorc, and its quirkiness is often something it inherited, not invented (the rather unnecessary runes ᛡ, ᛇ, and ᛉ for example). My third issue with ᛤ is that it does not appear in manuscripts (epigraphical futhorc runes rarely escape mention), nor does it seem to appear anywhere else, including on the Ruthwell Cross’s twin, the Bewcastle Cross. This second runic cross is less than 50 kilometers away from Ruthwell, is dated to the same period, and shares strikingly similar, in some places almost identical, depictions of birds and coiling vines. Although most of its runic text is weathered beyond recognition, the name ᛣᚣᚾᛁᛒᚢᚱᚢᚸ can still be faintly seen, and old sketches of the cross help to confirm this reading. This spelling is noteworthy because it uses ᛣ where we might expect ᛤ (compare Ruthwell's ᛤᚣᚾᛁᛝᚳ to ᛣᚣᚾᛁᛒᚢᚱᚢᚸ). Gaby Waxenberger posits that ᛤ may appear elsewhere on the cross in the word ᛤᚱᛁᛋᛏᛏᚢᛋ, but she also rightly points out that the cross is too weathered to be certain (Waxenberger 2004, pp. 735–736), and old sketches (such as the one in Henry Howard's Observations on Bridekirk Font and on the Runic Column at Bewcastle, in Cumberland) do not strongly support this reading, nor would such a reading be expected (compare Ruthwell's ᛣᚱᛁᛋᛏ to ᛤᚱᛁᛋᛏᛏᚢᛋ). My fourth issue with ᛤ is that the actual appearance of this supposed rune is not as evidential as runologists have long assumed. Because the cross is damaged (having been weathered and having been toppled by iconoclasts in the 17th century) the two supposed instances of ᛤ are quite hard to see, meaning we have to rely on flawed depictions of the cross from the 18th and 19th centuries. Although these old depictions largely agree with each other, there is significant disagreement in how they represent the second supposed instance of ᛤ: the depiction by Alexander Gordon in Itinerarium Septentrionale has ᚢᛝᛤᛖᛏ, and so does the depiction in Vetusta Monumenta by Adam de Cardonnell; Runic Monuments by George Stephens includes a depiction with ᚢᛝᚸᛖᛏ; Riddell MS Volume VI by Rev. Carlyle has ᚢᛝᛯᛖᛏ; Rev. Duncan has something close to ᚢᛝᛤᛖᛏ in Ruthwell Runic Monument in the garden belonging to Ruthwell Manse, except his depiction seems to lack the bottom half to its vertical staff. Additionally, all photographs of the cross I can find, and the 3D rendering of the cross by the Visual Computing Lab of CNR-ISTI, do not show a second instance of ᛤ, as the shape which does appear lacks a bottom half to its vertical staff (https://youtu.be/31w_n9_gHPA). I propose that Gordon misrepresented the second strange runic shape, and that this was carried over into de Cardonnell's depiction, as the latter depiction was based partially on the former.
Looking at ᛤᚣᚾᛁᛝᚳ again, the ᚳ at the end is also strange, for two reasons. First, a lone ᛝ without ᚳ should have been enough to represent the /ŋg/ segment there (as both manuscript rune-lists, and the rune’s usage in elder futhark, indicate). It has been pointed out to me that some Old English Latin alphabet texts do use an equivalent Latin ⟨ngc⟩ for /ŋg/, and that this could explain ᛝᚳ. This is possible, but it is worth noting that the Ruthwell Cross does not balk at using uniquely runic conventions elsewhere: the cross opts for ᛇ rather than ᚻ in ᚪᛚᛗᛖᛇᛏᛏᛁᚷ, its spelling of almihtig; the cross uses ᚸ which has no Latin alphabet equivalent; the cross has ᛣᚱ and ᛣᚹ where Old English Latin texts almost always have ⟨cr⟩ and ⟨cƿ⟩, even if these same texts do use ⟨k⟩ elsewhere. Second, there is a suspicious, perhaps erroneous divot next to the ᚳ as though another rune were to be carved. This can be seen on the aforementioned 3D rendering, and was noticed in several of the depictions of the cross from the 18th and 19th centuries. Elsewhere on the first runic half of the cross there is a similar divot, also noticed in the 18th and 19th centuries, next to the ᚷ in ᚪᛚᛗᛖᛇᛏᛏᛁᚷ. Interestingly, these divots are both in roughly the same spot relative to their runes. Another suspicious spelling, somewhat isolated on the upper part of the eastern face, reads ]ᛞᚫᚷᛁᛋᚷᚫᚠ[.]. One interpretation is that this text, before being damaged, read [ᚹᚫᛈ]ᛞᚫᚷᛁᛋᚷᚫᚠ[ᛏ], mirroring the text “ƿeop ealge sceaft” found in the Vercelli Book (Page 2006, p. 148), but if ᚷᛁᛋᚷᚫᚠ[.] is a spelling of gesceaft then the carver has mistakenly used ᚷ instead of ᚳ.
If the observations above are valid, and if there is a real pattern of the runes ᚸ, ᛣ, ᚷ, and ᚳ being fumbled on the Ruthwell Cross, perhaps it can be explained if we suppose ᚸ and ᛣ caused confusion because they were new inventions. This should be a possibility; the current dating scheme of known futhorc texts hints that ᚸ and ᛣ may have been invented in the 8th century or late 7th century, and this is the same period the Ruthwell Cross text is dated to (Waxenberger 2004, p. 734). In fact, it does not seem that ᚸ and ᛣ ever reached the same level of familiarity as the older futhorc runes: Thornhill Stone 3 shows the new ᛣ rune doing its job in the word ᛒᛖᛣᚢᚾ, but ᚸ is not found standing for /g/ in the word ᛒᛖᚱᚷᛁ where we might expect it; the Bramham Moor Ring also uses ᛣ while foregoing ᚸ; ᚸ appears in the rune-row in Codex Sangallensis 878, while ᛣ does not; the Lancaster Cross, which may be contemporary with the Ruthwell Cross or postdate it (Page 2006, p. 29), uses ᚳ for /k/ in ᚳᚣᚾᛁᛒᚪᛚᚦ and ᚳᚢᚦᛒᛖᚱᛖ[ᛏ] rather than ᛣ. Manuscripts may also reflect some confusion concerning these runes, as Cotton Vitellius A XII folio 65r wrongly transliterates ᚸ as ⟨k⟩, while Cotton Domitian A IX and Codex Sangallensis 878 seem to show confusion over the shape of ᚸ. Perhaps also of note is that both instances of ᛤ occur in words which also contain ᛝ, whose similarity to ᚸ would not have helped a confused person.
Bibliography
Page, R. (2006). An Introduction to English Runes. Second Edition. Woodbridge: The Boydell Press.
Waxenberger, G. (2004). “The 6th Rune and its Additions Rune 29 and Rune 31 in the Old English fuþorc: Graphemic Variants and Phonological Realizations”, Namenwelten, Ergänzungsbände zum Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde 44, Van Nahl, A & Elmevik, L. & Brink S. (eds.). Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, pp. 730–738.
Waxenberger, G. (2017). “A New Runic Character on the Sedgeford Runic Handle/Ladle: Sound-Value Wanted”, Anglia: de Gruyter, pp. 636–638.
submitted by Hurlebatte to runic [link] [comments]

2023.02.24 02:58 Downgoesthereem What we call a Wane by any other name would be just as Wise - an argument for the Vanir as Elves in Northern Germanic mythology.

One thing that has always defined the study of Norse and overall Germanic myth to me is in how nothing is scared or secure. There is seemingly no status quo, sometimes it feels like there isn’t a single thing you previously considered to be universal truth and relatively common knowledge that hasn’t been questioned, disputed or outright revealed and generally accepted to be an exaggeration or falsehood by tirelessly cynical scholars. Everything purported as facts of Norse myth in pop culture from Óðinn’s title of ‘Allfather’ to the alleged canonical list of ‘Nine Realms’ has its detractos among academics. None of these is more hotly contested or befuddling to myself in recent times than the infamous classification of the so-called ‘Vanir’ as a group of gods, commonly purported as having particular connotations of fertility, distinct from the Æsir but similarly opposed to the Jǫtnar (‘eaters’ or anti-gods, often misleadingly translated as ‘giants’). Most people’s understanding of the topic and the most popular point of exposure may well be the opening of the Wikipedia entry:
>In Norse mythology, the Vanir (/ˈvɑːnɪə;[1] Old Norse:, singular Vanr) are a group of gods associated with fertility, wisdom, and the ability to see the future. The Vanir are one of two groups of gods (the other being the Æsir) and are the namesake of the location Vanaheimr (Old Norse "Home of the Vanir"). After the Æsir–Vanir War, the Vanir became a subgroup of the Æsir. Subsequently, members of the Vanir are sometimes also referred to as members of the Æsir..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanir
This group typically and centrally consists of Njǫrðr and his children Yngvi Freyr and Freyja, whose ‘real’ name is unknown.
Digression 1/2: Freyja is a title, cognate with German ‘Frau’. Whatever her name was, whether it was forgotten by the Viking Age or not, one would expect it to begin with a vowel in order to alliterate with her brothemale counterpart. Like the term Vanr itself, Freyja is not attested outside of a Northern Germanic context, although I personally believe at this point she must date back to early Germanic times, as Freyr has evidence for doing so in being attested in Gothic and I would expect each of a divine sibling pair like this to be integral to the other. Tacitus references ship rituals that may be reflected in her later association with Sessrúmnir, although this may have been originally a facet of Frigg which transplanted to her, like many may have. Regardless, one proposed theoretical name would be ‘Austra’, cognate with the scantly attested Anglo Saxon Ēostre. This is a slim chance and not especially likely, but it’s the most interesting I have come across in what is almost certainly an unanswerable question, like the Frigg/Freyja debacle itself.
The grouping may also include Njǫrðr’s scarcely referenced wife, whom I link to the scantly attested ‘Njǫrun’ (possibly attested by Tactitus as ‘Nerthus’ in the first century). The god Heimdallr is sometimes included due to a dubious written reference I will address, as well as Ullr, who has toponyms in Sweden that sit in the vicinity of toponyms stemming from the members of this familial group which I will refer to as the Njǫrðungar (Credit to Frog, 2021) for the sake of clarity and discernibility from the dubious term in question.
‘What are the Vanir?’ is indeed the premise of this writeup, but we shall start with what they aren’t. There has never been a clear traceable etymology for the term, although a relation with the Old Norse word ‘vinr’ (friend) is tempting. For many years there was little scrutiny applied to the categorisation, until in 2010 Rudolf Simek dropped (by the standards of this sphere) a bombshell in the form of ‘The Vanir: An Obituary’. Building on a publication by Lotte Motz (1996), this article flew in the face of the then, and usually current notion that Norse myth consisted of three groups of deities; Jǫtnar, Æsir and Vanir. Motz had challenged the traditionally interpreted role of the Vanir as fertility gods, challenging in the process Dumézil’s trifunctional hypothesis (we’ll get to that). Frog (2021) says (of Simek’s article): ‘The argument builds on Lotte Motz’s study that contested viewing “Vanir” and “Æsir” through a Dumézilian tripartite model and identifying the former as gods of farmers and fertility and the latter as gods of warriors and kings. Motz found this simple opposition inconsistent with gods identified in the sources, where “Vanir” were more commonly associated with royalty and “Æsir” with generative or creative powers.”
Simek had a bold statement to make: The word Vanr is just an old synonym for god. Like ‘regin’, ‘band' (hypothetical singular form) or ‘goð’, all largely synonymous generic terms for gods, it carries no more specific connotations than those until Snorri Sturluson interprets it as the label for a distinct group of gods. Indeed, it is Snorri whom Simek pins the whole thing on, saying ‘The Vanir were not alive in heathen days, and as a figment of imagination from the 13th to the 20th centuries’ in his closing paragraph. To Simek, it is not just a mistake but a deliberate choice to invent a label for the sake of another euhemerised tale, akin to his other works such as Heimskringla.
Simek’s evidence was based on the fact that every mention of the word ‘Vanir’ or ‘Vanr’ is alliterative, to a degree not even seen by its aforementioned alleged synonyms. Frog and Roper (2011) corroborated this, finding a 100% alliterative usage of the term in eddic poetry and instances where vanir even seems explicitly synonymous with aesir. Aside from eddic poems it has two obscure usages in Skaldic poetry, where even the character it is referring to is uncertain. It possibly refers to Óðinn in one instance, which if it were indeed the intended use would destroy Snorri’s narrative of a group distinct from the aesir.
It would seem to arise that despite being pagans themselves, the composers of many of these poems did not have a consistent notion as to what the word ‘Vanr’ meant, it was simply an archaic, largely defunct and obsolete word that nevertheless could be vaguely invoked in poetry for the sake of maintaining alliterative verse. We almost never use the word ‘lo’ in modern English aside from its preservation the phrase ‘lo and behold’. This is what a suspended archaism looks like. This leads to situations where gods like Heimdallr, elsewhere mentioned as an ǫss, is referred to as a vanr in a stanza of Þrymskviða mentioning his ability of foresight, like that of the ‘other Vanir’. The theory proposed here states that this is solely in order to alliterate with the preceding words ‘vissi’ (knew) and ‘vel’ (well) in eddic verse. This is a prime example of this need for alliterating synonyms creating the false impression of a separate label. We’re not typically used to this kind of repetition as English speakers. Imagine the phrase ‘see my crappy car, the most asinine and awful of automobiles’ for a hasty analogue.

So are there only the Æsir and the Jǫtnar?

Well, seemingly no, and this complicates matters. Medieval Danish writer Saxo Grammaticus would make it sound this way, where he accounted only for a war between builders and giants, which led to a truce and the creation of a third hybrid race. But with all due respect, fuck Saxo. His writings may be heavily reflecting Greco-Roman concepts and his goal with Gesta Danorum was never to convey a faithful depiction of Old Norse polytheistic beliefs. There certainly appears to be *some* group besides the Jǫtnar with which the Æsir had a war and to which Njǫrðr and his direct family belong. Stanza 51 of Vafþrúðnismál makes it unignorable that there is something going on here that cannot be pinned on Snorri, as well as Loki in Lokasenna confirming Njǫrðr’s status as a hostage of war.
Othin spake: “Tenth answer me now, if thou knowest all The fate that is fixed for the gods: Whence came up Njorth to the kin of the gods,— (Rich in temples and shrines he rules,—) Though of gods he was never begot?”
Vafthruthnir spake: “In the home of the Wanes did the wise ones create him, And gave him as pledge to the gods; At the fall of the world shall he fare once more Home to the Wanes so wise.”
Bellows (1923)
And Lokasenna:
“Be silent, Njorth; thou wast eastward sent, To the gods as a hostage given; And the daughters of Hymir their privy had When use did they make of thy mouth.”
Bellows (1923)
So Njǫrðr is almost certainly not considered to be from among the Æsir, but he was sent as a hostage. From whom? The answer on the surface is ‘Vanir’, but as we now know, the semantic meaning of this word is practically void. He is from some group of beings, what that group is remains to be seen. Respondents to Simek’s Obituary have noted that some may as well simply use the word ‘Vanir’ for this group in question, if no better label is available.

What is the trifunctional hypothesis?

It should be noted that only really Motz’s publication, which has been disputed itself, outright denies the trifunctional hypothesis’ relevance to this subject. This idea was coined by French philologist Georges Dumézil in Mythes et dieux des Germains (1939), wherein he drew parallels between Germanic and Indo-Iranian notions of a 3 stage hierarchy of warriors, priests and common folk. Dumézil saw these functions reflected in the attested figures of Norse mythology.
> “Basically, the parallels concern the presence of first-(magico-juridical) and second-(warrior) function representatives on the victorious side of a war that ultimately subdues and incorporates third function characters, for example, the Sabine women or the Norse Vanir. Indeed, the Iliad itself has also been examined in a similar light. The ultimate structure of the myth, then, is that the three estates of Proto-Indo-European society were fused only after a war between the first two against the third.” - Mallory (2005)
On the matter of the Vanir, Dumézil himself fell into the latter of two groups (historicists and structuralists) with opposing theories on the origins of the war between gods as a mythical motif. Historicists (like Motz) favour an origin in real life events, wherein a war between two groups of real-life peoples became referenced through the lens of mythical characters. Lindow (2001) theorises an allegory of an invasion of the Indo Europeans on other peoples, represented as Vanir. Structuralists (like Dumézil and De Vries) propose an origin in older Indo-European myth, conceived from a purely fictional standpoint. The story of the war has also drawn comparison to myths like the rape of the Sabines in Roman mythology. The structuralist view would seem to have more support from the sources and is generally favoured by academics.
To boot, according to Simek, the creation story of Kvasir, which directly follows and indelibly relates to the war, supports a structuralist Indo European context for said war. He gives a 10th century Skaldic kenning and the etymology of Kvasir, relating to berries, as good evidence for it being a native Norse pagan mythic motif (Simek 2007, corroborated with comparison to Slavic myth by Dumézil, 1974). He also points out a crucial parallel to the theft of Soma by Indra in Sanskrit mythology.
This point is where Simek’s contributions largely end as far as I am aware, and where I turn to the writings of another scholar, Dr Alaric Hall.

Elves in Anglo-Saxon England: Matters of Belief, Health, Gender and Identity (2007)

It looks like we’ve arrived at the elf segment of this writeup about elves, a mere 1,945 words in. Alaric Hall is a professor of Medieval studies at the University of Leeds, who in 2007 wrote this publication on Elves in Anglo Saxon England, also the topic of his PhD.
The first section discusses elves in a Scandinavian context, initially covering Snorri’s dichotomy of Ljósálfr and døkkálfar, light and dark elves that suspiciously align with a Christian concept of angels moreso than any old Germanic folklore. ’The categories of døkkálfar ‘dark elves’ and ljósálfar ‘light elves’ are generally accepted as his invention’ – Frog (2021)
Dark/black elves also seem to heavily conflate with dwarves, being used synonymously in the same sentences in places. Snorri’s purported version may at least hold a drop water, if only as a broken clock striking right, in that the elves he likens to dwarves take on a more antagonistic status, as Hall goes on to align dvergar (dwarves) with jǫtnar in the following pages.
Digression 2/2: I use ‘dwarves’ as a plural here, aware that common usage of that largely stems from Tolkien’s popularisation. It helps differentiate from ‘dwarfs’ (people with dwarfism) and is also simply more in line with how I write. I will never get over being marked down on a secondary school paper for using the more archaic ‘rooves’ rather than ‘roofs’. As we go on, I will get into the habit of using the ON ‘dvergr’, plural ‘dvergar’.
Much of one segment of Hall (2007) concerns aligning the Norse Æsir with álfar in contrast to this Jǫtnadvergar association. This is a notion supported by Frog when on the topic of the Old Norse word ǫss (the singular of æsir).
>*The Old English rune name *ōs is commonly accepted as a cognate, as is the plural ēse in ordered parallelism with ælfe ‘elves’ in a metrical charm, where use is consistent with the well-attested ON æsir–álfar ‘æsir –elves’ collocation\* – Frog (2021)
The purpose of this division of sides is to propose that the ‘powers’ (‘regin’) referenced by Vafþrúðnir that make up the mysterious (if we accept that ‘Vanir’ is not a label for this group) collective to whom Njǫrdr belongs - are indeed elves. This then implies a past war between æsir and elves, briefly referenced in Voluspa and ending in the sending of Njǫrðr as a hostage (Lokasenna) and creation of Kvasir, when both sides create him in the vat as a mark of peace and alliance between the two.
>”Finally, it is worth discussing a major division in the mythography of Gylfaginning which ostensibly excludes álfar: Snorri divides the gods into two groups, the æsir and the vanir. This division has been received as axiomatic in most modern mythography, but it is curiously ill-paralleled. Moreover, snorri’s usage of álfr in Skáldskaparmál is much closer to that of his poetic sources than to Gylfaginning. For example, Snorri states that ‘Mann er ok rét at kenna til allra Ása heita. Kent er ok við jǫtna heiti, ok er þat lest háð eða lastmæli. Vel þykkir kent til álfa’ (‘It is also proper to call a person by the names of all the æsir. They are also known by the names of jǫtnar, and that is mostly as satire or criticism. It is thought good to name after (the) álfar’)”
Here Hall begins to delve into parallels between the thematic role of Elves and Snorri’s Vanir within the mythos in relation the æsir. He then makes an observation quite ahead of its time on this matter:
>” This is not the place to reassess our evidence for the vanir and the assumptions which past scholarship has made about it. However, it is worth emphasising that Gylfaginning and Ynglinga saga aside, vanr is a rare word in Norse and unattested elsewhere in the Germanic languages, whereas álfr is well attested, widespread and with a range of clear Indo-European cognates.31 Whereas in Gylfaginning the gods are divided into the æsir and vanir, our other evidence, including Skáldskaparmál, repeatedly prefers to speak of æsir and álfar. The possibility arises that vanr and álfr originally denoted essentially the same mythological construct, their dissimilation in Gylfaginning perhaps reflecting Snorri’s systematising mythography.”
Indeed, the idea is still possible here for Vanir denoting its own category of beings, but it is noted that Gylfaginning is far more keen on the distinction than the primary sources Snorri draws on as we do. A coupling of æsir and álfar would seem to be a more well rooted motif. It is also supported by Hávamál stanza 143, wherein æsir and álfar are mentioned together on the same line, with dvergar and jǫtnar following thereafter. Elves are simply frustratingly rarely named, or even alluded to as individuals. Vǫlundrkviða is addressed near the end of the chapter, an unusual text full of old Norse hapaxes and likely influence from Old English. It is notable for uniquely explicitly distinguishing a character – the titular Vǫlundr – as an elf. However, it gives little insight into this topic and comparisons are largely drawn between he and Óðinn.
Mentions of elves in kennings date all the way back to the earliest attested and available skaldic poetry, including the famous Ragnarsdrápa by Bragi Bodasson sometime in the 9th century. Hall notes the general positive nature of these allusions to elves in conjunction with heroes and kings, as well as an apparent exclusivity to males. Snorri forbids the use of jǫtnar in kennings for people, but not álfar (Remember the purpose of some of his writings amounted an instructional manual in eddic poetry to medieval Icelandic poets, in response to the growing popularity in Iceland of imported continental European poetic styles). In this way, as well as the usages themselves, ‘álfar’ in kennings is quite in line with ‘aesir’. While ‘ǫss’ and ‘álfr’ are fairly regularly used as kennings for people, other beings or supernatural entities within Norse folklore and myth – dvergr, mara, þurs, jǫtunn, are entirely unused. ‘Regin’ and ‘band’ appear rarely. ‘Vanr’ is also entirely absent, maybe surprisingly to those who maintain it as a label for a group of powers on par with the æsir. This inconspicuousness of the term supports the idea of it being a largely redundant and obscure term, possibly an obsolete one by the Viking age, and not the mythos defining boundary Snorri recounts it as. The fact of the matter is that a pagan skald was far more likely to call you an ‘ǫss’ or an ‘álfr’ in praise than any other term denoting a mythic being. A kenning denoting comparison to a dvergr, jǫtunn or þurs would be explicitly mocking, if Snorri is to be believed. On the other side, ǫss, álfr (men), dis and norn (women) opposed the inhuman beings, placing elves alongside gods and humans in contrast to other creatures of lore, and potentially within the categorisation of ‘regin’ if we are to place the Njǫrðungar among them (Vafþrúðnismál st 51).
Again, the word ‘vanir’ is nowhere to be found in this division of groups that nonetheless lines up neatly with what would correspond with a category of beings in alliance with the aesir, comparable to and revered in much the same way as them, but semantically distinct with the distinguished context necessary for, say, a war between themselves and the æsir in the past, since resolved with the creation of Kvasir displaying unity between them, and now only to be brought up in the odd reference to the exchange of hostages that brought Njǫrðr to the æsir. Whether they are reflective of any aspect of the trifunctional hypothesis (fertility, most obviously) is not necessary for the theory to function and not my particular area of focus nor interest, but I would openly encourage users here to further research or look into literature discussing that aspect. As it is, I have no strong leanings on that part as of the time of writing, one way or the other.

So where are Njǫrðr and his family actually referred to as Elves?

Well, first there are possible implications. From Hall (2007):
>the Christian Sigvatr’s travels in the pagan lands east of Norway around 1020, describes a heathen ekkja (‘widow’) refusing Sigvatr board for the night for fear of ‘Óðins . . . reiði’ (‘Óðinn’s wrath’), because an alfa blót (‘álfar’s sacrifice’) is taking place in the house.49 This text implies that álfar might be worshipped in late Swedish paganism, and it is of interest, in view of the association of álfar with Freyr elsewhere, that there is strong evidence for the prominence of Freyr in Swedish paganism
Indeed, Sweden is the most prominent location for toponyms relating to the Njǫrðungar, and in the Icelandic sagas it is gleaned that Freyr and his worshippers are generally associated with Swedes moreso than Icelanders. Freyr is recorded as the ancestor to the lineage of Swedish royalty. It is also to be noted that he was granted ** Álfheimr** by the gods, as a teething gift soon after his birth. When Freyr first sees the jǫtunn woman Gerðr, he laments that ‘no one of æsir or elves will grant that we together be’ (Bellows).
The book continues, reinforcing the link between æsir and álfar and how Hávamál st 159-160 even denotes the terms in association with the word ‘tívar’ (‘gods’, the plural of the generic term directly related to the god Týr’s name). This stanza is also important for showing what appears to be a *semantic* connection between the two groups, as we’ve seen with the ‘vanir’ that poetic formulas are a factor and recurring literarily alone is not necessarily an indication of semantic association, or differentiation.
Lokasenna is then addressed, wherein the interesting conundrum is brought up of ‘æsir ok álfar’ being used to describe the guests at Aegir’s hall in the introduction, and although this poem cycles through more figures of Norse mythology in speaking roles than any other in such a short time, every single character addressed or shown as physically present lies under the traditionally described labels of æsir and Vanir. This is at least according to Snorri and modern conventional educational literature and summaries. Should this theory be true, the likely hard-to-believe notion for some that such a grand and broadly implicating notion as such prominent gods being elves being so ‘under the radar’ so to speak, would be quite soundly addressed by what would seem to be a naked and casually uttered statement of categorisation like this, perhaps largely overlooked for years as there was no reason to believe the Njǫrðungar present there were part of any group not known as vanir.
If an average Norse listener were aware that Njǫrðr and his family come from the elves, no more clarification of that fact would be needed after stating ‘the æsir and elves are at Ægir’s hall’, followed by the Njǫrðungar themselves appearing soon after. The war itself is already a poorly attested and scarcely referenced event for its seeming importance as an event within the context of the mythos. Either it was far less prominent and (for lack of a better term when typing at 1am) popular story than most today would assume, or preservation bias has simply left us with a fraction of the relevant material which otherwise would have greatly elaborated on it. In my opinion, the latter is more likely. Of course, we must also keep in mind the semantic and pragmatic possibility that any literal ‘álfar’ mentioned in the introduction may simply be silent characters, nameless extras relegated to the background. Hall sees this as unlikely, offering:
>Lokasenna is a tightly constructed poem and mythologically well informed. It would be uncharacteristic, then, for it to repeat a formula which within its mythological frame of reference is partly otiose.
He references stanza 30, where Loki accuses Freyja of having slept with every ǫss and álfr in the room, an insult heightened and made personal elsewhere with possible implications of incest, something he overtly accuses her of in his next line after she responds:
>”In the arms of thy brother the bright gods caught thee When Freyja her wind set free." (Bellows)
Incest is also something he levels towards her father Njǫrdr, although in relation to his sister-wife and not Freyja. Overall, it would outwardly appear that Loki’s second statement flows forth from his first as elaboration, and that he opens with an accusation of incest towards Freyja on top of solely promiscuity (ergi, still applicable to women as with men and almost as taboo). Hall also suggests that the obscure heiti ‘álfrǫðull’ (elf of light?) refers to Freyr, corroborating Freyr’s associate Skirnir, whose name explicitly invokes light and brightness.
In summary, there would appear to be a strong possibility that the Norse cosmos consisted somewhat of a trichotomy, mainly on the basis of location. Leaving the messy assortment of synonyms and location names of varying ages and questionable usages, we would appear to have the broad concept a land of æsir, álfar and light, a nefarious outer world of jǫtnar and their aligned associates, and a land of men, stuck in the middle with you. There is obviously a shipload of nuances, exceptions, elaborations and additions beyond that oversimplification, but it stands that the elves were a well cemented god-like phenomenon with every indication as to being viewed similarly to their æsir contemporaries. It stands also that ‘the vanir’ as a concept without Snorri’s assertive fan fiction is one built on a foundation of cardboard and PVC glue, that may be well overdue for an alternative or replacement.
I reached out to Dr Hall himself to ask as to whether his stance on this matter had changed since 2007. He replied to me that he was not following the topic particularly closely but did graciously direct me to the current latest relevant publication, that being Frog (2021). My sincere thanks to him.

References

Simek, R., & Hall, A. (2007). Dictionary of northern mythology. D.S. Brewer.
Frog, M. & Roper, J. (2011) Verses versus the Vanir: Response to Simek’s ‘Vanir Obituary’. RMN Newsletter 2: 29-37
Frog, M. (2021) The Æsir: An Obituary. Res, artes et religio : Essays in Honour of Rudolf Simek
Dumézil, G. (1939). Mythes et Dieux des germains. Leroux.
Dumézil, G. (1974). Gods of the Ancient Northmen. University of California Press. ISBN) 9780520035072
Lindow, J. (2001). Norse Mythology: A Guide to the Gods, Heroes, Rituals, and Beliefs. Oxford University Press. ISBN) 0-19-515382-0
Hall, Alaric (2007). Elves in Anglo-Saxon England: Matters of Belief, Health, Gender and Identity. Anglo-Saxon Studies. Vol. 8. Woodbridge, Suffolk / Rochester, New York: Boydell Press. ISBN) 978-1843832942.
Bellows, H. (1923), "The Poetic Edda: Translated from the Icelandic with an Introduction and Notes", Scandinavian Classics, New York: American-Scandinavian Foundation, vol. XXI & XXII
Mallory, J. P. (2005). In Search of the Indo-Europeans. Thames & Hudson. ISBN) 0-500-27616-1
submitted by Downgoesthereem to Norse [link] [comments]

2022.10.13 16:24 Justwonderinif Timeline I

October 15, 1980
May 21, 1981
Elementary School
Middle School
High School
August 1997: Junior Year
March, 1998
April, 1998
May, 1998
June, 1998
Timeline II >>>
submitted by Justwonderinif to adnansyed [link] [comments]

2022.05.30 17:13 MKULTRA_Escapee In 1917, during the "Miracle of the Sun" in Fatima, Portugal, a "dull silver disc" was seen zigzagging over a crowd. The more we dig, the more we find that the "modern" UFO phenomenon is not modern at all.

This post will focus on some choice historical accounts that coincidentally contain many identical elements of modern UFO encounters. Keep in mind that these are only my favorite examples to cite and a tiny sample of what's out there. Can you explain some of these away? Perhaps, but are you sure those are the correct interpretations of these events? Perhaps some of these events more or less happened as described? That would seem to be the simpler hypothesis.
Rather than coming up with many dozens and dozens of separate explanations for these phenomena, perhaps many of these accounts are something like alien visitation? Or something even stranger than that? It is a myth that there is some kind of scientific consensus on interstellar travel. We don't know how likely alien visitation actually is. It could be extremely likely. See these citations. Conservatively, it would supposedly take about a billion years for a civilization to colonize the entire galaxy, and our galaxy is nearly as old as the Universe itself. So when skeptics claim that "any conventional explanation, not matter how unlikely, is still more likely than alien visitation," this is just their opinion on a scientifically controversial question.
First, I want to revisit the story of meteorites, a nearly identical situation to how UFOs are treated today. Even with tons of credible witnesses and plenty of actual samples of meteorites, the evidence was interpreted as "thunderstones" and "folk tales." So when skeptics claim that certain events may have been sun dogs, meteor showers, mass hallucination, or something else, is that really the correct answer, or is this a modern version of "thunderstones?" The good thing about historical accounts is that we have far fewer possible explanations for these phenomena. It's nearly a smoking gun all by itself that something very strange really is going on.
Today, according to Stanford's Gary Nolan, we have samples of alleged UFO debris that contain isotopes that shouldn't exist either industrially or naturally anywhere in this solar system, an enormous amount of credible witnesses, and literally hundreds of whistleblowers and leakers, yet some people interpret this phenomenon as folk tales and story telling.
1917:
From Vallee's Invisible College,
“The Sun appeared as a disk of brilliant silver... a weird disk that turns rapidly on its own axis and casts off beams of colored lights in all directions. Shafts of red light shot out from the rim of the sun and colored the clouds, the earth, the trees, the people; then shafts of violet, of blue, of yellow and of other colors followed in succession.” These colors have been described as “monochromatic sectors” and they were definitely revolving. The reports speak of a "flat disk" rather than a globe. After a while it stopped spinning and “plunged downward in zigzag fashion toward the earth and the horrified spectators.”
This documentary on the 1917 incident is highly recommended. It explains what people saw from the vantage point they were located (because there were 70,000 people there and not all could have seen it), the trajectory of the object, witness descriptions from a lawyer, a medical doctor, etc, and many other details. This apparently metallic flying saucer flew over the crowd at a very low altitude even to the point that it dried their clothes. Numerous PhDs studied this case in depth. This was a classic flying saucer.
Part 1: https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7o7qus
Part 2: https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7o7qut
11th century:
A luminous "pearl" was seen by multiple witnesses. One of Shen Kuo's works was called Dream Pool Essays. Here is a brief description of the relevant passage and the UFO sighting:
A passage called "Strange Happenings" contains a peculiar account of an unidentified flying object. Shen wrote that, during the reign of Emperor Renzong (1022–1063), an object as bright as a pearl occasionally hovered over the city of Yangzhou at night, but described first by local inhabitants of eastern Anhui and then in Jiangsu.[19] Shen wrote that a man near Xingkai Lake observed this curious object; allegedly it:
...opened its door and a flood of intense light like sunbeams darted out of it, then the outer shell opened up, appearing as large as a bed with a big pearl the size of a fist illuminating the interior in silvery white. The intense silver-white light, shot from the interior, was too strong for human eyes to behold; it cast shadows of every tree within a radius of ten miles. The spectacle was like the rising Sun, lighting up the distant sky and woods in red. Then all of a sudden, the object took off at a tremendous speed and descended upon the lake like the Sun setting.[20]
Shen went on to say that Yibo, a poet of Gaoyou, wrote a poem about this "pearl" after witnessing it. Shen wrote that since the "pearl" often made an appearance around Fanliang in Yangzhou, the people there erected a "Pearl Pavilion" on a wayside, where people came by boat in hopes to see the mysterious flying object.[21] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dream_Pool_Essays
Wikipedia on Shen Kuo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shen_Kuo
More information: https://np.reddit.com/aliens/comments/cjd2pk/11th_century_ufo_sighting_reported_by_chinese/
1561:
The 1561 Celestial phenomenon over Nuremberg included spheres, something like a "black spear" or elongated triangle, and cigars that appear to have been drawn with portholes.
In the morning of April 14, 1561, at daybreak, between 4 and 5 a.m., a dreadful apparition occurred on the sun, and then this was seen in Nuremberg in the city, before the gates and in the country – by many men and women. At first there appeared in the middle of the sun two blood-red semi-circular arcs, just like the moon in its last quarter. And in the sun, above and below and on both sides, the color was blood, there stood a round ball of partly dull, partly black ferrous color. Likewise there stood on both sides and as a torus about the sun such blood-red ones and other balls in large number, about three in a line and four in a square, also some alone. In between these globes there were visible a few blood-red crosses, between which there were blood-red strips, becoming thicker to the rear and in the front malleable like the rods of reed-grass, which were intermingled, among them two big rods, one on the right, the other to the left, and within the small and big rods there were three, also four and more globes. These all started to fight among themselves, so that the globes, which were first in the sun, flew out to the ones standing on both sides, thereafter, the globes standing outside the sun, in the small and large rods, flew into the sun. Besides the globes flew back and forth among themselves and fought vehemently with each other for over an hour. And when the conflict in and again out of the sun was most intense, they became fatigued to such an extent that they all, as said above, fell from the sun down upon the earth 'as if they all burned' and they then wasted away on the earth with immense smoke. After all this there was something like a black spear, very long and thick, sighted; the shaft pointed to the east, the point pointed west. Whatever such signs mean, God alone knows. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1561_celestial_phenomenon_over_Nuremberg
Here is a depiction of the objects: https://i.redd.it/5m8bpc83p5t61.jpg
1896:
November 25, 1896, Lodi, California
THREE STRANGE VISITORS Who Possibly Came From the Planet Mars Seen on a Country Road by Colonel H.G. Shaw and a Companion They Boarded the Airship
As one of then came close to me I reached out to touch him, and placing my hand under his elbow pressed gently upward, and lo and behold I lifted him from the ground with scarcely an effort. I should judge that the specific gravity of the creature was less than an ounce.
..."They were without any sort of clothing, but were covered with a natural growth hard to describe; it was not hair, neither was it like feathers, but it was as soft as silk to the touch, and their skin was like velvet (skin tight suit?). Their faces and heads were without hair, the ears were very small, and the nose had the appearance of polished ivory, while the eyes were large and lustrous. The mouth, however, was small, and it seemed to me that they were without teeth.
..."Well, after trying in vain to move either of us they turned in the direction of the Woodbridge canal, near which we were, and as they flashed their lights towards the bridge we beheld a startling sight. There, resting in the air about twenty feet above the water, was an immense airship. It was 150 feet in length at least, though probably not over twenty feet in diameter at the widest part. It was pointed at both ends, and outside of a large rudder there was no visible machinery. The three walked rapidly toward the ship, not as you or I walk, but with a swaying motion, their feet only touching the ground at intervals of about fifteen feet. We followed them as rapidly as possible, and reached the bridge as they were about to embark. With a little spring they rose to the machine, opened a door in the side, and disappeared within. I do not know of what the affair was built, but just before it started I struck it with a rock and it gave no sound. It went through the air very rapidly and expanded and contracted with a muscular motion, and was soon out of sight." https://ufologie.patrickgross.org/airship/25nov1896-lodi-california.htm
I think at least some of these beings have some kind of technology that cancels out some of the effects of gravitation, maybe something like a skin tight iron man suit? The 1994 Aerial School incident is a good example of that. Their movements are often described in very strange ways. In the 1917 Fatima UFO incident, several witnesses claimed to have seen some kind of entity that they believed was the Virgin Mary at the time. I think we tend to allow our cultural and religious beliefs to affect our interpretation and descriptions of these events.
The 1600s:
Think UFO sightings are just a modern phenomenon? Think again. The Puritans were the first to record strange shining lights in American skies. https://www.history.com/news/americas-first-ufo-sighting
Many of these events, at least the ones that I personally find credible, really do appear to be the same phenomenon. So what is it? Alien visitation? Something stranger than that?
submitted by MKULTRA_Escapee to UFOs [link] [comments]

2020.09.08 17:07 intellectualgulf The Miseducation of the American People

This is a theory that I will be working on until I figure out if it is accurate or not. Y'know, how the scientific process is supposed to be applied.
The theory is this: The american people have been purposefully miseducated for generations and the bizarre backwards behavior we see today is a symptom of this miseducation.
Whether or not the GOP is mainly responsible, whether this miseducation was politically aligned / inspired seems like a very important question given Nixon's presidency. Nixon is however just a symptom of a disease, and that disease is misinformation. The miseducation of the American people has been occurring for at least 100 years, but most likely has been ongoing since the founding of the country. Unfortunately freedom of speech protects liars, but that is the price we pay for democracy.
Misinformation is a human disease, and is directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of American citizens in 2020 alone. Trump appointed Jared Kushner, an uneducated unqualified man, to lead a Covid Task force AND Jared Kushner showed why being uneducated is dangerous, since he decided Covid would magically hurt democrats more than republicans.
I appear to be picking on Trump, but my theory is that conservatives of every color are to blame for this miseducation. It may be unfair to lay the blame entirely at the feet of conservative political parties, but we still can't have rational public debates about social policy without one of the miseducated screaming about communism.
The average american has no idea what socialism is and only vaguely understands it to be a dangerous / bad system of governance that opposing superpowers have historically claimed to follow. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2019/10/07/in-their-own-words-behind-americans-views-of-socialism-and-capitalism/
The issue with this miseducation is it prevents reasonable logical debate. Of course any purely socialist society would fail, we are not a cooperative species. Any "true" form of government will fail when applied to humans because we are not rational or logical animals. We will inevitably smear everything in sight with feces and claim we have improved the world.
Miseducation has led to the average american not understanding how governments function at a fundamental level. A government is a group of people who agree to a set of rules that direct acceptable or unacceptable behavior, who organize around these rules, and who contribute resources to the group fund to support the enforcement of those rules. Every government is socialist since the definition of socialism is group ownership, and democratic governments are group owned. All guaranteed services provided by a government are group owned, and anyone who claims the government should not provide guaranteed services should leave since that is exactly what our founding fathers wanted it to be.
I'll repeat that last bit for clarity, the founding fathers intentionally created a group owned government to provide guaranteed services which include the postal service. If you consider yourself an "American" and believe that privatizing government services is a good idea, then you do not understand your government. This is reasonable given that many people were taught complete falsehoods before the internet came along, and many more falsehoods have been propagated by charlatans via the internet.
The only reason we can even tell that a massive amount of miseducation occurred in the United States is because so many of those people are very loud. The internet acts as a permanent record, and despite active revisionism / ongoing miseducation it still provides a clear view of the miseducation.
Each administration that chooses to use misinformation as a political weapon / tool ultimately damages the United States of America as they progressively weaken the citizens faith in truth. The american people at this point in time continue to act illogically despite access to the entirety of human knowledge at their fingertips. This is because the average American has been taught that Science and truth are not the same, and that "science" cannot be trusted to protect their interests. It does not matter that "their interests" are given to them by politicians who have shown an inability to think rationally or scientifically, since this is what they have been taught to accept.
This is yet another symptom of the disease, as people who otherwise are not mentally deficient make completely irrational or illogical choices / behaviors, such as continuing to elect corrupt and incompetent leaders.
The claims by Trump and other "modern" conservatives that the United States is or ever was intended to be a Christian nation is common. It really shouldn't be commonly held or believed since it is patently false, but it is another symptom of the disease of misinformation which is propagated in the United States through miseducation.
Data Sources
Statistics in the U.S. Department of Education: Highlights from the Past 120 Years
https://nces.ed.gov/pubs93/93442.pdf
US Department of Education website
https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/role.html
History
The original Department of Education was created in 1867 to collect information on schools and teaching that would help the States establish effective school systems. While the agency's name and location within the Executive Branch have changed over the past 130 years, this early emphasis on getting information on what works in education to teachers and education policymakers continues down to the present day.
The passage of the Second Morrill Act in 1890 gave the then-named Office of Education responsibility for administering support for the original system of land-grant colleges and universities. Vocational education became the next major area of Federal aid to schools, with the 1917 Smith-Hughes Act and the 1946 George-Barden Act focusing on agricultural, industrial, and home economics training for high school students.
World War II led to a significant expansion of Federal support for education. The Lanham Act in 1941 and the Impact Aid laws of 1950 eased the burden on communities affected by the presence of military and other Federal installations by making payments to school districts. And in 1944, the "GI Bill" authorized postsecondary education assistance that would ultimately send nearly 8 million World War II veterans to college.
The Cold War stimulated the first example of comprehensive Federal education legislation, when in 1958 Congress passed the National Defense Education Act (NDEA) in response to the Soviet launch of Sputnik. To help ensure that highly trained individuals would be available to help America compete with the Soviet Union in scientific and technical fields, the NDEA included support for loans to college students, the improvement of science, mathematics, and foreign language instruction in elementary and secondary schools, graduate fellowships, foreign language and area studies, and vocational-technical training.
The anti-poverty and civil rights laws of the 1960s and 1970s brought about a dramatic emergence of the Department's equal access mission. The passage of laws such as Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 which prohibited discrimination based on race, sex, and disability, respectively made civil rights enforcement a fundamental and long-lasting focus of the Department of Education. In 1965, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act launched a comprehensive set of programs, including the Title I program of Federal aid to disadvantaged children to address the problems of poor urban and rural areas. And in that same year, the Higher Education Act authorized assistance for postsecondary education, including financial aid programs for needy college students.
In 1980, Congress established the Department of Education as a Cabinet level agency. Today, ED operates programs that touch on every area and level of education. The Department's elementary and secondary programs annually serve nearly 18,200 school districts and over 50 million students attending roughly 98,000 public schools and 32,000 private schools. Department programs also provide grant, loan, and work-study assistance to more than 12 million postsecondary students.
When formulating this theory I was focused on education in the 1950s and later, but I am revising this theory as I read more. I think the best way to identify the miseducation will be to find writings that survived the shifts in belief. To suggest to one of Jefferson's contemporaries that he wanted religion involved with the United States government would have gotten you laughed out of the room. Jefferson was not above using the law to support his personal beliefs, but we have his letters with Madison where they congratulate one another on keeping religion out of the government [see comments].
I bring this up as it is a MAJOR point for conservatives despite being clearly historically wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_in_the_United_States#:~:text=Conservatism%20in%20the%20United%20States%20is%20a%20political%20and%20social,%2Dcommunism%2C%20pro%2Dindividualism%2C
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_in_the_United_States#:~:text=Conservatism%20in%20the%20United%20States%20is%20a%20political%20and%20social,%2Dcommunism%2C%20pro%2Dindividualism%2C
Anyone who ascribes to believes in made up history is one of the miseducated.
20200915 - "The white man's burden"
In February 1899, British novelist and poet Rudyard Kipling wrote a poem entitled “The White Man’s Burden: The United States and The Philippine Islands.”
I had hoped I would need to search further than this to find my evidence, as if all the evidence is laying about like this it is a wonder no one else stumbled upon it before.
"The White Man's Burden" had a clear historical impact, and yet most people alive now would refuse to believe that their great great grandparent, great grandparent, or grandparent was assuredly raised with (and most likely promoted) Racist views.
This poem influenced the future) US President Theodore Roosevelt and Global Policy as a result: http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5478/
We see contemporary refutations by famous figures such as Mark Twain, that were clearly ignored in favor of the "White Man" which in the USA was quite literal. "Predestination" was the idea that White Christians were beloved by God, and that God had made the world for White Men to rule".
This was such a common theme in those days that it was used to literally steal land from the natives. Really good evidence of how effective Christianity is as a moral spine to humanity in my thinking.
Just look at President Jackson's Message to Congress "On Indian Removal", December 6, 1830;
https://www.nps.gov/museum/tmc/MANZ/handouts/Andrew_Jackson_Annual_Message.pdf
We must admit that not just some, but most of our forefather's were selfish and racist people who had been indoctrinated by their conservative peers and teachers.
The reason I bring this poem up specifically is I found it in a Biology textbook. Which Biology textbook? Why only one of the most famous textbooks in history that no one remembers,:
A Civic Biology: Presented in Problems (usually referred to as just Civic Biology) was a biology textbook written by George William Hunter, published in 1914
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/39969/39969-h/39969-h.htm
Excerpt from The Economic Value of Trees. Protection and Regulation of Water Supply. : "It was such a strange, tremendous story, that of the Greek Poseidonia, later the Roman Pæstum. Long ago those adventuring mariners from Greece had seized the fertile plain, which at that time was covered with forests of great oak and watered by two clear and shining rivers. They drove the Italian natives back into the distant hills, for the white man's burden even then included the taking of all the desirable things that were being wasted by incompetent natives, and they brought over colonists—whom the philosophers and moralists at home maligned, no doubt, in the same pleasant fashion of our own day. And the colonists cut down the oaks, and plowed the land, and built cities, and made harbors, and finally dusted their busy hands and busy souls of the grime of labor and wrought splendid temples in honor of the benign gods who had given them the possessions of the Italians and filled them with power and fatness. "
Now one instance doesn't make a pattern, but that is clearly not a scientific phrase. Why is this Biology textbook, which was used to force schools to teach science, reinforcing a view that was known at the time to be wrong? Not only was this view known to be wrong, it had been known for at least 50 years.
At this point we can just accept that Christianity was only used as a way to excuse horrendous treatment of "savages", and that the people alive at the time knew this was true. The supporters of predestination at the time most likely were as vehement in their correctness as the neo-nazis of now.
So what is the picture I am painting? Why is this not in chronological order?
I am going to show you that not only is there a constant theme of "denying reality" among conservatives in the United States, but that it was purposeful refutation of correct information (truth).
Andrew Jackson did not consider the native population as human:
"And is it supposed that the wandering savage has a stronger attachment to his home than the settled, civilized Christian? Is it more afflicting to him to leave the graves of his fathers than it is to our brothers and children? Rightly considered, the policy of the General Government toward the red man is not only liberal, but generous. He is unwilling to submit to the laws of the States and mingle with their population. To save him from this alternative, or perhaps utter annihilation, the General Government kindly offers him a new home, and proposes to pay the whole expense of his removal and settlement."
I can say Jackson didn't consider "the red man" as human, because despite this claim that the "red man" would be relocated and all costs covered Jackson would end up authorizing the murder of many natives during his presidency. Just look at how Jackson promoted an incorrect view of the Native American people being "wandering savages" with no connection to the land.
"Whatabout" arguments bring up questions of "ownership", inheritance of land among Native American Tribes, and wars among the Tribes just before the "settling" of the Americas. My counter to this is the same as always, according to your logic if I want your house I just need to prove you haven't owned it "very long".
This argument is at its core insisting that the ownership of a landmass depends on how recently the government on that landmass changed leadership. The fact is that the native American people had been living on the continent without european intervention for at least 1,000 years:
Just for example he Connestee people, believed to be ancestors of the Cherokee, occupied western North Carolina circa 200 to 600 CE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherokee
This means that the Cherokee have a stronger claim to England than the English according to the "recent ownership theory", since the people the English descended from didn't arrive in England until after 400 CE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Saxon_settlement_of_Britain
Honestly if you or anyone you know believes the ridiculously common conservative argument, please point out to them that based on the concept of ownership being based on time spent in a region, the Native American people owned half the world before the English stood up their bastion of failing Rome in the United Kingdom. Not only that, but the Native American people had a rich history that quite literally was all but destroyed between the 16th and 18th centuries.
Jesus H Christ, if you want to see even more proof that we have simply trained ourselves to be idiotic, look at this History Channel Page that supposedly tells the timeline of the Native American People: https://www.history.com/topics/native-american-history/native-american-timeline
It starts in 1492! That is not a history of the native american people, that is a history of European interaction with the Native American People's. This is a perfect example of how our common knowledge and supposed history is just conservative garbage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Native_Americans_in_the_United_States
Looking at the actual Wikipedia page (look out for conservative Christian revisionism), we see that the people who populated the American continents lived there for millenia. "Western Christian Civilization" wasn't even a shitstain in homo sapiens diaper when the American continents were fully settled and replete with grand empires.
Not only did Jackson purposefully mis-inform the American people about the selfishness and evil of the "Indian Removal Act", but he used similar misinformation tactics to disguise other political agendas:
" Mexico, having for six years carried on against Texas a marauding war only, and that upon the most savage principles, inconsistant with all principles of civilised warfare, and against which all civilised nations which have acknowledged the Independence of Texas ought to unite, and by peaceful means, if it could, put it down, and if this could not be obtained peaceably, then all civillised and christian powers are bound to unite upon christian principle to put an end to this savage and inhuman war. The United States having been the first nation that acknowledged Texian Independence, are we not bound to be the first to boldly step forward to put an end to this savage maurading war. I think so. Texas harassed, and her means of war limitted presents herself to the united states to be annexed to, and protected by the United States. There being no embodied army marching against Texas for reconquest, great Britain trying to obtain the Liberation of the slaves in Texas for the avowed purpose of coercing the south and west into this measure by destroying the vallue of this property and opening a way for our slaves to run away to Texas, is [it] not time for the south and west to take the alarm, and as Texas has presented herself for voluntary annexation, which at once shuts the door against this impending evil, and secures Neworleans in case of a war with England, can it be, could it be, that any one could seriously suppose that the whole south and west would not unite upon this important subject, and with one voice cry out annexation. "
"I am very feeble, but excited by the subject, mortified at Mr. V.B. letter and Col. Bentons, for their is no evidence of ever the time being more propitious than the present, the necessitous situation of Texas, the prospects of the encouragement posponement will give to Mexico, with the secrete aid of great Britain and the consequences, makes my tears flow with regret. Texas may feel herself insulted and neglected by the refusal of the U. States and make a treaty with great Britain ruinous to the south west and to the safety of the Union, when we will have to fight both great Britain and mexico—on such an event what curses must fall upon all who refused to receive Texas."
It's almost like Andrew Jackson was a Racist, who while opposed / refuted by some of his contemporaries, the average American clearly supported Predestination.
It is no wonder that with this amount misinformation use already present by the 7th President we see a President today who does nothing but lie. Since conservatives value Opinion over Truth we can no longer trust anything that they claim, and we shouldn't have been letting these views infect out people for this long to begin with.

Special Interest Groups Damaged our Government:

This should be a perfectly reasonable debate with no partisanship or issues of religion / emotion (/s).
This is going to be a shit show, just be prepared.
Academics have almost universally responded poorly to this hypothesis, that the American People have been Miseducated for Generations.
It is quite possible that the misinformation campaigns which turned our nation into an "Idiocracy" were not exclusive to education centers.
Searching through the NY Times you can find many examples of Christian special interest groups attacking politicians for failing to align with their goals:
1832 Wig Paper lauding the destruction of Irish Culture- Constitutional Whig. [volume], September 28, 1824
1841 Indiana State sentinel. [volume], October 19, 1841: 1841 anti-irish sentiment
​
1840 - Mr. Van Buren has shown he is in favor of Free Negroes and Slaves to swear in Court against WHITE MEN! (emphasis theirs) The Hawk-eye and Iowa patriot., September 10, 1840
1842 article noting the South's prediliction for lynching, and arguing that good christians are not racist
1856 - christian editor taken to court for printing abolitionist sentiments in Va
1907 -white people are great even when they oppress their dark skinned brothers
1919 - princeton journal reference to "Irish need not apply". If you are of Irish heritage, your ancestors were called "white The Princeton union. [volume], December 04, 1919, Page 4
1949 - A congressman from Ohio tells other Congressmen he had never seen any segregation: https://history.house.gov/People/Detail/15130?ret=True
2005 - The United States is still fighting idiots pushing their religion in tax funded schools: https://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/20/science/sciencespecial2/judge-bars-intelligent-design-from-pa-classes.html

Textbooks which Promoted Conservative Christian Political Goals

1842 - The Religious instruction of the Negroes in the United States
ORIGIN on THE AMERICAN INDIANS. Hence it seems, at first glance, almost impossible that it should have been reached, in an age when ships Were small‘ and frail, when the mariner’s compass was unknown and the sailor dared not trust himself out of sight of land. This led men to suppose that the inhabitants of America did not descend from Adam and Eve, but from a race previously created. Such a theory’ is plainly contrary to the Bible record, nor is it needed to account for the settlement of America. .8. Later discoveries have brought to light a fact unknown to geographers three hundred years ago, that America wi- dens rapidly in the north, and there juts out into the ocean till it comes within thirty-six ‘miles of Asia. , As a current sets -towards the American shore, the passage thither can be readily made even in rude vessels. Boats may have been driven over by stress of weather, and the continent thus have been discovered without design. But there was a still‘ easier means of communication. In severe seasons, ,Behring’s Strait is frozen over. , ‘Many varieties of animals have passed on the ice from one continent to the other; and the first occupants of America, led by curiosity, or driven by violence,- may have reached the new world in the same manner. 9. At what time this event took place, we are not informed. History makes no mention of it. It is probable that it occurred at an early date, not many centuries after the dispersion at Babel and the consequent emigration from the plain of Shi’nar.
1875 Analysis of Civil Government
There is little need of comment "on this clause‘‘.‘‘ No “man can Well doubt the propriety of placing a President of the" United States’ under the most solemn obligations to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. It is "a suitable ‘pledge of his fidelity and responsibility to his 'country', and creates upon his conscience a deep ‘sense duty, by an appeal at once, in the presence of God and man, to the most sacred and solemn sanctions Which can operate upon the human mind
Oath. A solemn aflirmation or declaration, before a competent tribunal or ofiieer, to tell the truth, appealing to God for the truth of what is asserted.
1875 - Politics for young adults
TO PARENTS AND TEACHERS. to be a good citizen of the United States one ought to be imbued with the spirit of Christianity, and to believe in and act upon the teachings of Jesus. He condemned self-seeking, covetousness, hypocrisy, class distinctions, envy, malice, undue and ignoble ambition
Old textbooks:
ATTITUDES REVEALED IN SUBJECT MATTER Since geography textbooks dealt extensively with people and customs, the opportunity was great for authors to reveal their attitudes regarding the various peoples and their ways of living. In many geographies, especially in the earlier ones, the content revealed that the attitudes of the authors were often biased. Religious Attitudes. The earliest geographies were written when our country was still dominantly Protestant and the academic leaders were either trained as ministers or at least deeply religious. J edidiah Morse and Elijah Parish were both Congregational ministers. Not even all Protestant groups were equally respected. For example, in the first American written geography, Morse in 1784 referred to the Presbyterians and Lutherans as “numerous and respectable.” Parish, in enumerating the religious groups, began with small letters the words Baptists, Methodists, Quakers, and Catholics, but began with capital letters Presbyterian, Congregationalists, and Lutherans. ‘ Many of the early books particularly contained unfavorable comments about other religions than Protestants. Morse in his 1790 edition referred to Roman Catholicism in Spain as “of most bigoted, superstitious, and tyrannical character.” Dwight (1806), Parish (1810), and Adams (1818) used the term “Pop- ery” in referring to Roman Catholicism. Davies (1805) claimed that the priests in Ireland ruled with “blind superstition and ignorance.” Many other early geographies contained similar statements. Later several geography textbooks were written by Catholic
GEOGRAPHIES Q13 authors which were equally biased against Protestantism. Among these were texts by Pinnock (1853) and Sadlier (1880). The latter, in referring to religious conditions in Ireland, said: England abandoned the Catholic faith in the 16th century, and to this country belongs the ignoble distinction of having oppressed and persecuted the Irish nation with a barbarity unparalleled in the history of man’s inhumanity to man. Most Protestant authors referred to the Protestants in Euro- pean countries with respect. Parish (1810) said, “The Scotch clergy are men of learning and piety.” Woodbridge (1835) said, in referring to the Scots, “They are remarkable for knowledge and morality, produced by their numerous schools, and their at- tention to public worship.” In referring to non-Christian religions, likewise, uncompli- mentary statements were often made. A number of authors re- ferred to Mahomet as an “imposter.” Morse (1800) wrote: “In a word, the contagion spread over Arabia, Syria, Egypt, and Persia; Mahomet, from a deceitful hypocrite, became the most powerful monarch in his time.” Warren in 1872 referred to Mohammed as a “false prophet.” Uncomplimentary statements were also made about the religions in Japan and India. Reform Attitudes. The teaching of religion and morality was really the chief aim of education in early American schools. This aim was even dominant. in geography textbooks. Thus many forms of behavior which the authors considered immoral were severely condemned. Alcohol. Morse (1790) believed “in proportion as the use of beer increases, in the same proportion will the use of spiritous liquors decrease. This will be a happy exchange.” Parish (1810) condemned the “numerous Taverns,” and “grogshops.” Several condemned the sale of liquors to Indians.
submitted by intellectualgulf to u/intellectualgulf [link] [comments]

2014.11.13 11:56 Manderp09 What makes you identify with Detroit?

Hey detroit!
I'm writing a poem for one of my classes at WSU and I want to do a type of Kinsley report (but about the different perspectives of Detroit and how people identify with it) A lot of people I notice identify with Detroit ("i'm from Detroit." etc.) I'm looking for experiences, perspectives, and reasons why you identify with Detroit.
Example: I live in woodbridge, and have lived (and love living) in Detroit for 6 years. I feel there's a beautiful soul and energy in this city that is like no other. It pulls to me, makes me know i'm a part of something greater here. It's a vat of life that is creating new and interesting creative things found no where else ( I think ). I've seen concerts and festivals here, i've walked the streets in broad daylight and at 4am. I've had multiple conversations with Bob, the homeless guy that frequently hung out on Prentis Ave who revealed to me a whole underground culture of the homeless that live here. I've seen laws bend to allow creativity to flow and create incredible buisnesses, resturaunts, and 'things' (like parks and housing and merchandise). I've walked to a Tigers game while day drinking out of a Powerade bottle and passed young men lighting up blunts, shared stories inside Midtown, Corktown, Downtown, and Woodbridge with strangers about the ups and downs of this city while feeling the passion for this city from other people. I've felt threatened, alive, connected, and completely disconnected here in Detroit but within this spectrum of emotions and experiences i've come to really love and enjoy being part of something greater and first hand witnessing the human condition or at least more aspects of it than a lot of the metro area. The truth is you could die at any moment, in any fashion. People in Detroit I feel get that and so they make something out of themselves and strive to be more than 'average'. It's why there's a 'Detroit stare' where people stare at you in the face while they walk past you, memorizing your face and giving you a face of "don't fuck with me or i'll fuck you up". Detroit isn't for the weak or those who wish to live in a bubble, but that's how I feel about it. How do you feel about it?
What makes you identify with Detroit and why do you call yourself a Detroiter? What experiences have you witnessed that makes you KNOW you're in Detroit/from Detroit?
submitted by Manderp09 to Detroit [link] [comments]

2014.01.01 21:20 ThatOneBronyDude First history post of 2014! Whooo!!! History about Anglo-Saxon England!

Welcome, Welcome! To the first history post of 2014! Now, this time, I am gonna be moving away from Rome and Greece and start talking about what happened AFTER Rome fell. Welcome to the land of the Anglo-Saxons!
The Franks preserved much that was Roman in Gual - the language, the Church, the Towns. The Angles and Saxons, however, who crossed the North Sea to England, drove out Latin and in their poetry and prose produced the first major non-Mediterranean literature. Their greatest poem is undoubtedly Beowulf, one of the greatest heroic epics in the English language which, although surviving in a 10th century manuscript, tells of legendary and actual happenings in 5th century Scandinavia.
Literature reveals only a shadowy history of the first two centuries of Anglo-Saxon England. Leaders such as Hengist and Horsa, Vortigern and Arthur, have left behind legends but little actual history. Excavations, however, have produced graves, settlements and weapons which give some idea of the different social levels of the Anglo-Saxons.
The wealth of jewelry found in the memorial of an East Anglian king at Sutton Hoo, near Woodbridge, Suffolk, for example, demonstrates the high quality of workmanship executed in Anglo-Saxon England. It recalls the wealth of the furnishings for a funeral by the poet of Beowulf:
...They brought from afar
Many great treasures and costly trappings,
I have never heard of a ship so richly
furnished
With weapons of war, armor of battle
swords and corslets.
Despite the rich trappings uncovered at Sutton Hoo, no body was found: it was simply a cenotaph to a king who was buried elsewhere.
Further evidence of the way royalty lived in Anglo-Saxon England is given by the excavated buildings of the Royal Palace at Yeavering in Northumberland. This had great halls and out-buildings, a fort for refuge, an assembly place and a cemetery. it also contained a church, for the arrival of St. Augustine in 597 had begun the conversion of England to Christianity. this was one of the Palaces of the kings of Northumbria until it was destroyed in the 7th century. But like the kingdom, it fell into decay for in England kingdoms rose and fell: Northumbria, Mercia, Kent, and Wessex all had periods of greatness, and it was not until the 10th century that the Kingdom of England came into being.
submitted by ThatOneBronyDude to MLPLounge [link] [comments]

http://swiebodzin.info