World History

Well, I can finally admit a longstanding misunderstanding which I had; today in my world history class, I heard two separate questions from two different people which confirmed that I’m not the only one who has misunderstood centuries. Having at least two cohorts in totally botching a concept makes me feel at least a little less silly.

By “misunderstanding centuries”, what I mean is misunderstanding the periods of time that a particular century refers to. For the longest time - probably a good 7 or 8 years, from the time I was 12 or 13 up until a few years ago - I thought that, for example, “13th century” referred to the years 1301-1400. It seemed like a logical assumption at the time - the 13th century starts with 1300. The 12th century starts with 1200, the 10th with 1000. Except… when you roll back the clock to the time period of 1AD to 100AD… well, oops. If “the first century” were to be 100-200AD, what would 1-100AD be? The 0th century?

In my defense^[1], for a long while, I didn’t study any history earlier than the 8th century (i.e., 793AD, the first recorded Viking raid). I tended to have a pretty narrow field of vision when it came to history, and felt that “that other stuff” didn’t interest me. The more I learn about history, though, the more I find that it all interests me. I don’t recall what it was I was reading when I finally ran into my blunder.

The ultimate question, though? How in the world did I read about medieval history for years, and not pick up on the fact that when an author was writing about, say, the 12th century, that all of the dates were 11-something? I’ve no idea. For that matter, I know I read at one point or another - probably multiple times, in truth! - that the first Viking raid was at the end of the 8th century. Why did it never click? Thick skull, I suppose. Even to this day, I’ll occasionally read “in the such-and-such century”, and have to pause and think - okay, that would mean it ended with that number, not the other way around.

Oh well. My secret’s out now. At least I now know there are at least two other people who have the concept borked up. Any others want to admit to it?

1. As much of a defense as I can muster up, anyway. It’s pretty bad for someone who’s majoring in history to admit to this, isn’t it? [↩]

I was at a work party yesterday, for a Viking boat group I’m a member of. Considering that we’re all history geeks, there’s often some interesting history discussions to be had. Yesterday, this is what came up: what if the Vikings / Norse had succeeded in creating a defendable settlement in Vinland, and then moved southward into the eastern mainland of North America? Furthermore, what if they had assimilated with and intermarried with the Native Americans, particularly the Iroquois? The Iroquois were warlike, and part of their culture was the fact that they respected strength. This is quite similar to the Viking culture.

The Norse are well known for their practices of assimilation into and with other civilizations and cultures. They did so in Normandy (the name derives from ‘North Man’), as well as other lands on the mainland of Europe, Slavic lands, and the British Isles (Dublin was founded by Vikings, for example). So, the idea of them settling in North America and integrating with the Iroquois isn’t that far fetched. We talked about the fact that if the Greenlanders had had more people and more boats in good condition, there’s a good chance that is exactly what would have happened. If they had had more people to settle the area, there’s a good chance that trading outposts would have sprung up, particularly near ‘ports’ (like the St. Louis river).

The areas in which the Norse would have settled would have had vast amounts of lumber, which could have been taken back to Greenland or the other Scandinavian countries for trade. For example, as one of my friends put it, they could settle the area, build 4 or 5 boats, and fill them up with lumber. Make the voyage back to Greenland or Scandinavia, sell off all of the lumber and most of the boats, and then go back to the outposts in North America. ‘Rinse and repeat’, as they say.

The scenario comes with other ‘interestingness’ attached. If this had happened, blacksmithing would have spread to Native Americans much earlier. If a decent sized settlement of Norse was created in North America, news of such would have slowly trickled back to Europe. Granted, contact between the settlment(s) and Europe would probably be tenuous at first, but it would be there.

So, this much earlier contact would have changed a lot. Technological advances in Europe would have reached the Americas much sooner. One really important development that would have come out of this is that as settlers crossed the Atlantic, the technological level of the Europeans and the people living in America wouldn’t have been so drastic as they were in the 1500s and 1600s. For example, the creation of fire-arms would have taken place in Europe first (I believe, anyway - is that right, or was it China? They created gunpowder…), but the technology would have skipped across the pond much quicker, if a solid European (Norse) settlement was already in North America.

Another thing to consider is that Native American populations would have had a few centuries to build up immunities to diseases that were present in Europe. Of course, outbreaks of disease still would have occurred, but not nearly on the scale as they did later on. Not to the extent of mass deaths on the part of the Native Americans.

It’s really difficult to say where things would have gone if this had happened. If the Norse had assimilated into / with the Native Americans, what would they have done when further European settlers arrived? Welcomed them? Fought them?

In any case, it would’ve profoundly changed the course of history. It’s something interesting to think about.

Technorati Tags: vikings, norse, settlement

I mentioned yesterday that this week was finals week for me. Well, finals are now over, so I can take a breather. I’ve got a few weeks before I start back at the university for fall quarter.

One of the classes I took was about the history of America, from 1828 to 1900. I found it to be an extremely interesting class. I had had the professor in question before, when I took his class which covered from the founding of America to 1828. The same ‘interestingness’ that thrived in his first class was also in his second.

Basically, what I find so interesting about his courses, is that he gives a true picture of the history - not a patriotic version. Throughout my public school ‘career,’ I was given the patriotic version. All of the good guys were drummed up, and all of the horrible events throughout American history were kind of swept under the proverbial rug.

I recall from middle school that the settlement of the Trans-Mississippi West was essentially, “American settlers went out west for gold. They helped Indians onto reservations so that the Indian culture would be preserved.”

Now, certainly, I don’t expect a middle school class to cover nearly the amount of detail that a university course does. However, the version I was given wasn’t just less detailed. It was totally wrong. Killing off millions of buffalo (60 million between 1870 and 1900) to help bring about the demise of the Native Americans was not ‘helping them.’ Forcing Native American children into schools ran by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, where they were forced to dress like Americans and to speak English, was not helping them. Setting up treaties and annuity payments with different tribes, only to turn around and break the treaties when American railroad companies and gold prospertors wanted in, was not helping them.

I think it’s interesting to note that, at least in classes I had in public school, the Native American question was mostly glossed over. However, reams of content was devoted to slavery. Is this because African Americans make up a sizeable portion of the American population now, and Native Americans don’t?

I don’t really get why the public school system teaches this extremely altered, patriotic version (unless they’re just going for patriotism points with the kids). Every country has their bad spots in history. I just think it’d be better if the bad spots were taught along with the good spots. Kind of like how Germany now forces Nazi Germany history into their kids’ heads. It’s a decent way to insure that the atrocities don’t happen again.

Then again, if Nazi Germany had won the war, I wonder - what would their public school system be teaching?
Technorati Tags: indians, nativeamericans, imperialism