Showing posts with label Christian. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Christian. Show all posts

2019/04/16

Simon Schama - A History of Britain: "Beginnings"


A friend of mine gave me this amazing DVD series on the History of Britain. As I have spent the time perusing it, I took notes for future reference. Most of these notes are in the voice of the narrator and, while in order, only provide a brief summary of the episode and not a full transcription. I am really enjoying this series and intend to do a summary of every episode... although that may take me a few months. Here are my notes for the first episode titled "Beginnings."





From its earliest days Britain was an object of desire.

By 1000 BC things were changing fast. All over the British landscape a protracted struggle for good land was taking place. Forests were cleared so that iron age Britain was not, as was once romantically imagined, an unbroken forest kingdom stretching from Cornwall to Inverness. It was rather a patchwork of open fields dotted here and there with woodland copses giving cover for game -especially wild pigs.

And with tribal manufacturers came trade. The warriors, druid priests, and artists of iron age Britain shipped their wares all over Europe trading with the expanding Roman Empire. In return, with no homegrown grapes or olives, Mediterranean wine and oil arrived in large earthenware jars. So iron age Britain was definitely not the back of beyond. Its tribes may have all led lives separated by custom and language and they may have not had any great capital city, but taken together they added up to something in the world.

And so, in the written annuals of Western history, the islands now had not only a name-Britannia- but a date of 55 BC when Julius Caesar launched his galleys across the channel.


The person we usually think of who embodied British national resistance to Rome- Queen Bouducca of the East Anglian tribe of Iceni- actually came from a family of happy even eager collaborators. It only took a policy of incredible stupidity, arrogance, and brutality on the part of the local Roman governor to turn her from a warm supporter of Rome into its most dangerous enemy.... Her great insurrection ended in a gory, chaotic slaughter.







Hadrian's wall

A world of garrisons and barracks had now become a society in its own right. From the middle of the second century it makes sense to talk about a Romano-British culture. Not just as a colonial veneer imposed on a resentful natives but as a genuine fusion.


And, when in the year of 410 Alaric The Goth sacked Rome and the last two legions parted to prop up the tottering empire, that chill developed into an acute anxiety attack. This is one of the genuinely fateful moments in British history.

Eventually though the Roman adaptations became ever more makeshift; the fabric of Roman life increasingly threadbare until it did indeed fall apart altogether. The island was now divided into 3 utterly different realms. The remains of Britannia hung on in the west. North of the abandoned walls and ports the Scottish tribes for the most part remained pagan, and England, the land of the Anglo-Saxon and Judes, was planted in the east all the way from Kent to the kingdom of Bernicia.

The history of the conversions between the 6th and the 8th centuries is another of those crucial turning points in the history of the British Isles. While the legions had long gone, the shadow of Rome fell once again on these islands. This time though it was an invasion of the soul and the warriors were carrying Christian gospels rather than swords.

We have to remember that the most famous of the early missionaries to Ireland -Saint Patrick- was in fact a Romano-British aristocrat. (The patrician as he called himself) So there was nothing remotely Irish about the teenager who was kidnapped and sold into slavery by Irish raiders sometime in the early 5th century. It was only after he escaped (probably to Brittany) and ordained... then visited by prophetic dreams that he returned to Ireland... this time the messenger of God's gospel.





Bede was not just the founding father of English history; arguably he was also the first consummate storyteller of all of English literature. He was not exactly well-traveled- he spent his entire life here in Jarrow. It was his masterful grip on narrative that made Bede not just an authentic historian but also a brilliant propagandist for the early church.


The Viking raids that they knew could strike hard and fierce at any moment. In addition to land the Vikings were keen on one other kind of merchandise - people whom they sold as slaves. On the positive side there is one thing that the Vikings managed to do however inadvertently. They created England. By smashing the power of most of the Saxon's kingdoms, the Vikings accomplished what left to themselves the warring tribes could never have managed - some semblance of alliance against a common foe.


Through Alfred the Great, England got something that it hadn't had since the legions departed; an authentic vision of a realm governed by law and education. A realm which understood it's past and its special destiny as the Western bastion of a Christian Roman world. By the spring of 878 Alfred had managed to piece together an improvised alliance of resistance. During Alfred's lifetime the idea of a United English kingdom had become conceivable and even desirable.

Alfred's grandson would be crowned the first king of England in Bath.





pictures from: mine, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boudica, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Patric, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_the_Great

2018/10/26

Notes from "Walking the Bible"


I recently finished a DVD/ book set titled "Walking the Bible: A Journey by Land Through the Five Books of Moses." Taking a spiritual journey along side someone else's journey can be challenging yet it can have advantages as well. Many of us have our journeys alongside spouses and friends, children and acquaintances. Lately, my journey has been walked alone with books or acquaintance conversations and this set was really interesting because the addition of the DVD and its images helped create a more thought provoking environment for learning. The paragraphs below are notes from the book and video series. These passages really stuck with me and I have enjoyed chewing on the words more than once in the last month. Even though this was Bruce Feiler's journey, his words have changed my journey a bit as any good thoughtful religious text can. I'm happy to share the quoted paragraphs below. Please feel free to share your thoughts as well.



"Does it really matter?" "What do you mean does it matter- Oh course it matters! That’s not why we came here. We came to see the traditional place." Maybe Arbur was right- finding the ark may not be so important. What’s important was that people who told the story of Noah understood the landscape they were talking about. And the story was still alive in this place. The people who live here are still connected to it.

But now that I am here I am beginning to realize that science can’t answer all of those questions. Even if I did find a piece of Noah’s ark and even if I could prove it was 5000 years old and even if I found a piece of wood that said ‘Noah built me,’ I’m still not going to prove that God ordered Noah to build it. OK, so I get that, but still its hard to let go of that comfort of science. If I give up that, what am I looking for?

For my whole life I felt connected to the place where I was born. I was this traveler I would go out and then I would bounce back home. I was like a bungee cord. Now for the first time I felt that cord catch in another place. It’s as if I found a home I didn’t even know what I was looking for. And when I went back to the Bible I realized that the Hebrew word for Adam is ha-adam or earth. “From dust you are,” God says to Adam, “to dust you shall return.” The Bible seems to be saying with these very words that we come from these places ,were made from these places, and we carry these places along with us.

For the first time since we started, I felt a sense of contentment and peace. It wasn’t just what I was learning about the history of the Bible. The landscape itself was beginning to give me answers… answers to some internal longing I hadn’t even identified. Some journeys we choose I realize. Some journeys choose us.


What would I do in this situation? Would you do it? Would you kill for God? I don’t know. For me Abraham is unique … very special. It was an beginning for me to try and find an answer of that specific question which forced me to examine my own relationship with God. When I first started this journey on the roots of the bible, the stories and images seemed so vague in my mind. They no longer seem distant to me. They are no longer distant; by visiting these places I feel like I have entered the bible itself.

Stories are universal and have the remarkable ability thousands of years after they were first written down to become personal for each of us. My geographic adventure was turning into a very different kind of journey.

2018/03/10

Out of the Pile - Eugenics and North Carolina


Tonight I spent a few hours after work sitting on my tail and sorting through piles and piles of school paperwork. I have stacks of completed assignments, essays, research papers, and more that have been stacked up waiting for me to figure out what I should do with them. Quite a few of them are probably going to be posted here over time so that other people can read them, but I suspect most will be thrown away. While I was combing through the pile, I found this little gem. It is a copy of a pamphlet produced by the North Carolinian state government back in the 1950s. I did some research a few years ago on eugenics in the United States after I discovered the subject and jumped down that rabbit hole of awfulness for a few months. I still struggle to understand why this happened so many years ago, but why is still happening *now* in areas of our country. There are not only people still living who are dealing with the trauma of their involuntary sterilizations from the 1950s, but today some medical providers also use their position of power to force sterilizations onto women in their charge- in prisons, on reservations, or in hospitals. I found myself looking over this pamphlet and thinking of our current political situation and I can't help but wince. I am also bothered by the fact that so many people who believe in eugenics are also Christian and can worship and practice their faith and see no friction between Christian ideology and eugenics... whereas I can't see that eugenics can ever fit into any true Christian faith journey.

Without further ado, here is the pamphlet in its entirety. I will spend the rest of my evening continuing to shuffle through the copious quantity of paperwork at my disposal. I wonder what else I will find...

Here are links to previous blogposts on the subject: One, Two, Three.












2016/01/26

The Identity Game

Have you ever played the Identity Wheel game? Here is a copy of the gameboard....


When you fill it out... what do you find? Here is what mine looks like:


My identity wheel doesn't really have much diversity in it at all. basically... it is a quick and easy people labeler. It took me about three minutes to fill out and I wasn't really surprised to say that it doesn't really tell anyone much about me that isn't already pretty obvious. I am a 41 year old, European ancestry white girl who considers herself to be heterosexual with some minor disabilities. I have had a multitude of low paying high responsibility jobs for most of my life in the medical field that have included working with adolescents in crisis and detox, emergency medicine and pharmaceutical distribution in both hospital and retail areas. I work 6 days a week almost all year to break $20,000 a year, am divorced with one child, and no military experience (had little interest and when recruited my physical stuff disqualified me.) I was born in Rhode Island, grew up in Colorado and Las Vegas and then moved to Maine 15 years ago and will probably stay here for the rest of my time here. I still have parents and family out west and I am trying to complete a college degree. I am a strong believing Mormon (LDS) with very unorthodox views so I do not fit in the orthodox church mold very well.

One thing that came to mind as I was filling this out was how simple it seemed to me and as I wrote down my sexual identity, gender, etc... I had an image of a teenager looking at the paper and hesitating.... Should they write down what they feel in their heart... or what other people would write down for them. In some ways this diversity wheel can also be used to obscure identity to try and fit in better in the society and culture you reside in. So while I found it pretty simple to fill out, I am also pretty comfortable with who I am at this stage of my life. For anyone who doesn't necessarily fit in the normative modes, each piece of the pie can come with hesitation and decision.

It also doesn't cover the aspects that make me who I am. My desires and dreams are no where and do not even leave any hints on this wheel and depending on when it is filled out, so much can change. I was married once and can get married again. I am interested in adoption so maybe I will add more children to my home... doubt it, but who knows. Even the boxes that seen clear such as religion do not tell how I interact with my religion and its teachings nor how other adherents around me change the religious experience for me. An interesting activity thought.

If you complete the activity for yourself, what does it tell you? Are you willing to share?

2016/01/02

A Nativity Metaphor


One of the things that I love about Christmas time is the varied opportunities to set up nativity scenes with my Bug. He has loved them since he was less than a year old and with fascination would reach towards the animals until one was handed to him. At this point in my life I have three incomplete sets of nativity pieces that with much laughter and smiles are carefully set up next to each other. Every year, the different pieces end up moving around the room as Joseph may be dragged off by a cat or Bug's service dog may casually pick one up when we are not looking and chew it to bits... or they even move when we use the pieces to recreate stories. These stories can be the birth of Christ as told in the Gospel of Luke or can become as varied as the barn scene in "The Last Battle" by C.S. Lewis. Sometimes, we just play farm and feed and tend to the animals that come with these nativity sets- always cows and sheep, but sometimes donkeys, horses, and even camels. Over the years I have worked pretty hard to make sure that my son understands that the nativity story with the animals is a tradition and is fun, but is very much not what the scriptures describe the events of the birth of Christ to be. The nativity tradition, while beautiful and fun, is not scriptural and in some ways seems to take away from the importance and the struggle of the event itself that we Christians celebrate - the birth of our Savior.

This year after Thanksgiving, I happily brought out the nativity sets for setting up. As usual, Bug and I sat down and placed them in the places we wanted. We added real hay and shavings to one of the stables and it always feels wonderful to sit back and look at the different groups. The sets are quite easy to tell apart as one is a Fisher Price plastic set, a hand carved wood set and a paper mache set that was hand painted for me by the young women of my branch a few years ago. I noticed this year that as the pieces began to be moved and scattered around the house, my son clearly had a very different image in his mind as he put them back and by the time that Christmas Day arrived, I had a very different nativity scene to view. So at a terribly early hour of the morning, while everyone else opened presents, I found my eyes and my thoughts drawn back towards the nativity scene in front of me. What I saw was three small smiling babies in the center of a large group which was then surrounded by animals and then the people. In some ways it looked a bit like how I feel about the sun.... the edges are easily seen but looking at the center is too bright, too hard.... too much. After the required present opening and fun, I chatted with Bug about the nativity and some of the same things that I saw as I looked down were emotions and ideas that he had been trying in a small way to suggest. Here are our thoughts:

1. How people picture the Savior can vary greatly on their perspective. His race, skin color, culture, facial expressions, etc... are things that are developed created by each of us and our religious culture. While every single person may see the Savior, his life, and his commandments differently, for those who celebrate his birth and life, we tend to see him as the center of our heart- the nucleus of our living soul. This is where Jesus Christ should be - in our minds and hearts, our thoughts and hopes. In essence, he should be our center and our life should revolve around him and our relationship with him.

2. The animals were set around him as a protection. Animals are pure and live the lives that they have been set to lead on this earth. They are here to live, to teach us, to sometimes feed us and to help us to recognize the divine all around us. As such, most animals will likely recognize the Christ in the flesh before we human beings shall and as each creature recognizes its spiritual heart, they will surround him in joy and protect him from harm.

3. People are on the outside of the circle as we are frail, easily distracted and of skewed perspectives. When we look at pictures of Christ with his mother and images that celebrate his birth, for many the joy is in the rest of the image behind the holy child... the cow in the next stall, the sheep standing next to a shepherd, the donkey tied up nearby. When we perform the nativity story in plays, each of the actors in the nativity are likely to play their character to the hilt and in most traditional nativities, they are more animals than people. So the majority of the action comes from the animals as well as the majority of the space taken up. As I discovered to my cost last year, telling a friend that having animals in a Nativity scene isn't scriptural can seriously get you gossiped and talked about even when the comment was mentioned in a closed door, private meeting. I was really surprised at how offended someone could get over the idea that Christ wasn't surrounded from his first earthly breath with joyous, happy livestock crowding in toward the manger for a better look. As Bug told me, "We see what we want to see, animals see what is there."

I look back a week later on this experience and find myself pretty pleased and tearful. I am grateful for an amazing and thoughtful child who is kind and empathetic and good-hearted. I am grateful that even with some of his learning challenges, Bug is aware of how to live a good life and is able to understand many human frailties and stumbling blocks. He also seems to understand where the Savior should be in our lives... in our hearts, the focus.... the center of our being. This is a Christmas gift I will never forget and always be grateful for. Tomorrow, my son will be 14 years old. I look forward to celebrating his birthday with him and eating cake. I am thankful for the gifts he has given me... especially these thoughts. Love you Bug. :)

2015/02/04

Thoughts on the Armenian 'Catastrophe' ... and Why do Americans Have No Knowledge of This?


This week I read most of the book “The Sandcastle Girls” by Chris Bohjalian. I was really impressed with the writing of the author and how he did seem to capture so much of what the experience might have been like in the recollections and visuals of the characters. I was also pretty astonished by how well he writes in the perspective of the gender he is not- I think that takes a great amount of brilliance, observation and listening. It also suggests that we are human beings divided into man and woman are not as different as we believe that we are.

After doing my reading I decided to tackle the first question that was brought up about the genocide in our class- Why do American's know so little about the genocide? I found while I have tackled this question I have gotten a firmer idea of what a genocide actually is and why the Salem witch trials , while pretty horrific and had almost all of the same motivating factors, were at least different in a few ways. I took the time this week to try and do a short informal poll. I have 100 or so Facebook friends and so I asked point blank on my page last Thursday if anyone had heard of the Armenian genocide and what they knew about it. I got seventeen responded and all of them were negative - “What is that?”, “ Is that recently?”, and other generic responses. I also asked very quickly at the beginning of my medical assistant class on Tuesday and all five students plus the teacher denied ever hearing about it. I asked at church and simply seemed to cause confusion including people asking who the Armenians are... When I mentioned that ISIS yesterday had destroyed a memorial dedicated to the Armenian genocide in a class, the only comments seemed to be outrage that a church was hit and confusion as to why it was a memorial. So I spent a few hours in the library trying to research the question as to why we as Americans hear nothing. I looked at the books I used when I studied World War I two semesters ago and there was no reference at all. (Heck, I looked at all the sources that I used internet, etc... for my paper that semester and found pretty much nothing.) So I think that one reason that Americans do not know about it is that the majority of the books and sources that we can use for studying that period of time focus on the 'Western' and 'Eastern' Fronts and the death and military strategy there as well as success, failure and stalemates. It feels that where our troops were and what they were doing as well as our allies are considered much more important for us to know and study. I think that is only a part of the reason though because one source I found suggested that the Armenian genocide is the second most studied genocide – second only to the Holocaust. Yet, everyone polled knew of the Holocaust and not the other.

I think a big part of why Americans are not taught about the Armenian genocide is actually political- politics now and in the politics after the end of World War II. I have come to this conclusion for a few reasons. The first reason is after the readings and some research it appears that all genocides have governmental involvement in common and as such, politics must necessarily be involved to a certain degree. For the Armenians, it was the members of the political parties/ groups of the Young Turks and the Committee of Union and Progress that designed and carried out this genocide. It appears that only governments can really create genocides because only organizations that are that big and wield that much planning and power can effectively achieve these aims. While others may dream of doing so in small groups or individually, they can't do so effectively without all the pieces that are necessary and it appears that for the most part, only governments have ties to all the pieces required... a military, central planning, ability to develop machinery and secret organizations and police forces, etc... So political groups may have as part of their platform a policy or a platform that encompasses ideas that make the genocide not only possible, but more likely. The government of Turkey has a lot to lose if they 'admit' and acknowledge the genocide. First, the government itself owes most of its assets to the acquisition of them from the Armenians. That in itself is a large motivation to keep quiet. The longer that the Turkish government denies it, the harder and more difficult it will be for them to eventually back down

One of the challenges of learning about the Armenian genocide was to discover its existence. Over my lifetime, history has been an important aspect of my education and my life. It has marked itself upon my mind and with few exceptions all my college electives have been history based. So how was this piece of recent history missed? Isn't it interesting that candidate Obama would use the word genocide when talking about this act... and President Obama will not?

So… how many of my readers have heard about this genocide? What do you know about it?

pictures from: http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/13330603-the-sandcastle-girls, http://www.genocide-museum.am/eng/armenian_genocide.php, http://www.crethiplethi.com/for-turkey-as-a-model-in-the-middle-east-america-remains-crucial/usa/2012/, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama

2012/02/22

Brief Views of the Vikings and their Culture

Until the 1880's, historians knew very little of Vikings and their society and culture except for the stereotypical – large horned helmets, murderous and ignorant barbarians, etc... It was during this time in Norway that some archeologists found an amazing discovery in the ground at several burial sites - large ships filled with goods and military items, etc... clearly a tomb and luckily for us, very well preserved. This gave historians the evidence to suggest that this people had an elaborate burial system, clearly that they believed in a very active afterlife, and the goods themselves would show a more complex culture that was previously believed. And when excavations had begun, it was not necessarily believed that these ships that were discovered were able to be seaworthy. Research and experiments show us that these ships were extremely seaworthy and easily used... giving us more insight into their past culture and lives. This post will hopefully give the reader some brief images and understanding of the complexity of the Viking civilization and some of the leaders of these differing groups. (Some aspects of their culture reminded me a bit of the early Egyptian society actually.... not to change the subject. )

Life was very different for the groups of Vikings who living in the times before 'raiding' became part of their culture. They were considered a sedentary society based on agriculture. The societies were organized around small villages or clans/groups- it is guess that these were based on families, but this is really just a guess. Peace was the norm although disagreements and war between different groups was not unknown. The economy was based on raising animals and growing food and this was truly the basic economic unit of this society. The shot growing season was a time of tremendous pressure to grow and produce the food for the longer, cold period of time.

So... what made the Vikings become raiders...? In this culture, a king was a man who owned a large farm who would have his 'workers', farmers, slaves, etc... Raids became 'necessary' as the amount of food and farm land needed for these growing populations became too scarce to support the larger numbers. This 'military tactic' was first used on the surrounding groups as the stronger preyed and slaughtered the weaker groups... taking the resources and substance to support themselves. (They would basically attack, kill, take everything.... and then leave.) However, this really wasn't sustainable as eventually weak Viking groups would no longer exist. Wealth and resources would again be scarce and so some members would start to look out to the seas and the lands beyond for their potential of resources and wealth. One truly scary aspect of the Viking raiders is that all the different groups were independent of each other. While historians tend to talk of 'Vikings' as a noun (a solid group), this word really describes in some ways a verb.... groups that have some outward similarities, but have no loyalty towards other groups, no political ties, and no understanding or wish to work with each other. So any groups who needed to fight the Vikings would be unable to negotiate, bribe, etc.... to stop the violence.... any treaty would only be with that particular raiding group. The only agreement they would have was they might agree to fight together to conquer other groups... and that was about it. Their traits of greed and terrorism were also hard to combat by their victims.


The Viking long boat gave the Vikings a real edge against other groups of people and became a very significant part of their culture and success. These boats, once developed, allowed for a vessel that was able to be produced in as little as 4-6 weeks that could travel safely in the North Atlantic ocean. Smaller versions of this ship could be made that were light enough to travel in waterways that large vessels couldn't travel safely in... such as rivers. It was this ship that allowed these groups to become a serious fear to the rest of the 'reachable' world. These boats were really a great technological feat for this time creating a ship that has low draft and high maneuverability. These boats are narrow and needed very little water to travel in. Rivers then became significant waterways because this allows these groups to use these smaller ships to get inland quickly and with little warning to the on-land populations. This allowed the Vikings to attack areas that were populated by people who were not used to attack from its waterways leaving these populations especially vulnerable.

While most groups throughout history were attracted to gold, these Viking groups found silver very attractive. And as such, monasteries would have easily been seen as the best places to attack. After all, the monasteries would be the most wealthy groups in almost all of the lands of England and Europe. And, most importantly, monasteries would not be heavily armed and were well trained in 'passivity'. If you have choices of groups to attack, these would have been the most attractive- you were more likely to get huge amount of wealth and resources with much less risk or injury or death to you and your allies.... why would you attack anywhere else that was less wealthy and will more risk of damage/death?

The first known monastery to have been attacked was the monastery of Lindisfarne on the northern most coast of England in the year of 793 AD. This attack was considered a milestone for the Vikings (the first major Viking sea raid) and was recorded in a historical document called 'the Anglo Saxon Chronicles' in words of pain, fear, and anger. This attack was so successful that as word traveled throughout the Norse world, other groups of Vikings started building ships to come and conquer and steal the wealth in Europe that was easily 'taken'. This really started the onslaught of Europe by these groups.

The idea that these Viking had no common leader or king is extremely significant. When you have a group such as the Huns led by Attila, you have more potential ways to end combat. One leader can be bribed or can be worked with though diplomacy or mediation. If a group with one leader needs to try and work with several leaders of several groups, he is very much at a disadvantage. Each of these leaders has no loyalty to each other and has no reason to abide by any agreement made with the other leaders.... which pretty much removed any possibility of non violent means of ending the conflicts. And once fighting had commenced, stopping the violence is again very difficult as there was not the benefit of one leader to call a halt to the fight. So fighting could and would continue long after the 'conquered' had attempted to surrender. This scenario reminds me of groups of children on a play group and how they can be pretty much uncontrollable until a feared teacher calls them into line.... the Vikings would not have had the feared 'teacher.' So the death and violence could literally continue until all enemy combatants including infants were dead. It is no exaggeration that the Vikings were terrorists and used terror, like other past and future leaders, to psychologically convert the people they wanted to conquer.... and the spreading of the stories of their acts of violence to begin the 'psychological' conquering of future European groups/cities.


One of the most well known Viking leaders was a warrior called Ragnar the Dane. Ragnar quickly became known as a notorious and vicious military leader during his career. He was ambitious and he completed the first major river conquest by the Vikings. In 885 AD, he took a fleet of 120 ships down the Seine river towards Paris. Once there, he conquered the French military forces by the river and marched them inland... then 'hanging' until dead all survivors which were estimated at around 111 individuals. As Ragnar matched to Paris, it's leader Charles the Bald attempted and was successful in bribing Ragnar and his army to leave his city alone by paying an extremely huge ransom of six tons of gold. (This was a sign that the 'Reign of Terror' caused by the Vikings was really working as Paris was actually really well defended, but Charles was unwilling to even take the risk of fighting the Ragnar and his Viking army.) This bribe did cause Ragnar to leave, but the stories of the amount of wealth that was available passed across the continent like wildfire and was the cause of even more Viking groups traveling to the European continent for their share of these vast and seemingly endless amounts of riches and wealth. And since each group had its own king, no other Viking leader felt the need leave the inland cities alone. Soon every river in Europe was being used by the Vikings to conquer every city within reach of these waterways... which was pretty much all the cities in Europe at that time.

The Christian religion played a huge role within the differing Viking groups. As it was with other populations around Europe during this time, Christianity became a tool used by the various Viking leaders to subdue and tame their people as well as the conquers. It is thought that Leif Ericson was the major missionary to the different viking groups of this religion – there is some thought that a Viking King in Noway asked him to specifically convert the outer-lying colonies to Christianity. He is fairly successfully although many tribesmen were reluctant to convert from their pagan traditions. Over time, Christianity was followed by the vast majority of Viking tribesmen and groups... and it was the only successful idea that unified these separate groups... as they still had no common kings/leaders or reasons to unite with each other.

Another important Viking leader was Harold Hadrada... who was a half brother of King Olaf- the king of Norway.. At fifteen years old, Harold was known to be fighting in some of the civil wars at the time. (Norway was in the midst of a civil war between the differing groups and the war had pretty much become a war between King Olaf and another leader, King Canute the Great.) After Harold was injured in the civil war when he is sixteen and King Olaf has been killed (about 1030), he is exiled from his homeland and he heads out and finds protection for himself in the city of Kiev in Kievan Rus (Russia) – ruled at that time by Yaroslav the Wise. He learns more lessons in the craft of war and becomes leader of a military force that is used by Prince Yaroslav to keep down insurrections among his people. His work and military prowess for this Prince of Kievan Rus was great and he was only able to leave his 'protection'.... by sneaking out of the country.


When Harold had become wealthy and powerful, he quietly left Keivan Rus and headed back to Norway... and within a year of co-rule with his nephew, he became the only ruler of Norway. Anyone who was suspected of treason or disagreement with Harold Hardrada was killed and he ruled his people through force... through the simple message of 'submit' or die'. He then took the knowledge that he learned in Kiev of trade and commerce and promoted it in his lands understanding that his people would be strongly united under him if the population were wealthy and prosperous. He developed a major trade center in the city of Oslo which sold goods from all over the currently known world. Unfortunately for the country of England, Harold's ambition did not fade over time and eventually an alliance was formed with the traitorous brother of the current king. The alliance with Tostig Godwinson gave Harold the excuse he was looking for to sail out and try to conquer England. The English army is extremely strong and formidable and Harold's vanity and confidence is so strong that he makes a huge tactical error and loses the fight.... and his life. Some historians see this particular battle and the death of Harold Hadrada in 1066 as the end of the 'Viking Age'.

In conclusion, what is the legacy that the Vikings left behind? One benefit of these numerous raids to the Vikings that is not commonly thought of is the tremendous amount of differing cultures and societies that they were exposed to in their quest for conquest and wealth. The legacy of the Vikings to our current world is quite vast. They leave the lasting legacy of the tales of their triumphs, ferocity, terror, and brutality. The lands that they settled in became very discreet lands with their own cultures- Norway became a solid country, Russia does as well... each with its own identity, cultures, etc.... England would fall to the Normans which would then become its own country. These individuals and groups would assimilate into the lands that they moved into and their culture would intertwine and merge with the culture around them. The practice of raiding caused the heavy fortification of Europe as well as significant feelings of 'nationalism'... something that hadn't really been seen before. The Vikings also give us the legacy of significant social and political changes, unifying with other populations by the presence of Christianity, the significant development and changes across Europe in ship building, and their legacy of improved economic growth and trade. While these groups brought lots of negatives to the areas that they interacted with, our world is truly richer because of them.

2012/01/25

Brief Views on the History of the Black Death

The start of the spread of the Black Death actually has a rather ignoble beginning. A group of Christian Italian merchants who had been expelled from their native city of Tarna had come to stay in the Muslim trading posts of Caffa. These two groups had a bit of religious difficulty with each other and soon a small skirmish turned into a full-on war. It was one year into the siege in which the Muslims (with help from the local Mongol army) were attempting to out-root the Christians from Caffa that the plague arrived- it killed so many in the Mongol army that they were forced to stop fighting. However, the Mongol prince came up with a successful plan... and it was at this time that the remaining troops loaded their catapults with the dead bodies of his soldiers that had died of the plague and were then thrown into the city walls. The rotting corpses tainted the air and poisoned the water causing death in the city. A few of the still able individuals with resources were able to gather in their boats and attempt to sail away to safety... taking local rats accidentally on board with them. These rats carried fleas infested with the plague and soon the sailors were dying as they traveled. No port would allow the boat to dock when it was seen the boats were filled with the dead and dying... and when they reached in Mecina in Sicily, they barely stopped long enough before they were sent out again. It was in this brief respite however that there was time for several rats to get ashore. This very brief encounter is what was thought to have brought the Black Death from the East to Europe. We now know that the Bobak marmot is the creature that has always brought the plague to people.... by coughing on fleas... which spread it to rats... which spread it to us. All the great human plagues can be traced back to this animal in Mongolia who are particularly susceptible to this illness.


Europe was in a rather bad position for a contagious disease to arrive on its shores. By the time that the plague arrived in Europe, overpopulation was the norm. The long wars that had weakened the people and their lands were not completely ended in 1348, famines and harvest failures had left people hungry and undernourished, and it goes without saying that the instability probably caused great amounts of stress and fear that lingered on in the people even in times of peace. Overpopulation, especially in cities, made it easier for the plague to spread as people interacted with each other and then more people, as the filth and sewage of the cities that was not properly treated and left everywhere which left the people at more risk... as the poor used the clothing and possessions of the dead and the dying. As people became more fearful and terrified, the rich would gather possessions if they could and would flee away from the towns with the plague... but of course they would travel with it in their possession continuing the movement and the spread... accidentally bringing more and more people and communities into the path of the plague. One of the other quick ways that the plague travels to new victims was by ships and usually within days of a ship docking the plague was found everywhere nearby. One a sad note as well, the Catholic church had labeled cats as animals who belonged only to witches or where familiars of Satan... so the cat population, which could have helped control the rat population, was extremely low in Europe at his time.


There are actually two types of plague and they are spread through the human population in slightly different ways. The two types of plague are respiratory/pneumonic and bubonic plague... neither of which were very enviable. Bubonic plague was characterized by boils and blisters as well as fever that would appear which would weaken the person and the blisters/boils would grow larger and more painful until by around the fourth day, the person usually died. Very few that came down with the plague would live to tell about it later so we have very few firsthand autobiographies- the few we do are hard and difficult to read. Pneumonic plague is characterized by high, consistent fevers and respiratory difficulty, bleeding and breakdown. Pneumonic plague is much deadlier than its sister bubonic plague.... as well as much easier to transmit to other victims. The disease was spread by the infected fleas which would then bite a human host. Pneumonic plague could also be spread through the expelled air of an infected person.


It would be remiss at this point to suggest that the only terror of this time was the plague. The group that became known as the flagellants certainly can be accused of making things worse for the majority of the people. The flagellants were a group of religious extremists who believed that by causing harm and self abuse to their bodies, they could stop the plague by this form of 'penance' and would purge the society around them of sin. The Pope at first encouraged these 'sects', but these groups soon condemned the Pope for the failure of the plague to cease... and the Pope realized that this group was a risk to public order and his position. The Pope would then write to all the leaders in Europe to ask them to deal with the flagellant sects. Fairly quickly, most of the flagellants would be suppressed and wiped out in the several kingdoms which did effectively wipe out the majority of the sect members across Europe. At one point, the flagellants accused the Jewish populations of poisoning the wells and causing the plague causing several pogroms and massacres of these minority populations. So these sects didn't tend to cause anything but harm.... the fear and terror, as well as social unrest and massacres that they caused in many ways could have helped spread the plague as people ran from the unrest to other areas or brought the sick more closely together to protect themselves from the more immediate threat.


One impact that the Black Death had on the medieval societies was how people reacted to the church and to how God was seen. The Black Plague had a huge impact on the Catholic church. The difficulties caused by the flagellants was a black mark on the church that was difficult for the organization to shake... especially as the flagellants started to use the Church as a scapegoat for the death and the plague. Far more difficult to shake however, was the new attitude that the survivors tended to keep- that the established church was not necessarily absolute in power. People still strongly believed in God and their beliefs had even been strengthened due to the suffering causes by the plague. But all hierarchy- whether church based or politically based- was seen with a look of skepticism that had never been fostered before in the minds of the common man. People started to question the church as well as the general order of the world and tradition. It changed the relationship between the surviving poor and the surviving rich as the shortage of labor would give peasants more bargaining power. Europe was no longer overpopulated.... and it would take well over one hundred years for Europe to truly recover from the devastation of the Black Death.

2011/11/12

Napoleon and His Effects on Revolutionary Ideals

At first blush, Napoleon appears to have left the ideals of the 'Revolution' in the dust behind him as he moved forward towards his goals and desires. However, it would be remiss to make this statement without actually discussing what some of the ideals of the revolution were... and it appears that in some ways, we are still discovering some of the smaller pieces of knowledge that gives us new ways of looking at the actions, ideals, and desires of the major and minor players in the revolutionary process. Without a long discussion, most of the ideals that were hoped for with the French revolution and its 'creators' can be seen in its motto of “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.” The idea that people were and should be treated equally, that people had inherent rights to be protected from their government and have representation in that government, and that class and rights to only a few in a stratified society should be abolished. Other reasons for the revolution were problems with severe poverty, lack of safety or protection for the majority, and the inability for most of the individuals living in France to have any real way to take care of themselves or to be self sufficient... let alone able to advance themselves or their children.

Many of Napoleon’s ways of expanding his power, controlled territory and, of course, his ambition can be seen to be directly scaling back the benefits and rights that the Revolution had been 'fought' to win. Women had been granted through the revolutionary government equal rights to divorce and to help control or make decisions on their children and family property. With Napoleon, many of these protections were scaled back... and women found themselves once more with restrictions on their desires for divorce and their rights to make any decisions in equality with their husband on children of property. Males were once again legally and socially over women in even these private family matters. Women could even lose their French citizenship if they married a male that didn't have French citizenship.(This is a bit remarkable to me. As Americans, we require other people to give up their citizenship to become an American, but many other countries allow you to hold citizenship of more than one country. A friend of mine was born in Australia and has citizenship for both England and Australia. She married an American and so her children have access to citizenship to all three countries, but only if she continues to keep a green card and never becomes a American citizen. This experience was one I thought about when I read about this restriction and thought about how it limits her choices if she wants to expand her offspring's choices in this world.... and I wondered how much more it was limiting for women in the time frame of the early 1800's...? The revolutionary law that required equal distribution of property to children upon parental death was abolished, allowing male parents to distribute property to their children as they wished which was very likely to cause the traditional problems of disinheritance of daughters and even younger sons. (I am certain that kind of tradition dispersment also limits woman’s choices and makes the majority far more likely to live in poverty.) A true irony is that truth, wisdom and many virtues in French society are portrayed as women.

Other minorities also found their rights and new-found protections were curtailed of removed as well. The few rights that some group of Jews were given were pretty much removed. Napoleon, like many in his society... and even today if I think about it, really mistrusted people who formed Jewish groups- no matter what “Jewish” group they participated in. In one stance, Napoleon passed a law giving amnesty to peasants who owed members of the Jewish population money.... but he stood by and did nothing for peasants who owed other populations or people money -clear discrimination. While law had abolished slavery, blacks now had the misfortune to no longer have that protection... and Napoleon even went out of his way in some attempts in re-enslave black populations in colonies and have free blacks in France register with the police – again, clear discrimination.

Other freedoms that had been extended to all and not just to minority groups were curtailed or removed all together. Censorship became the norm not only for newspapers and other forms of entertainment like the theater, but also in relation to free speech. A secret police force was developed and funded to hunt of dissidents and the vocally 'disgruntled' and its existence must have made people much more wary about expressing themselves to others. Plays and other entertainment eventually had to be approved through the police/ government before any attempt at public performance could be had. There is documentation that Napoleon would 'edit' even specific lines in stories, articles, plays etc... to be sure that things read or were seen the way he wanted them to be. He also moved religious freedom back a little bit and while he allowed the worship of other religions in many ways, he put the Catholic religion at the top of governmental support and, as before, all clergy and other religious leaders were paid by the state to assure their loyalty to the state... and not to the Pope.

Lastly, one clear ideal of the revolution was representative government. Napoleon clearly had no wish to have any kind of representative government... unless it represented his view only. :) Bureaucracy was set and controlled in such as way that over time, Napoleon become the only leader and even other 'leaders' must get his approval for everything... and anything! In many ways, he was to return France to the form of government it had been following for hundreds of years – a hereditary absolute monarchy. His relatives and children were given territory and ruling positions over much of the conquered territory of Europe and it appears that his relatives in many ways answered to him as well. This was clearly not the ideal situation that most of the revolutionaries had fought for.

When we look at France through these ideas, it seems clear that Napoleon is a man that could be classified along with other 'enlightened' despots in history. Many of the changes that had been won through the costs of fear and blood were carefully and strictly removed. That said, he didn't disagree with or change all of the hard won changes of the revolution. The achievements of personal and private property were kept so that people could be assured that the government couldn't just swoop in and take their land... there had to be a good and lawful reason (which he only ignored in some instances). Religious freedom was still kept... OK, freedom of 'Christian' religions were kept... but that was certainly an improvement. :) Feudal rights continued to be abolished and were not reinstated... except for a few situations which again Napoleon conveniently ignored for his gain. A constitutional monarchy- even if in name only- was still a small step forward towards democracy. And certainly, one consequence of the revolution and its other great leader was control and terror. This standard and form of rule Napoleon would continue. With censorship and a virtual police state, Napoleon may not have used the guillotine to achieve his ends in the same way that Robespierre did, but he too used his intelligence, his oratory and persuasive abilities, ambition, and the addition of his military prowess to create a country in his image... and to take that image and use his armies to paint it across the entire European continent. Thankfully, life had in many ways improved for his constituents and they were able to have a chance at a more satisfactory life.