To add to the laws that Hildeburh poster there:
Is this person really a Ph.D.? He starts by telling us we misunderstand the Norse, and then he adds his own misunderstanding to it.
I think we should rather ignore what American writers tell us about European history. I saw President Trump Yesterday with his state of the Union speech. And he got a standing ovation. Just like President Trump is making up his version of history so does dr. Jackson Crawford with pure conjecture.
He says the Norse were not a professional standing army. Of course they were not. They were no Romans. No, they did not have uniforms or standard equipment. Do you really need a Ph d. in the US to come to this conclusion? It seems so.
Then he makes the distinction between good and sin, and replaces that with honor and shame. Complete fabrication. Good and evil are not inventions of Abrahamism. They just corrupted virtues by creating a book moral for masters and slaves with themselves in the role of masters.
All peoples have virtues and sins. They all have do and don'ts. But rather than book morals they have mores that are much more subtle. And yes in all ancient cultures Honor and Honesty play a prime role. Higher Virtues that are almost absent in Abrahamism that is really the culture of traders. You will not find Honor or Honesty in the ten commandments. It is mostly about defending ones material possessions.
Then he makes the distinction between the things you do in private life and public life. He is a Ph d. but does not even understand that people in small communities do not even have a private life. Everyone in the community knows everything about you. Then he start conjecturing that honor must be related to doing things that benefit others. Hilarious.
But it gets even more funny when he conjectures that doing things on time and at reasonable cost gained people honor. Really this is no longer funny, this man is a danger to science.
Well let me tell you, in ancient times, time was not of the essence. Even when I grew up time had a whole different meaning on the country side. In rural places agreeing to visit on Monday would mean Monday or Tuesday or even Wednesday. People did not even use time in the fashion we do. They did not say I come around at three o clock. They say: I come around next week, or next month, or next spring, or next year or tomorrow or in the afternoon. Something like that. People are at home all the time so no need to make reservations. And if they are not? Then you make a chat and enjoy the hospitality or you try again tomorrow. No hurry, no rush. There is no timely manner, people do things when they get around to it.
And payment? Where does guy come from? You do not pay, you exchange help. Someone helps you, you owe him. And if you don't feel that way, he is less enthusiast to help you next time. That is when you lose standing/honor, because everybody in the community will know. Everybody starts to notice you are not very helpful. And helping is a
duty for all neighbors.
And then our Ph d. says that people are really mocked ruthlessly. Again he doing what he says people are doing wrong. He applying his superficial American value system on ancient Europeans.
If you have grown up in small rural communities you know this is utter nonsense. People give others names in the community. My uncle was called "de nikker" (the n.i.g.g.e.r). Why? because he had a dark complexion. Was this an insult? No. He was loved by all, he had great reputation. Did he feel it like an insult. Not at all. Europeans are not the racists that especially Jewish people like to paint them. They do not dislike Africans nor did most of them ever met any until half a century ago. And their reaction was mostly curiosity.
Slavery and racism were part of the colonies. In my country this was introduced when rich Sefardic Jews fled to Holland from Spain (or came from Maroc) with their African slaves. They then bankrolled the slave trade business, they did this together with fanatical fundamentalist protestants merchants (Dutch reformed). In the colonies they introduced an apartheid system in which they were the masters and indigenous people and people from Africa were slaves. Half bloods were used in between (the caste system). This all in full accordance with the old testament.
But at home in Europe the workers were treated extremely harsh as well. their living conditions often even more harsh than those of slaves in the colonies. People on the English country side had an average life expectation of 35 and their "Lords" were a full head taller due to ill-nutrition. That is why racism is strong in ex-colonies like the US, that were build on slaves. It basically has little to do with skin color. The Irish were used by English as slaves as much as the Africans. But in the colonies the skin tone became a matter tied to status.
So if someone was called a nikker here, it did not have any racial bias. And a person with a scar could be called "Scar". It is not ruthlessly mocking. That is simply a descriptive name. It does not even mean people find him ugly. They are not modern Americans. In small communities things are done in a light-hearted manner. And the guy that got the scar in battle? he would be extremely proud of that scar and show it to everyone! I would be his great pride, not his shame. The reason he was called "Scar" is probably because he is boasting with his scar. People do not give names in a community to humiliate, it rather is a display of affection. Even if an American can not understand that.
When you would come to live in such a community, you do not really belong until they give you a name. Regardless of what the name means, it really tells: You are now one of us. We have given you a name. No name is bad, having no name is bad.
Calling a man a woman or a slave, is an insult, that is not name giving. And it is not necessarily as hurtful as our ph d. thinks. It wholly depends in what manner, in what context, on what occasion, in what company it is said. Mores are not as simplistic as book morals. Mores are subtle, you feel what appropriate in a situation. That is what being part of culture and traditions means.
If you are stranger in a community people will make fun of you in ways you will never notice or ever understand, because even though you speak the language, you lack the knowledge of the subtleties that are obvious for people that have grown up in the community.
Another thing people do not seem to understand is that ancient rural culture is not the flat superficial American consumer culture in which people are brainwashed in the same vulgarities through their media.
From one village to another may be a huge difference in mentality. In one village people may be friendly, honest, hard working, peaceful people and in the next village they may be complete thugs. You will find huge differences at the micro level. The idea all the Norse acquired honor for pillaging and bringing home the spoils of war is a huge generalization. Maybe he should not have watched "the Vikings".
Now about people gaining no honor from privately worshiping the Gods? dr. Jackson Crawford seems to think that people would pray to their Gods at home like Christians do to their God. I doubt that very much. People would have common festivities, but private regular prayers?
If my neighbor started praying to Wodan, I would probably get concerned. For this really is a indication that he is planning to go to war and is asking support. So who is the victim?
Rural People mostly used spirits in an instrumental way. When they need support they will ask for help, if they need to pacify spirits they will make a sacrifice. That is why being religious itself is not a virtue. Good and evil people call on the Gods for help.
President Trump and Dr. Jackson Crawford are fine examples of the way Americans turn history into fantasy.
Hildeburh gives a much better scholar: Professor Neil Price. I saw these three lectures a few years ago and they are science, not American fairy tales.
