This Thread For: ANY AND ALL THINGS RELATING TO ICELANDERS

[+Suomut+]

I'm posting this thread for the purposes of bringing out any and all information pertaining to the Icelander Folk--I welcome ANY and ALL subject matter in this regard. Thank you. :)

[Thulean Imperial Inquisitor]

Heill og sæll

Very interesting. Im icelandic. I am a decendant of the first Icelandic settlers and I can even trace my bloodline further back, even back to Norway. About 1500 years back in time.

I would say that I am pure...

Any questions? ;)

[Phill]

Heill og sæll

Very interesting. Im icelandic. I am a decendant of the first Icelandic settlers and I can even trace my bloodline further back, even back to Norway. About 1500 years back in time.

I would say that I am pure...

Any questions? ;)

Yeah. How does one go about tracing one's roots that back far? It'd be interesting if i could do that too.

[Willowsprout]

Takk fyrrir Suomut. I have traced my lineage back as well from the book of Icelanders.

[Thulean Imperial Inquisitor]

Well if you are Icelandic and have a icelandic you can log on to www.islendingabok.is (http://www.islendingabok.is) (Íslendingabók). There you can enter any icelandic name and see how you are related to the person wich name you entered. This page is owned by a Icelandic company, Decode (Íslensk erfðagreining/Icelandic genetical decode).

The reason icelanders can trace back their bloodline so far is that iceland has always been a island with a small population and icelanders have always had much interest in genealogy.

One of my forefathers are the men who wrote the Eddas.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/poe/ http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~cherryne/edda.html http://www.amanita.de/content/edda/
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Edda

Hope this shed some light on the matter. :)

[Telperion]

I visited Iceland a few years ago, and found it to be a remarkably beautiful and interesting country.

It was quite instructive to note how Iceland, which is really a very resource-poor country, has been able to use its native talent and ingenuity to establish such a stable, prosperous society. Compare it to, say, any of the west African countries, which have tons of natural resources, but are immersed in poverty, corruption, and squalor, and the real potential inherent in Nordic people becomes clear. They can turn a desert into a source of riches, while other people surrounded by riches are incapable of lifting themselves out of poverty.

[Northern Paladin]

Originally posted by +Suomot+

I'm posting this thread for the purposes of bringing out any and all information pertaining to the Icelander Folk--I welcome ANY and ALL subject matter in this regard. Thank you

It's the Japan of Europe. Very Homogenius population, High standard of living, nice hot springs. Half the country runs on Geo-thermoic energy.

The Icelandic Sagas an interesting peak into the Viking past of Icelanders.
Mostly of Danish/Norwegian Roots, noticible Celtic contribution to the population. The Vikings took Celtic Women as slavs since their was a shortage in women. :P

[Telperion]

The Vikings took Celtic Women as slavs since their was a shortage in women. :P
Or else they couldn't resist bringing a few Irish Redheads along with them for their asthetic value. :)

Actually, I've been to all the Scandinavian countries, and I've noticed that redheads were far more common in Iceland than any of the others. I don't recall seeing a single redhead in Finland, or Sweden either I believe. A Celtic phenotype does seem to coexist in Iceland alongside the more purely Scandinavian types, and of course there are a number of individuals there who appear to be blends of these types.

[Odin Of Ossetia]

I visited Iceland a few years ago, and found it to be a remarkably beautiful and interesting country.

It was quite instructive to note how Iceland, which is really a very resource-poor country, has been able to use its native talent and ingenuity to establish such a stable, prosperous society. Compare it to, say, any of the west African countries, which have tons of natural resources, but are immersed in poverty, corruption, and squalor, and the real potential inherent in Nordic people becomes clear. They can turn a desert into a source of riches, while other people surrounded by riches are incapable of lifting themselves out of poverty.



You forget a whole bunch of important factors, like the IMF, the discriminatory practices against the non-Western countries, the artificial borders and states in Africa, lack of isolation (like it is the case of Iceland). Iceland also enjoys a free supply of warm energy from the geysers, nor was it devastated by two world wars (I think the last war fought on Iceland took place in the 1200's, in addition there were some raids by German, English, Spanish, and even Moorish pirates until the 1600's, but nothing really major). There was also a devastating eruption of Hecla in the 1700's (I think), but that's about it. Iceland does not even need to spend anything on military, because it is protected by the U.S. troops on its soil.



I also do not agree with the claim that both Japan and Iceland are homogenous, in fact they're not!


http://wolnapolska.boom.ru/index-Wyzdraw.html




In other words, Iceland is lucky, while many other countries are not.

[Telperion]

You forget a whole bunch of important factors, like the IMF, the discriminatory practices against the non-Western countries, the artificial borders and states in Africa, lack of isolation (like it is the case of Iceland)...

In other words, Iceland is lucky, while many other countries are not.
Of course, what was I thinking? Clearly, Iceland's success has nothing to do with the calibre of people living there, and Africa would be a thriving hotbed of economic activity if it weren't for the evil IMF. :oanieyes

[Odin Of Ossetia]

Of course, what was I thinking? Clearly, Iceland's success has nothing to do with the calibre of people living there, and Africa would be a thriving hotbed of economic activity if it weren't for the evil IMF. :oanieyes




Never said that Icelanders lack ingenuity and industriousness, because they surely deserve part of the credit, but not all of it. Third Worlders are being hampered by many forces outside of their control. There are many important factors that do not create an even playing field, and must say that the Icelanders are on the lucky and favoured side.


What I said about the IMF and the pro-Western favouritism is very much true.



;(

[Telperion]

Third Worlders are being hampered by many forces outside of their control. There are many important factors that do not create an even playing field, and must say that the Icelanders are on the lucky and favoured side.


What I said about the IMF and the pro-Western favouritism is very much true.
Yes, but these African countries will invariably place exclusive blame for their problems on the IMF, neo- colonialism, etc. The fact is, though, that all African countries are plagued by corruption, nepotism, and incompetence - as well as a tendency to flirt with half-baked ideas about socialism - and all of these things are fundamental factors that make them the wretched hell-holes that they are. Look at what Mugabe is doing in Zembabwe - or what Mbeki is doing more gradually in South Africa. These people have a culture of corruption, and simply do not and very likely never will understand or be capable of adhering to the cultural and institutional elements it takes to build a successful society.

If the Icelanders did not possess very different cultural values from the Africans - values that are rooted in their heritage - they would not be anywhere near as successful as they are today. Yes, they've had some help from foreigners, but in general countries must bear primary responsibility for their own condition, especially after more than five decades of independence. The contrast between Iceland and Africa speaks for itself, in my view.

[Odin Of Ossetia]

Don't know what kind of a problem you see with the following:



1) Mugabe - he rules Zimbabwe for about a quarter of a century already, and he has done a pretty good job. About his recent farm policies, imagine Serbs owning 85% of Bosnia-Hercegovina, and the West supporting it!


2) Half-baked Socialism? Besides not knowing what this is about, don't forget that the most wreatched, corrupt, least developed, and poverty stricken countries in the world are Capitalist!


3) There can be some "help" from foreigners, and there can also be a great deal of dis-help - Western-sponsored coups, interventions, blockades, civil wars, separatism and terrorism. Iceland experienced none of it.



This page should be educative:


http://wolnapolska.boom.ru/index-Milosevic.html




;(

[Telperion]

Don't know what kind of a problem you see with the following:

1) Mugabe - he rules Zimbabwe for about a quarter of a century already, and he has done a pretty good job. About his recent farm policies, imagine Serbs owning 85% of Bosnia-Hercegovina, and the West supporting it!

Oddly, when I did a search for Zimbabwe + Misrule on Yahoo, it generated 31,600 hits. Here is one of them:

http://allafrica.com/stories/200406281066.html

And a quote from that article:

"[U]ntil recently, Zimbabwe was a force for stability and prosperity in the region...Today...Zimbabwe is in a state of worsening political, economic and humanitarian crisis caused by its government's misrule in pursuit of absolute power. This crisis...has triggered political restiveness, popular dissent, human rights abuses, economic collapse, food shortages and environmental degradation."

It's clear that Zimbabwe once had good infrastructure and institutions - dating from the time when it was Rhodesia. Mugabe preserved this infrastructure for awhile, but is now hell-bent on destroying it. All too typical, I'm afraid.

2) Half-baked Socialism? Besides not knowing what this is about, don't forget that the most wreatched, corrupt, least developed, and poverty stricken countries in the world are Capitalist!
Let's see:

World's Poorest Countries, 2003

UN list of least developed countries

Afghanistan, Angola, Bangladesh, Benin, Bhutan, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Democratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Kiribati, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal, Niger, Rwanda, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sudan, Togo, Tuvalu, Uganda, Tanzania, Vanuatu, Yemen, Zambia.

http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0908763.html

Most of these countries either presently flirt with, or at some time in the past have flirted with socialist ideas about central-planning and/or collectivised agriculture. Such schemes really only function as a method of facilitating corruption, since they mean that nothing can be done without obtaining a permit from some bureaucrat - which is only available in exchange for a bribe.

Calling these countries 'capitalist' is surely misleading; their economies are not developed enough to merit the term. They are not properly 'socialist' either, but they have flirted with socialist ideas to their detriment.


3) There can be some "help" from foreigners, and there can also be a great deal of dis-help - Western-sponsored coups, interventions, blockades, civil wars, separatism and terrorism. Iceland experienced none of it.
I'll grant you that. But my point is these African countries have many deeply-rooted causes of their problems that have little to do with outside influences on them.

[Odin Of Ossetia]

And the above are nothing more than samples of Western subtly White-supremacist propaganda. There's no denying it.


Anglo-Saxon Whites of Zimbabwe only make up 1% percent of that country's population, yet they own 85% of land; a situation that obviously does not make any sense.

The Serbs used to hold something like around 60% of Bosnia-Hercegovina, and they were something like around 30% of its population - the Anglo-Saxon-led NATO bombed them in order to make the land distribution there more even.


Then, just what are we supposed to say of Zimbabwe?!


Thank's to Mugabe's quarter-of-a-century long rule, Zimbabwe is one of the richest countries in Africa - the list you gave does not even feature it.



There is a venomous Western-inspired propaganda war going on against the government of Zimbabwe, and it also has targeted Socialism in general. Vast majority of the world's poorest countries are purely Capitalist, and there is no denying of that - Socialism has nothing to do with their poverty, but Capitalism does.



Again check this link:


http://wolnapolska.boom.ru/index-Milosevic.html

[White Preservationist]

I know a little bit about Iceland.


One nonsensical notion that I would like to dispel, insinuated by telperion, is that some people there are this and that and other something else. Icelanders are literally just a big family, all Icelanders being related within 10 generation - a genealogical fact. It is not possible to make any group distinction between them and no one there would take that seriously.

Another thing is the genetic origins. And the truth is that it remains upp to debate. Obviously it is a bit simplistic to say that Icelanders are more red haired than Norwegians ( they are ) because of immigrants from the Brittish Isles. Norwegians have recieved immigrants from Finland and Germany hence less red hair.

There is a genetic illnes which the Icelanders call 'Vikingakrumla'. It didn't exist at the time of Jesus from Nasareth but came to existance via a mutation that occured in Scandinavia in the fifth or sixth century. Just like you cant have sicle cell without negro ancestry you cant have it without Scandinavian ancestry. Today it is commonst in Iceland followed by Scandinavia. Tat-C is found in Norway but not Iceland because it hadn't arrived in Norway in 930.





Without meaning to overgeneralize I would say Icelanders are intelligent and frank but nobody and no place is perfect.

[Telperion]

Thank's to Mugabe's quarter-of-a-century long rule, Zimbabwe is one of the richest countries in Africa - the list you gave does not even feature it. Yes, it is one of the most prosperous countries in Africa, though that's not saying very much. The question is, in what direction is it headed? Towards growth, or decline?

The answer is that over the past three or four years, it has been going downhill fast, as indicated in the article I posted. That is the fault of Mugabe's policies, designed to enrich himself and his cronies at the expense of everyone else in the country, and entrench their political power.

Socialism has nothing to do with their poverty, but Capitalism does.
That's an absurd claim, and I notice you didn't bother to offer any arguments in support of it.

Socialism has quite a lot to do with their poverty, for the reasons I indicated above. I suggest you thoroughly research the history of developing countries over the past five decades before you reach any conclusions on the subject. If you still hold to your current conclusions after doing that, then start another thread and we can debate this issue there.

[Telperion]

One nonsensical notion that I would like to dispel, insinuated by telperion, is that some people there are this and that and other something else. Icelanders are literally just a big family, all Icelanders being related within 10 generation - a genealogical fact. It is not possible to make any group distinction between them and no one there would take that seriously.
If you read my post again, you can see clearly my meaning was that Icelanders have varying phenotypes, from those most people would think of as 'Celtic' to those people would think of as more Scandinavian (although those aren't technical terms in racial anthropology). I visited Iceland for several weeks, and based on what I saw there is no question this is the case.

Obviously, the Icelanders are closely related genotypically. I never said they weren't.

Without meaning to overgeneralize I would say Icelanders are intelligent and frank but nobody and no place is perfect.I never said it was perfect. Food and gasoline are too expensive, there is so much fish in their diet that it becomes monotonous, and the summer is too cold. But I was trying to emphasize their positive points.

[White Preservationist]

So what if they differ in looks? That is how every family is.

[Telperion]

So what if they differ in looks? That is how every family is.
Indeed, but it's not clear to me why you apparently find it offensive for me to point this out.

[White Preservationist]

I am not sure I am following you. I said there were no differences among the people but you seemed unwilling to admit that.

[Telperion]

I am not sure I am following you. I said there were no differences among the people but you seemed unwilling to admit that.
I think perhaps we are not talking about the same things, and that is the source of any confusion here.

If your point is that all Icelanders are closely related genotypically, then I do agree, since this is obviously correct - they are a big 'family', in essence.

As far as phenotype is concerned, I don't admit there are no differences, because they do have differing phenotypes, as in any other country. People within the same family often have different phenotypes, and so it is not inconsistent to say that Icelanders are genotypically very uniform, but show phenotypical variation. However, you seemed to acknowledge that is the case.

[White Preservationist]

Perhaps you don't agree with the signature I have and the view that characters are essentially unimportant, at least as far as classing goes.

[Telperion]

Perhaps you could elaborate on it.