|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
endo
Joined: 14 Mar 2004
Location: Seoul...my home
|
 Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:48 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
So was Attila East Asian?
Are Momgols considered East Asian? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
just another day
Joined: 12 Jul 2007
Location: Living with the Alaskan Inuits!!
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| endo wrote: |
So was Attila East Asian?
Are Momgols considered East Asian? |
wow you really still have no clue.
you're like a guy with square head, trying to wear a round hat. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
endo
Joined: 14 Mar 2004
Location: Seoul...my home
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| just another day wrote: |
Russians are very smart people. They actually understand many things of the world that are difficult for peopel in the west to comprehend. This is why Russia is a great country. |
I don't know about a great country anymore or if they ever were.
But I did have a professor from Georgia go on and on about Ghengis Khan and he told us some pretty bad azz stories.
Last edited by endo on Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:58 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
endo
Joined: 14 Mar 2004
Location: Seoul...my home
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| just another day wrote: |
| endo wrote: |
So was Attila East Asian?
Are Momgols considered East Asian? |
wow you really still have no clue.
you're like a guy with square head, trying to wear a round hat. |
Well what's your answer to these questions? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
just another day
Joined: 12 Jul 2007
Location: Living with the Alaskan Inuits!!
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 10:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| endo wrote: |
| just another day wrote: |
| endo wrote: |
So was Attila East Asian?
Are Momgols considered East Asian? |
wow you really still have no clue.
you're like a guy with square head, trying to wear a round hat. |
Well what's your answer to these questions? |
my answer is that your head is cold.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
just another day
Joined: 12 Jul 2007
Location: Living with the Alaskan Inuits!!
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 10:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| endo wrote: |
| just another day wrote: |
Russians are very smart people. They actually understand many things of the world that are difficult for peopel in the west to comprehend. This is why Russia is a great country. |
I don't know about a great country anymore or if they ever were.
But I did have a professor from Georgia go on and on about Ghengis Khan and he told us some pretty bad azz stories. |
Russians are cool! They are my peoples.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nateium
Joined: 21 Aug 2006
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 2:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| just another day wrote: |
| endo wrote: |
| just another day wrote: |
| Vicissitude wrote: |
At any rate, there's plenty of evidence that Sandanavians/Vikings 'discovered' America long before Columbus. |
yeah there is evidence of a heavy war between vikings and inuits in the east coast of modern day canada.
but that battle is not highly publicized |
If by a heavy war you mean small skirmishes, then yes it was a heavy war  |
well did u know about this before u read it here? |
Wow. Good for you JAD. You watched Pathfinder. Did you get a good deal on your pirated DVD? did some street JangSa hook you up? 4DVD's for ManWon?
Now you're a certifiable historian, besides being just plain "certifiable."
I knew about it too. Plenty of evidence? Meaning a story in the viking sagas? Besides a run in with the scraelings , the sagas also mention battling reptilian sea monsters and meeting gods.
Physical evidence is minimal and circumstantial |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
just another day
Joined: 12 Jul 2007
Location: Living with the Alaskan Inuits!!
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 2:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
^ whats pathfinder?
you can find it in inuit historical accounts. as well as evidence of viking settlements that was quickly deserted. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nateium
Joined: 21 Aug 2006
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 2:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Links Please??
Quickly deserted settlements are not unnecessarily evidence of a huge war.They are evidence of a settlement.
It's debatable how long the settlement existed, and when it existed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
just another day
Joined: 12 Jul 2007
Location: Living with the Alaskan Inuits!!
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 2:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nateium wrote: |
Links Please??
Quickly deserted settlements are not unnecessarily evidence of a huge war.They are evidence of a settlement.
It's debatable how long the settlement existed, and when it existed. |
| Quote: |
Their relations with southerners were generally hostile, but at other times cordial enough to support trade.The first contact with Europeans came from the Vikings, who settled Greenland and explored the eastern Canadian coast. Norse literature speaks of skrelingar, most likely an undifferentiated label for all the native peoples of the Americas the Norse contacted - Tuniit, Inuit and Beothuks alike.
Archeological evidence suggests that the Tuniit had abandoned Greenland around 200 AD. They reoccupied areas in the far north of Greenland sometime around 1000 AD, but the Norse settlements were in the south and southwest of the island. It is likely that the area of the Norse settlements was unoccupied at the time they arrived.
Sometime in the 13th century, Inuit began arriving from what is now Canada. Norse accounts are scant, and there is no Inuit oral history discussing contact with the Norse. However, Norse-made items have been found at Inuit campsites in Greenland. It is unclear whether they are the result of trade or plunder.
One old account speaks of "small people" with whom the Norsemen fought. Ivar Barson's 14th century account mentions that one of the two Norse settlement areas - the western settlement - had been taken over by the skraelings.
The reason why the Norse settlements failed is unclear, but the last record of them is from 1408 - roughly the same period as the earliest Inuit settlements in east Greenland.
After roughly 1350, the climate grew colder during the Little Ice Age and the Inuit were forced to abandon hunting and whaling sites in the high Arctic. Bowhead whaling disappeared in Canada and Greenland (but continued in Alaska) and the Inuit had to subsist on a much poorer diet.
|
http://www.crystalinks.com/inuit.html
http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/greenland/
| Quote: |
| but the last record of them is from 1408 - roughly the same period as the earliest Inuit settlements in east Greenland. |
Given the history of violent clashes, and occam's razor, the simplest explanation prevails. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nateium
Joined: 21 Aug 2006
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 3:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| just another day wrote: |
| nateium wrote: |
Links Please??
Quickly deserted settlements are not unnecessarily evidence of a huge war.They are evidence of a settlement.
It's debatable how long the settlement existed, and when it existed. |
| Quote: |
Their relations with southerners were generally hostile, but at other times cordial enough to support trade.The first contact with Europeans came from the Vikings, who settled Greenland and explored the eastern Canadian coast. Norse literature speaks of skrelingar, most likely an undifferentiated label for all the native peoples of the Americas the Norse contacted - Tuniit, Inuit and Beothuks alike.
Archeological evidence suggests that the Tuniit had abandoned Greenland around 200 AD. They reoccupied areas in the far north of Greenland sometime around 1000 AD, but the Norse settlements were in the south and southwest of the island. It is likely that the area of the Norse settlements was unoccupied at the time they arrived.
Sometime in the 13th century, Inuit began arriving from what is now Canada. Norse accounts are scant, and there is no Inuit oral history discussing contact with the Norse. However, Norse-made items have been found at Inuit campsites in Greenland. It is unclear whether they are the result of trade or plunder.
One old account speaks of "small people" with whom the Norsemen fought. Ivar Barson's 14th century account mentions that one of the two Norse settlement areas - the western settlement - had been taken over by the skraelings.
The reason why the Norse settlements failed is unclear, but the last record of them is from 1408 - roughly the same period as the earliest Inuit settlements in east Greenland.
After roughly 1350, the climate grew colder during the Little Ice Age and the Inuit were forced to abandon hunting and whaling sites in the high Arctic. Bowhead whaling disappeared in Canada and Greenland (but continued in Alaska) and the Inuit had to subsist on a much poorer diet.
|
http://www.crystalinks.com/inuit.html
http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/greenland/
| Quote: |
| but the last record of them is from 1408 - roughly the same period as the earliest Inuit settlements in east Greenland. |
Given the history of violent clashes, and occam's razor, the simplest explanation prevails. |
Why do you think war is the simplest explanation when there are many other simple explanations? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
just another day
Joined: 12 Jul 2007
Location: Living with the Alaskan Inuits!!
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 3:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nateium wrote: |
| just another day wrote: |
| nateium wrote: |
Links Please??
Quickly deserted settlements are not unnecessarily evidence of a huge war.They are evidence of a settlement.
It's debatable how long the settlement existed, and when it existed. |
| Quote: |
Their relations with southerners were generally hostile, but at other times cordial enough to support trade.The first contact with Europeans came from the Vikings, who settled Greenland and explored the eastern Canadian coast. Norse literature speaks of skrelingar, most likely an undifferentiated label for all the native peoples of the Americas the Norse contacted - Tuniit, Inuit and Beothuks alike.
Archeological evidence suggests that the Tuniit had abandoned Greenland around 200 AD. They reoccupied areas in the far north of Greenland sometime around 1000 AD, but the Norse settlements were in the south and southwest of the island. It is likely that the area of the Norse settlements was unoccupied at the time they arrived.
Sometime in the 13th century, Inuit began arriving from what is now Canada. Norse accounts are scant, and there is no Inuit oral history discussing contact with the Norse. However, Norse-made items have been found at Inuit campsites in Greenland. It is unclear whether they are the result of trade or plunder.
One old account speaks of "small people" with whom the Norsemen fought. Ivar Barson's 14th century account mentions that one of the two Norse settlement areas - the western settlement - had been taken over by the skraelings.
The reason why the Norse settlements failed is unclear, but the last record of them is from 1408 - roughly the same period as the earliest Inuit settlements in east Greenland.
After roughly 1350, the climate grew colder during the Little Ice Age and the Inuit were forced to abandon hunting and whaling sites in the high Arctic. Bowhead whaling disappeared in Canada and Greenland (but continued in Alaska) and the Inuit had to subsist on a much poorer diet.
|
http://www.crystalinks.com/inuit.html
http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/greenland/
| Quote: |
| but the last record of them is from 1408 - roughly the same period as the earliest Inuit settlements in east Greenland. |
Given the history of violent clashes, and occam's razor, the simplest explanation prevails. |
Why do you think war is the simplest explanation when there are many other simple explanations? |
what other simple explanations are there? i'd like to hear some. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mistermasan
Joined: 20 Sep 2007
Location: 10+ yrs on Dave's ESL cafe
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 6:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| "much poorer diet" for one. maybe they left to look for more/better food. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nateium
Joined: 21 Aug 2006
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 8:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| just another day wrote: |
what other simple explanations are there? i'd like to hear some. |
so...You think a precolumbian intercultural/racial battle where the vikings were the losers is more likely? They were a transoceanic, agricultural civilization, with iron age wage weaponry, and the locals were a few scattered stone age tribes.
The alternatives are:
-disease (people, crops, or livestock) leading to starvation
-viking animals and crops were not suited to the local climate, leading to starvation
-the weather was alot colder than the same latitude in scandinavia so the vikings found the winters unsuitable/unlivable (they were not hunter gatherers like the inuits, but relied on agriculture)
-climate change affecting living conditions
-they never intended it as a colony in the first place, and it was just a temporary settlement until supplies and conditions were right for a return (or more exploration)
-there was infighting in the settlement
-there were not enough women/children to start a colony (a shrinking population)
-the colony failed, and the survivors despersed to live with and mix with the local people |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
just another day
Joined: 12 Jul 2007
Location: Living with the Alaskan Inuits!!
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 10:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nateium wrote: |
| just another day wrote: |
what other simple explanations are there? i'd like to hear some. |
so...You think a precolumbian intercultural/racial battle where the vikings were the losers is more likely? They were a transoceanic, agricultural civilization, with iron age wage weaponry, and the locals were a few scattered stone age tribes.
The alternatives are:
-disease (people, crops, or livestock) leading to starvation
-viking animals and crops were not suited to the local climate, leading to starvation
-the weather was alot colder than the same latitude in scandinavia so the vikings found the winters unsuitable/unlivable (they were not hunter gatherers like the inuits, but relied on agriculture)
-climate change affecting living conditions
-they never intended it as a colony in the first place, and it was just a temporary settlement until supplies and conditions were right for a return (or more exploration)
-there was infighting in the settlement
-there were not enough women/children to start a colony (a shrinking population)
-the colony failed, and the survivors despersed to live with and mix with the local people |
actually it was found that viking's diet was 80% fish at the end. it was 80% agrilculture when they arrived. they adjusted to their surroundings.
given that the vikings left when the inuit began their settlement in eastern canada, and documented history of fighting between the two groups for centuries, and given the viking's diet consisting of marine life, and the western mini ice age that forced inuits eastward, one thing for sure is that there was a competition for resources.
given that, occam's razor would rule out agrilcultural, weather, and inadaptability as an explanation. There are traces of vikings from 1000 - 1400... enough for many generations. they called the inuit skraeligs, which meant "frightening people". clearly they were scared of the Inuit.
the major factor was the mini ice age that pushed inuits from west to east. ultimately thats how occam's razor would apply. they had to push out the vikings for competition of resources.
| Quote: |
The Inuit were a formidable people with a tradition of warfare. They hunted bowhead whales in large boats (umiaks) and moved swiftly across the landscape in dogsleds. Their hunting technology and weaponry were highly sophisticated and included mechanical harpoons and recurved bows. Their winter clothing, which was assembled from more than a hundred components, provided effective protection from extreme cold.5
Inuit settlements were established on Ellesmere Island, northern Greenland, and other parts of the region by AD 1300. Inuit oral tradition, Norse sagas, and the evidence of archaeology suggest both trade and warfare occurred with the Vikings during the following two centuries. In many respects, this was the first serious contest between Europeans and native Americans.
Unlike later conflicts between the two peoples, the Vikings probably did not enjoy major advantages in terms of technology or numbers. Their boats were larger and powered by sail, and they made use of iron weapons and armor (which the native Americans sometimes tried to obtain through trade). However, the Norse settlers in Greenland were not the heavily armed Viking raiders of European legend, and local sources of iron were unknown. Most important, the Vikings lacked firearms. Written and oral history sources suggest that the Inuit may have been equally-if not more-aggressive, and that at times they assembled large numbers of people for attacks on the Norse.6
Although the victory is not widely appreciated, it is apparent that native Americans won their first contest with European invaders. By AD 1500, the Norse settlements in Greenland and elsewhere in the New World had been abandoned. The Dorset people had also disappeared by this time, and the Inuit inherited all of the arctic-and some of the subarctic-regions of the New World. |
http://rutgerspress.rutgers.edu/Author/Hoffecker_Prehistory/excerpt.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
