Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Citius Altius Fortius

Torch Relays From 1936 - 2008

Recommended Posts

The Vinland Map is a fake,the ink is not medieval

read more about your history:

http://webexhibits.org/vinland/paper-towe04.html?

There's far more evidence than just the Vinland map:

L'Anse Aux Meadows

Granted, the early Norse settlements in the Americas were short lived, eventually abandoned and did not make any great impact on world hostory, while the Iberian settlements thrived and changd the face of the continent. But the Vikings did make it there first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's far more evidence than just the Vinland map:

L'Anse Aux Meadows

Granted, the early Norse settlements in the Americas were short lived, eventually abandoned and did not make any great impact on world hostory, while the Iberian settlements thrived and changd the face of the continent. But the Vikings did make it there first.

I love the debate about Vinland actually being United States, though the sagas describe natives that are very similar to the British description of the Beothuk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Exploring the New World a thousand years ago, a Viking woman gave birth to what is likely the first European-American baby. The discovery of the house the family built upon their return to Iceland has scholars rethinking the Norse sagas..."

history? or literature...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway, what's the big deal? So what, if the first European to find America was a Norwegian rather than an Italian?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about China 1421? Theres a whole book about how they found the Pacific Northwest. So Columbus was 3rd :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What about China 1421? Theres a whole book about how they found the Pacific Northwest. So Columbus was 3rd :lol:

Those claims are in the same vain as the Polynesians discovering the Americas during there time of exploration.

nuto - read something, it is well documented that Vikings came to North America between 987 and about 1150. Well before Columbus, there is archaeological evidence and first hand documents that still survive, along with Beothuk accounts of contact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am wondering what they teach in those Spanish schools down there? Viking exploration is a proud aspect of Scandinavia's collective culture and we are all aware of the feats of the forerunners to modern Scandinavians, the discovery of Iceland, Greenland and Newfoundland in the 10th and 11th centuries, all well before Columbus.

Might I suggest this book by the original archeologists who discovered the Viking site in Newfoundland Click Here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Those claims are in the same vain as the Polynesians discovering the Americas during there time of exploration.

Heh heh well it was worth a try. We had to do a report about that in school and most of the evidence could have been early Native Americans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

vikings,chineses,polynesians,E.T.,everybody arrives to America before the spaniards,what a pitty !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am wondering what they teach in those Spanish schools down there? Viking exploration is a proud aspect of Scandinavia's collective culture and we are all aware of the feats of the forerunners to modern Scandinavians, the discovery of Iceland, Greenland and Newfoundland in the 10th and 11th centuries, all well before Columbus.

Might I suggest this book by the original archeologists who discovered the Viking site in Newfoundland Click Here

everybody knows that in Spain there aren´t schools.education and culture are a germanic-anglo-saxon-escadinavian patrimony

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vikings may be the first to set foot on but the ones who took cognizance of the new world and settled there an economical/cultural presence, were the spanish and portuguese expeditions. That's why they are used to be considered the real discoverers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vikings may be the first to set foot on but the ones who took cognizance of the new world and settled there an economical/cultural presence, were the spanish and portuguese expeditions. That's why they are used to be considered the real discoverers.

another member of the latin conspiracy... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vikings may be the first to set foot on but the ones who took cognizance of the new world and settled there an economical/cultural presence, were the spanish and portuguese expeditions. That's why they are used to be considered the real discoverers.

The Vikings did settle, and depending on how you look at Greenland, have had continuous settlements since the 11th century. It was just short-lived, as was the first French settlements.

Actually the reason why Columbus was thought of in this way for so long was because it wasn't until the 1960's that there was definitive proof that the Vikings made landfall in the Americas. In regards to colonization, the first one was indeed a Spanish colony on Hispaniola, but that is not what is been argued. What is being argued is the first Europeans to discover the Americas, and the answer is simply the Vikings in the 10th century.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Vikings did settle, and depending on how you look at Greenland, have had continuous settlements since the 11th century. It was just short-lived, as was the first French settlements.

Actually the reason why Columbus was thought of in this way for so long was because it wasn't until the 1960's that there was definitive proof that the Vikings made landfall in the Americas. In regards to colonization, the first one was indeed a Spanish colony on Hispaniola, but that is not what is been argued. What is being argued is the first Europeans to discover the Americas, and the answer is simply the Vikings in the 10th century.

the first european in the Americas was Asterix,the second Charo...

cuchi cuchi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:lol: They should include Charo in Asterix's amusement park!!

Charo is an amusement park herself !!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh ñuto, why are you arguing against the rest of the world when it's clear that you are wrong. Vikings settled first than Spaniards and there are even theories of Polynesian and Chinese colonization. Nobody is denying that Spain made the real impact.

In any case, I don't see why you should be so proud of being the first to settle at America, one of the largest genocides in history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh ñuto, why are you arguing against the rest of the world when it's clear that you are wrong. Vikings settled first than Spaniards and there are even theories of Polynesian and Chinese colonization. Nobody is denying that Spain made the real impact.

In any case, I don't see why you should be so proud of being the first to settle at America, one of the largest genocides in history.

of course,genocide,black legend,Fray Bartolome de Las Casas,etc...very original,very new

por eso hay tan pocos indios en Mexico,Centro y Suramérica y tantisimos en Norteamérica,porque los españoles (por cierto,mis antepasados se quedaron en España,si tienes que pedir cuentas a alguien por algo mira tu propio arbol genealógico) fueron "genocidas"

este foro me agota la capacidad de reir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
of course,genocide,black legend,Fray Bartolome de Las Casas,etc...very original,very new

por eso hay tan pocos indios en Mexico,Centro y Suramérica y tantisimos en Norteamérica,porque los españoles (por cierto,mis antepasados se quedaron en España,si tienes que pedir cuentas a alguien por algo mira tu propio arbol genealógico) fueron "genocidas"

este foro me agota la capacidad de reir

No me importa si los ingleses o franceses mataron más indígenas que los españoles. Que España abusó y explotó de los recursos americanos, no cabe duda por mucho que trates de ponerte una venda en los ojos. Ni tú ni la actual España son culpables de eso... pero por lo menos basta con que lo reconozcas y no te ufanes tanto por un hecho tan lamentable.

Y por cierto, no tienes ni la más miserable idea de donde provienen mis ancestros como para decir que ellos son "genocidos".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No me importa si los ingleses o franceses mataron más indígenas que los españoles. Que España abusó y explotó de los recursos americanos, no cabe duda por mucho que trates de ponerte una venda en los ojos. Ni tú ni la actual España son culpables de eso... pero por lo menos basta con que lo reconozcas y no te ufanes tanto por un hecho tan lamentable.

Y por cierto, no tienes ni la más miserable idea de donde provienen mis ancestros como para decir que ellos son "genocidos".

Okay so I read this in Google translate (heh who says we Americans need to learn a foreign language) so it came out in a littleral and maybe some of it was lost in translation

Here is what I read

"I do not care if the British or French killed more indigenous Spaniards. That Spain abused and exploited the resources of Americans, no doubt as much as try to get blindfolded. Neither you nor the current Spain are guilty of that ... But at least you can just recognize and you ufanes both a lamentable.

And by the way, do not have even the most miserable idea of where my ancestors came to say they are "genocidos." "

But my question is. Aren’t most people from Latin America of "mixed race"? At least in the history classes that I’ve taken have said that the Spanish were more likely to marry into the native population after they put down the natives that put up a fight.

I know that just like every other European country that concurred the Native American people by force but they also took more from there culture then the British/Americans did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No me importa si los ingleses o franceses mataron más indígenas que los españoles. Que España abusó y explotó de los recursos americanos, no cabe duda por mucho que trates de ponerte una venda en los ojos. Ni tú ni la actual España son culpables de eso... pero por lo menos basta con que lo reconozcas y no te ufanes tanto por un hecho tan lamentable.

Y por cierto, no tienes ni la más miserable idea de donde provienen mis ancestros como para decir que ellos son "genocidos".

genocidio es lo que hicieron los anglos en norteamérica.que dejaron cuatro indios vivos y los encerraron en reservas.los españoles buscaron el mestizaje y no hicieron ningún genocidio intencionado,la mayoria de muertes de indigenas fueron por enfermedades,pero nadie podia preveer ni controlar eso.

me ufano de la historia de España porque es gloriosa

me da igual de donde eran tus abuelitos,a lo mejor dices como Fidel Castro que declaró una vez sentirse indio cuando sus padres eran gallegos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"I don't care if the British or French killed more indigenous than the Spaniards. There is no doubt that Spain abused and exploited the resources of Americans, even if you are trying to deny it. Neither you nor the current Spain are guilty of that... but at least you should recognize it and not be so proud about such pity facts.

And by the way, you don't have the less idea of where my ancestors came from for saying that they were "genocides.""

But my question is. Aren't most people from Latin America of "mixed race"? At least in the history classes that I've taken have said that the Spanish were more likely to marry into the native population after they put down the natives that put up a fight.

I know that just like every other European country that concurred the Native American people by force but they also took more from there culture then the British/Americans did.

I translated better the text... and I won't argue again with ñuto. Please, learn some history before talking all this non-sense. Certainly, you have no idea about American history so just shut up.

About your question... it's true that Spaniards and Portuguese were more likely to stablish relationships with the native population than French or British and there is higher "mestizo" population in South or Central America when you compare it with Northern America.

But, it isn't true that most people from Latin America is of "mixed race". I mean... it's true that probably most of Latin Americans has a small percentage of indigenous blood, but that isn't the case in every country. There are some countries like Bolivia, Perú or Guatemala where most people is indigenous... others like Mexico or Paraguay where most are mixed (in the case of Venezuela, Colombia or Central America is more with the African people brought as slaves)... or others like Chile, Argentina or Uruguay where there is a mix between the original "criollo" population (the Spaniards born in Chile and with some indigenous blood) and the waves of European inmigration. I heard that more than 30% of Argentinians are descendents of Italians and in Chile there is a 10% with German ancestors and similar numbers for Croatians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is also true that Spain wiped out more indigenous groups than France or Britain, France had pretty good relations with most of the native groups and the Beothuk were wiped out by the British. Other than that every native group in Canada and the US that existed prior to discover exists now. But it is undeniable that the Spanish, Portuguese, French and British were brutal towards the indigenous populations.

Kratz there is a recognized mixed group in Canada, the metis, but they would probably not be as populous as the mixed race groups in Central and South America.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I translated better the text... and I won't argue again with ñuto. Please, learn some history before talking all this non-sense. Certainly, you have no idea about American history so just shut up.

About your question... it's true that Spaniards and Portuguese were more likely to stablish relationships with the native population than French or British and there is higher "mestizo" population in South or Central America when you compare it with Northern America.

But, it isn't true that most people from Latin America is of "mixed race". I mean... it's true that probably most of Latin Americans has a small percentage of indigenous blood, but that isn't the case in every country. There are some countries like Bolivia, Perú or Guatemala where most people is indigenous... others like Mexico or Paraguay where most are mixed (in the case of Venezuela, Colombia or Central America is more with the African people brought as slaves)... or others like Chile, Argentina or Uruguay where there is a mix between the original "criollo" population (the Spaniards born in Chile and with some indigenous blood) and the waves of European inmigration. I heard that more than 30% of Argentinians are descendents of Italians and in Chile there is a 10% with German ancestors and similar numbers for Croatians.

Really good to know I've never taken a Latin American history class but in the broader history classes that I’ve been in they lump everything south of the USA is pretty much the same thing. Maybe this summer I’ll take a class in Latin American history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...