How did Vikings justify slavery? Did they develop some sort of racial pseudoscience?

How did Vikings justify slavery? Did they develop some sort of racial pseudoscience?

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    There was no pan-european sentimentality 1000 years ago. Are you stupid?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >There was no pan-european sentimentality 1000 years ago
      Ok? How is this relevant? There was no "pan-european sentimentality" during the Atlantic slave trade either. pic related

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >There was no "pan-european sentimentality" during the Atlantic slave trade either.
        Yes there was. White cultures were regarded as a civilization and browns and Asians were considered subhuman

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Is that why they fed boiling shit down each other's throats?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You can do horrible shit to criminals and enemies and still feel like you're better than the people you enslave you absolute fricking moron

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            "You" is not "white cultures"

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Incorrect

            The Europeans were as barbaric as the people they conquered. The only difference between them is the level of technology they had access to

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            How do you define barbarism?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            "Whatever is most convenient to allow me to shit on white people"
            in other words, the standard everyone on IQfy uses

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Makes sense.

            I'm gonna head this off at the pass because I know you're gonna give some warbling moron excuse to whatever I give.
            How do you define it?

            Just the standard definition. Absence of culture or civilization. I think that our technology was a result of our culture but I understand now that thirdies and Jared Diamond types think God just miracle'd it all to us.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Barbarism in this context refers to wanton rape and pillaging and destruction, my boy. We had the good fortune to come out of the Dark Ages just in time to have no real adversaries capable of determined resistance besides the Ottomans.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            How did antiquity have less barbarism than the “Dark Ages,” going by your definition? What do you think these periods were like and based on what information?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The era of roman supremacy (from the Julian to the Severian emperors) was considerably less violent than the dark ages where you had hordes of raiders raping, pillaging and looting monasteries

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            dey need dem coins for school

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            What would you define as antiquity and the "Dark Ages"?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Antiquity is antiquity and the dark ages were the dark ages

            I'm not gonna define every term for you just because you're too fricking stupid to read a book anon

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No serious historians use the term "Dark Ages."

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You're right. How racist of me.

            The Early Modern period. Where we prescribed leeches for plague, where literacy was basically a superpower, and the buildings were made out of thatch and dung. Those glorious times that certainly weren't a dark time for the European continent.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >and the buildings were made out of thatch and dung
            There is no preindustrial civilization in human history where the majority of people didn't live in crude shacks. Mudhut posters deserve to be shot.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The Early Modern period isn't seen as part of the "Dark Ages" when people bring it up.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah they do

            The Early Modern period goes from the fall of Rome to the Industrial Era

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >the buildings were made out of thatch and dung.
            Wattle and daub that was timber framed. That is literally how everyone built their homes, everywhere, including the Romans. It is genuinely the most common building type in every biome and every country from Britain to Japan because its so flexible, requires little industry to build, is easily repaired and can last multiple generations if cared for. They also go up much faster than brick or stone buildings and insulated similarly.
            >Where we prescribed leeches for plague,
            They were quite literally copying the Romans and Greeks. In antiquity both the Celts and Germans were using soap to clean themselves, while the Romans were rolling in sand and olive oil to get "clean" lmfao.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            A different anom asked that btw

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >What would you define as antiquity and the "Dark Ages"?
            In the west, 5th century when the goths took Rome, all of western europe ended living as subsistance farmers amid monumental ruins,the decline from superpower to corpse

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            That element is always there in mankind. Perhaps we've realized something remarkable or unfortunate (I can't tell) to make you think such "barbarism" is so distant from us or any people right now, it is not.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It was always there but around the 1600s til the 1900s it was absolutely beyond the pale. The so called civilized people were just as barbaric as the people they exploited. This is undeniable.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Anything east or west of the middle kingdom

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I'm gonna head this off at the pass because I know you're gonna give some warbling moron excuse to whatever I give.
            How do you define it?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Incorrect
            How?
            Catholics and Protestants treated each other like utter shit

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            And what does "barbarism" have to do with whether or not Europeans had a "pan European identity"? What are you going on about?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Europeans considered themselves superior and killed each other in horrible ways. It's not rocket science

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Europeans considered themselves superior
            To what?
            >killed each other in horrible ways
            Why would they do this if they had a "pan identity"?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >There was no pan-european sentimentality 1000 years ago
      There was, it just hadn't spread to Scandinavia yet.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Pan-Christian sentiment =/= pan-European sentiment

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >The first mention of the concepts of "Europe" and "European" dates back to 754 in the Mozarabic Chronicle. The Chronicle contains the earliest known reference in a Latin text to "Europeans" (europenses), whom it describes as having defeated the Saracens at the battle of Tours in 732..[1][2]

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Christendom was increasingly associated with Europe throughout the Middle Ages. Unfortunately I haven't really read any primary sources so I don't know how often "Europe" was actually mentioned, but I've never read a book that didn't highlight how absolutely essential the RCC was to forming the modern conception of Europe/the West.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Pan-Christian sentiment =/= pan-European sentiment

        [...]
        This. The earliest pan-European sentiment emerged in the West opposed to the Saracens, Greeks, and pagans.

        You all seem to be ignoring the fact that Europeans fed boiling shit down eachother's throats for being of the wrong creed. I see no "pan-european identity", well... ever!

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >There was no pan-european sentimentality 1000 years ago
      There was, it just hadn't spread to Scandinavia yet.

      This. The earliest pan-European sentiment emerged in the West opposed to the Saracens, Greeks, and pagans.

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    sven... what if our pillaging it's an outward expression of internalized hostility due to our failure to established a rich and diverse economy?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Vikings were famous for establishing urban centers across Europe in places like Ireland, Pomerania, Kievan Rus, etc. Raiding was an expression of getting rid of male surplus population, and apart from the riches successful Vikings brought home people like craftsmen were also brought in to work. Considering how quickly Scandinavia started developing economically after the Viking age, I'd say they succeeded.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Urban
        Relative to the Gaels and Slavs, who didn't even have towns in the first place, kind of? They were still far from urban.

        • 3 weeks ago
          JWanon

          >who didn't even have towns in the first place
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppidum

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            These were barely trading posts, logs and dugouts for a sewer "system" and most all were burned down after a number of decades, likely by design. The few that did survive became Romanized in every way almost by necessity.

          • 3 weeks ago
            JWanon

            >These were barely trading posts
            They were walled cities with tens of thousands of inhabitants, sewage systems, and complex constitutional politics.

            >most all were burned down
            Most European cities are oppida, there's no point at which they were destroyed or something.

            >The few that did survive became Romanized in every way
            The vast majority survived and very few became Romanized.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            He said "Gaels" not Gauls

          • 3 weeks ago
            JWanon

            I am aware, the Irish and the Slavs had oppida.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No they didn’t

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Ireland, Pomerania, Kievan Rus
        literally none of the above.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Ghengis Khan literally did this with the captured peoples from the middle east.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >establishing urban centers
        NAH

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Russia
        Not a single city was established by them

        >Pomerania
        Only Jomsborg

        >Scandinavia started developing economically after the Viking Age
        Scandinavia, barring Denmark, was a shithole by all definitions, Sweden developed its first coinage fit for international trade only in the early 1500s and had naturally occurring famines till the 1950s, the worse goes for Norway - an even greater shithole than Sweden.

        No they didn’t

        They did, the largest Prague-Korchak "city" had around 5K inhabitants in the 6th-7th centuries, and it is presumed to be the oldest section of modern-day Prague, numbering more than 600 houses. The idea of Germanic emancipation of other non-Roman Europeans is laughable, stay put.

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It was more indentured servitude, some people would sell their children into slavery during times of famine, then buy them back

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I always lol when people say this shit about Vikings or Romans and the like. They raped these women at will and did horrible things to them for entertainment. It wasn't like "just servitude" or anything like when Christians in the Americas had slaves unless you had a kind master. Often enough there was no way out either and your children would be slaves, and their children etc.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        morons will forever be slaves of the strong, unless you live in a society where the overflow is so big that the strong don't give a shit what happens to the crumbs.
        For a society where overflow wasn't really a thing at all,- the vikings treated their slaves exceptionally. Compared to castration and imminent death due to overworking... like in the south where the access to both slaves resources was overflowing.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Fair enough anon. I can accept that.

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Reminder that wignats fantasize about people who sold blond slavic women to arab goat herder and israelites

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      See

      There was no pan-european sentimentality 1000 years ago. Are you stupid?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      wignats are nazis so that is irrelevant because they don't like slavs but like germanics

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Finns, not Slavs, were the most frequent quarry, the Slavs were just the most prized possessions, men for being large and strong, and women for their pale beauty.

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Back in the day slavery was the rule. You underestimate how vicious people is

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Slavery is a legal category.
      A lot of places didn't really have a strong legal system at all, it's taken for granted if someone can't retain the means to feed or shelter themselves they are going to be doing whatever the people who can want them to.

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why would any culture justify slavery? Slavery was the norm for all people and all times until very recently in history. You are the odd one for neither owning or being a slave.

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Maybe it had to do with a divinely ordained hierarchy, with slaves being at the bottom.

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Justify what exactly? You lose? Tough luck

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Justify what exactly?
      The natural empathy non-psychopaths feel when seeing an enslaved person

      >justify
      This is cuck behavior that comes from Cucktianity, before that mind virus, europeans did whatever they fricking pleased and didnt one frick about giving some moral excuse.

      This is completely ahistorical and moronic. All societies need certain moral foundations to operate.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >natural empathy non-psychopaths feel
        Not real, feeling bad for people you don't know is learned behavior.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Then you're a psychopath. Empathy is applied to all people by default, then a justification comes for why they deserve it or why it's not so bad.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You're making shit up.
            Humans are not naturally empathic to anything but kin, and even then there are exceptions.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Humans are not naturally empathic to anything but kin
            You're making shit up.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You're simply projecting your psychopathy onto others. There are plenty of real examples where jungle tribes were kind to shipwrecked sailors and took them into their society. Empathy for others is completely natural, until you feel slighted by them and view them as an enemy for x justification. Usually slavery was only for outgroups deemed enemies for one reason or another. Now go seek psychological help for your affliction.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            "psychopathy" doesn't exist. "Psychopaths" also feel "slighted" by the people they hurt

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >t. psychopath

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >"psychopathy" doesn't exist
            Incorrect. We don't use that word but it's a real condition.
            >"Psychopaths" also feel "slighted" by the people they hurt
            Yeah and they have fricked up neurons and neurochemistry so they lack the impulse control to not lose their shit.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Humans are not naturally empathic to anything but kin
            You're making shit up.

            Most humans are distrustful but hospitable. Hospitality has nothing to do with a tribe defeating another and instead of just killing the defeated tribe they enslave them.
            Slavery was merciful compared to the alternative.
            You can’t let them live or be free otherwise they’ll war you again inevitably.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Humand are nowhere near this nice. How naive can you be?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >The natural empathy non-psychopaths feel when seeing an enslaved person

        1. Don't underestimate how psychopathic or at least forgetful humans are on average even if we like to pretend we're not.

        2. Slaves weren't beat and put in a sex dungeon on a daily basis as modern people like to imagine. Most of the time it was business as usual.

        3. Does your boss feel "sympathy" for you?

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    People became slavers for profit.same reason human traffickers traffic people now.

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Vikings had a system of morality based on shame rather than guilt, so no justification for slavery was needed.

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >justify
    This is cuck behavior that comes from Cucktianity, before that mind virus, europeans did whatever they fricking pleased and didnt one frick about giving some moral excuse.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Most people viewed slaves as non-human cattle, selective sociopathy

      Ancient Greeks and Romans, especially their philosophers, cared a lot. Most of their philosophers would've been more self-conscious and tender about this than 13th century Nordic Christians. You are very stupid.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Pagans used moral justifications for their actions as well, just different ones.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        No dude they were all muh master morality Nietzscheans who denied all morals and behaved like psychopaths

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      And according to that rule, vikings should have been genocided by every Mediterranean kingdom.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Neither of you make any goddamn sense

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >europeans did whatever they fricking pleased and didnt one frick about giving some moral excuse
      Explain the entirety of the fricking Havamal, moron.
      Explain why Thor of all fricking people chastises Odin for his moral impropriety in Harbarthsljoth.
      Please do not invoke my religion when you are clearly just an atheist edgelord.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Thor is Jupiter (Order) while Odin is Mercury (Trickster). Most of masses worshiped Thor, while a small portion of the elite worshiped Odin.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Thor is Thor, and Odin is Odin, you syncretic homosexual. Thor worship was widely because he is humanity's protector, but the high volume of archaeological artifacts bearing the likeness of Odin, along with the simple fact that Odin is massively overrepresented in the codex regius relative to all the other gods attests to his widespread worship as well.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >but the high volume of archaeological artifacts bearing the likeness of Odin
            Couldn't this just be because those who could afford gilded israeliteelry and nice things were likely higher status types?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            If we're going by that logic, then the ubiquity of mjolnir symbols in early medieval scandinavia would also have to be attributable to wealthy elites only, but we know this isn't the case, as even in Harbarthsljoth, Odin remarks that Thor is the god of the common man.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Odin was equated with Mercury because he travelled alot, not because he was a trickster which he wasn't.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >traveling
            Not quite. It was more the function as a psychopomp, a mediator between the highest and lowest of the afterlife and spiritual etc. Mercury was such in the Iliad, in book 14 when he passed Apollo's scepter and throne to Dionysus. This was his cosmic purpose. Mercury led souls in the afterlife as well, many great works of art about this as is the case for Odin taking the battle-slain to Valhalla.

            Odin is more of a consolidated figure in a quite different culture, he has the functions many other Germanic gods likely once had. He has much in common with Dionysus and Apollo as well (same animal associations even). I've always thought that the Icelandic skalds kind of bolstered him even more, especially in the Eddas to make him seem more fatherly. But in many sagas he was a horribly cruel bastard sometimes and tricksy about it often enough.

            Regardless you can still see his higher cosmic function in the pantheon in his many raids of the underworld, bringing back the dead or riding to Hel and back and he's at the highest halls with Baldur and Freyr in other instances. He sits on a high seat, higher than any in Valhalla in a building guilded of silver to watch and ponder the universe.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      have a nice day moronic projecting edgy low t cuck

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Being a slaver must be based. Frick all the slave girls you want. Sell them for profit. Servants everywhere to do your bidding. It's only natural me thinks for certain peoples to enslave others. Not that those enslaved people shouldn't defend themselves

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You didn't need any of that, since the collapse of the bronze age Nords had enslaved their own like any other population. Why not enslave other tribes and people's too if you have the means? This was the way things had always been and their morality would seem alien to you.

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >vikings
    >justify
    Oh boy

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They've had a soft caste system explained by a myth where slaves(thralls), freemen(karls) and nobility(jarls) were a result of a god sleeping with women of different standing(recursive logic but still). So they've had an idea of divine order making it so people were where they were.

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >me take what I want because I big and strong

  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >justify slavery
    >justify
    Why would they need to justify anything
    It was a different time

  18. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why would someone need to justify slavery if they don’t believe in the equality of souls?

  19. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You don't really need to justify slavery. If you have a society with a developed concept of private property and you can already own other things like land, weapons, food, livestock, why not other humans aswell? In fact, in most premodern European societies, husbands had complete control over their wives and all children within the household, making them in theory no more than slaves, so evidently it was a natural way for them think.

  20. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Either
    >We fought, you lost, suck it up, b***h.
    Or
    >Well, you're a dumb fricking criminal and this was your punishment; what the frick were you expecting?

    >Did they develop some sort of racial pseudoscience?
    Why are Americans unable to think about anything except through the lens of their own moronic modern racial politics?

  21. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    A caste system was present for Germanic and Celtic peoples and I assumed most other IE descended peoples as well. It was religious, politcal and social. You can see it pretty clearly in Rigsthula.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *