On Vikings and Victims: White-Guilt in Context

All-permeating "white-guilt" did not appear out of thin air. It has taken a sustained propaganda effort, a wide-ranging mobilization of education and culture, to inculcate and sustain self-loathing among American Caucasians. Like the Coca-Cola ^TM brand, white-guilt needs endless repetition to remain struck in the thought and behavioral processes of the masses.

Set around 900 AD, the film deals with Viking incursions into North America. The Vikings are portrayed as ironclad giants -- more monster than human -- mounted atop massive Clydesdales, barking and grunting obscenities in some strange tongue; the natives, as expected, gentle, innocent, and peace-loving. This theme, of course, is not new.

Subtleties playing on white-guilt, however, are spread throughout. Consider the usage of language. The Vikings speak only Norse, with English subtitles (though the viewer could do without, since apparently the north-men had naught to utter but barbarities and cruelties). Conversely, the natives rattle off in 21^st century colloquial English. If the movie was primarily interested in authenticity (let alone objectivity), both languages -- Native and Norse -- should have been used (as in The Passion, where Latin, Hebrew, and Aramaic are maintained throughout). Moreover, if either of the two languages should have been rendered into English, logically it should have been Norse, which is at least etymologically related to English and in the same linguistic group.

Of course, philological fidelity is not the movie-makers' primary interest; empathy by association is. Violent Vikings are left to babble unintelligently about fire, war, and iron, while Natives talk of love, peace, and courage -- all in very smooth English. Americans are supposed to identify with the natives, not their Norse co-linguists, nor, for millions of American viewers tracing their lineage to Scandinavia, their ancestors.

Language manipulation aside, the depiction of Vikings as brutal warriors and plunderers is at least plausible and historic. The Native presentation, on the other hand, is neither. Indeed, the cultural anachronisms of Pathfinder suggest that 10^th century natives were akin to modern-day liberals, easily "traumatized" and constantly in need of "therapy" and "reaffirmation" -- concepts wholly non-existent in the 10^th century.

From the start, a native woman encounters dead bodies and starts shrieking (she is "traumatized") and running madly -- as if living in 900 AD North America (or anywhere else at the time, for that matter) men, women, and children would not find the sight of rotting corpses banal. In the midst of this carnage, she happens upon a Viking boy who brandishes a sword at her. Instead of reacting instinctively -- fight-or-flight -- she casts a loving look at him as if to say "You poor boy; what have they done to you?" and embraces him.

In fact, the main reasons that make the hero of the story, this same young Viking grown into manhood, agreeable, are his "liberal-therapeutic" tendencies. He has "daddy-issues" (his father beat and abandoned him for not being "man" enough) and is "confused" about his "identity," finally sloughing off his violent Viking (read: "white") heritage in favor of a sort of "multi-culti" native identity, thus making him the triumphant hero we can all support and identify with.

Of course none of this should be surprising; neither presenting dead white men as the personification of evil nor presenting non-whites as the personification of good -- especially Native Americans, who have all but come to be the paradigmatic "noble other" who suffer countless and untold depredations at the hands of the white man. This theme is well rooted in popular culture, thanks to academia. Indeed, this motif is so ubiquitous that none other than Osama bin Laden exploits it to make white Americans feel shame and guilt.

This "noble-victimized-non-white" paradigm has further come to be applied to almost all non-whites. For example, early sub-Saharans are always portrayed as a peaceful people who simply wanted to live and let live-until warlike white man came along. (Pointing out that it was fellow Africans who sold their kinsmen into slavery is unpopular in polite -- that is, white-guilt laden-conversation).

The most recent rehashing of the "noble-other vs. evil white-man" paradigm is based on the U.S. response to the Islamic world post 9/11. Following al-Qaeda's lead, academia and the media have been quick to portray George Bush as a ravenous brute (like the Vikings, also speaking an unintelligible tongue) who mindlessly attacks the peaceful others -- this time Muslims -- in places like Iraq and Afghanistan.

What seems to be missed by all, however, is the simple fact that, if whites have been traditionally aggressive or exploitative of non-whites, that is not because the former are intrinsically violent (a racist point, incidentally) but simply because they were able to. And that's the bottom line of all history: Capability. Did whites defeat and uproot Native Americans, enslave Africans, and colonize the rest because they lived according to some sort of unprecedented bellicose creed alien to non-whites? Quite the contrary; they did so because they -- as opposed to natives, blacks, et. al. -- were able to do so.

Had 10^th century Native Americans developed galleys for transoceanic travel, or advanced fire arms, or compasses, or organized military structures and stratagems -- or any of those other things that have made the Western way of war supreme -- and had they arrived on the shores of Dark Age Europe, is there any doubt that they would have done the same exact thing?

Would they have conquered and subjugated in the name of empire, or would they have looked at the inferior pale savages and "respected" them, in the name of "diversity," leaving them wholly unmolested? What if 18^th century sub-Saharan blacks were technologically or militarily more advanced than their northern neighbors and could have easily subjugated and enslaved them? Would they have done so, or would they have left them in peace in the name of "multiculturalism"? These are the hypotheticals that no one seems interested in asking, since the answer is not only clear as day but immediately places whites and the rest of humanity on the same moral grounding.

Nor can the argument be made that non-whites did not reach such a militarily advanced state because they were a peaceful and content people. If so, why then did they also constantly war, kill, rape, plunder, and sell each other into slavery -- as history so unambiguously records? If this is how they treated, and often still treat, their own kin, what would they have done to the "other," such as the white man? As for Muslims, history attests that whenever there has been a caliphate on the ascendancy, it had no compunctions whatsoever about launching devastating wars of conquest. Approximately 85% of the "Islamic world" today was subjugated during the Islamic conquests (or, according to the white-guilt lexicon, Islamic "expansions").

None of this is meant to exonerate the crimes of the white-man, but rather to put them in context by indicating that all people -- white, black, yellow, red, whatever -- are the same; they war, and, when capable -- keyword -- go on the offensive in search of conquest and hegemony. Depending on scope, it could be either tribal or international hegemony. Some religions incite these innate "passions," others mollify them. Yet these passions-which, according to that astute philosopher, Thomas Hobbes, "carry us to partiality, pride, revenge and the like [e.g., war and conquest] -- apply to all of humanity. To say otherwise is to be racist.

**In other words, the kid is a fag. ***

“Oh little Big Man, you look tired. Won’t you come into my tee pee and resth on sthoft furs? I will be your wife.”-—From the movie, LITTLE BIG MAN

Had 10th century Native Americans developed galleys for transoceanic travel, or advanced fire arms, or compasses, or organized military structures and stratagems -- or any of those other things that have made the Western way of war supreme -- and had they arrived on the shores of Dark Age Europe, is there any doubt that they would have done the same exact thing?

In fact something like this MAY happen. Recall that the Norse originally settled Greenland as well as Iceland. Eventually the Greenland settlements were abandoned. Part of the reason may have been due to Inuit expansion into Greenland.

Your hopefully not closely examined acceptance of the collectivist chant “All cultures have positive aspects” disturbs me. While there is, theoretically speaking, some minor point about any culture which might be considered “positive”, reality and history shows all but the collectivism impaired that many cultures ARE inferior to America and Europe.

Islamic cultures are largely in the inferior catagory.

Unless, that is, if one accepts murder, rape, theft, and a host of abuses of women, starting with the female as being defined as chattel, to such specifically Islamic butcheries as the required citerectomy and excision of vaginal labia of Muslim women.

PS Those operations have been done, and still are being done, without any anesthesia, on fully conscious young women.

PPS Google the Muslims impaling a victim, which ends with the victim writhing on the stake.

Nice folks, those Muslims. Just as Presiden Bush said, - peaceful practioners of the “Religion of Peace”.

I remember seeing the attack on Reginald Denny, and the strutting thugs who perpetrated that assault. I also remember thinking at the time that such an exhibition was why Rule .308 was created.

I was at work when he was attacked. We watched it on TV. We also were monitoring ( as part of the job) the all police tac frequencies.

Unit after unit was standing by all over the Los Angeles area in assigned positions, ready to go in and help...they were ordered to stay in position and do nothing until ordered otherwise.

Plenty of LEO were mad as could be and had plenty of comments regarding being ordered to do nothing.

City officials were cowards giving orders hoping to not inflame the situation. Not a bit willing to send in LEO and try to stop Dennys' attack.

Like doing nothing would keep rioting from spreading... DUH!

“I have seen the Congressional record stating the goals of Communism. Unfortunately we are nearly there.
And...the video of the KGB defector is chilling.”

Yes it is chilling. My only guess (and my only hope) is that the communists, both overt and covert, have underestimated and do not understand on a fundamental level the inner strengths of our system and the power of freedom.

You wrote:

“Disagree. Stockholm syndrome. That, and the fact that Mr. Denny was brain-damaged by the attack.”

His forgiveness gives no hint that it is the result of brain damage. Pope John Paul II forgave - in person - his would be assassin and he was not brain damaged in the least in 1981. The Stockholm syndrome applies to hostages - not assault victims.

“His attack remains, like the Goldman-Simpson murder, an unjusticed travesty.”

True. And yet he forgave his attackers.

I remember seeing the attack on Reginald Denny, the strutting thugs who perpetrated that assault.

The MSM must stand indicted and indeed they were not. For the few, very few shots of Reginald Denny that were shown, had a stark contrast. There were the hundreds and hundreds of segments of the unfortunate beating of the man during his arrest. Even this was weighted by the MSM, by absolutely cutting out the kicking and violence by this man.

As you will know, when the police officers were initially acquitted, there were deaths and property damage. The MSM got off free, for their deliberate inflaming of a bad scene.

Hyenas and Jackals.

Whoops, my previous post could be misread.

It was a black man that was arrested for driving a motorcycle dangerously.

I have forgotten his name. Denny was the victim of the riots that followed the acquittal of police officers in the first instance.

Denny cried and hugged the mother of "Football Williams" one of the thugs. I wonder where Williams is today?

Your post #70.

True. And yet he forgave his attackers.

I note your interesting take on the business of Rodney King, and the victim of a "payback" attack. Like so many cases, the recipient of a revenge attack is likely the LAST person deserving. Reginald Denny virtually lost all sense of HIS own dignity. This is hard for me to say.

Damian "Football" Williams, the man who kicked Denny in the head, today is serving 46 years for killing a drug dealer. Working class myself, I will never understand a man who gets a break and then blows it.

Old Norse and Anglo-Saxon were close enough to be mutually understandable when the Vikings raided England. When forces of the last English King, Harold II (Goodwin) faced those of his brother Tostig and Norwegian King Harald II (Hardrada) at Stamford Bridge in 1066, everyone understood each other’s curses. And the English battle line chanting “Ut, Ut” is still understandable in modern English.

“it’s hard to be proud of European culture........especially since it has contributed so much to America’s greatness. “

yes, Europe gave the US the opportunity to show its greatness during WW1 and WW2.

it’s hard to be proud of European culture.

I'd go so far as to say it's impossible to be "proud" of European culture, or any culture really. Since no one person is responsible for creating a culture, no one can fairly take "pride" in it.

But wouldn't you agree that there is much to admire in European culture?

The motorcyclist was named McDuffy, if I remember correctly.

He was beaten to death with six cell Mag Light flashlights. Thereafter, the Miami cops called such flashlights “McDuffy sticks”.

Sensitive chaps, weren’t they.

Decades later, though, I always use that name for my Mag Light when using it on field trips. The students always ask why that name - alas, it does appear they don’t have any idea of local history.

I then always add in a short talk about why the smaller the police force, or governmental unit in general, the better. One can reach the Miami police leadership fairly easily.

Trying to reach the Federal police agency heads is an exercise in futility.

But wouldn’t you agree that there is much to admire in European culture?

not after WW2. Germany and Austria were supposedly at the height of cultural sophistication and then gave us the Holocaust and Nazi domination. And France was always a joke. I’m supposed to admire a bunch of effete elitists that fold under the slightest pressure?
I want the simple American spirit. America is *real*.

The motorcyclist was named McDuffy, if I remember correctly.

He was beaten to death with six cell Mag Light flashlights.

I am glad to have your post. For it was two awful and regrettable cases that sparked riots. I was in error with Rodney King's mode of transport and I confused it with the Arthur McDuffy (McDuffie) case. King was driving a car when he was pulled over. This was in the Los Angeles area in 1991.

The McDuffy case must have stuck in my mind, for in 1980 in Dade County, Florida, this insurance salesman and ex-Marine was on his motor cycle. He died shortly after his violent arrest when pulled over. Now the riots that followed killed 12 persons. Sadly there was not a prayer of justification for the law here. Perhaps there is the other side though- I have not heard it.

The King riots saw 53 killed and a billion dollars in damages. I believe nearly a year later on the court verdict letting the police off.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.