Misconceptions about your homeland?(Spam on subject)

[Moonbiter]

Hmm, before this thread I believed that most of the Minnesotans were of Norwegian descent; it would explain why they wear shorts in winter and have a football team named Minnesota Vikings. The team emblem features a blonde "Norseman" wearing a horned helmet.

So, no horns?..

No horns! There are townships in Minnesota where they use Norwegian instead of English in a lot of everyday speech.

Okay, I did it! A friend of mine works for the film ratings board, and he offered me an advance screening of the new "viking" movie Pathfinder. I said yes. Was it as bad as I thought it would be? It was far worse!

****WARNING: POSSIBLE SPOILERS COMING UP****

This movie has about as much to do with real Vikings as Cinderella, and should come with a large BS warning for the drooling masses who'll undoubtedly see it. The story takes place in about 700AD, when the Vikings came to America. That's the only accurate thing in the entire movie. Apparently, these incredibly evil, smelly giant warriors are set on enslaving the nice, wise, peaceful and beautiful Native Americans, and conquer the land. To do this, they dress up in plate armor (yes, plate armor) last seen on the Orcs in the LoTR movies. They have horns of every size and shape possible, and full covering helmets a la Sarevok in Baldur's Gate. In fact, I suspect the R&D team working on this movie, if there was any, used computer games as reference material. Not only do the Vikings wear plate armor, but they bring horses as well! Yes folks, gigantic warhorses in America in 700AD, transported from Norway in longships. The mind boggles. They haven't managed to get a single thing right, even the dragon heads on the ships look like my son's Bionicle toys. So we get roughly 1 hour and 40 minutes of constant slaughter, severed heads, a bit of the mandatory Native American shamanism codswallop, a quick dash of rumpy pumpy, and the dumbest plot twist in the history of moviemaking, which I shall spare you, though you're not going to see this film. It isn't even a decent action/fantasy flick. If anything the Norwegian State Department should file a complaint over history falsification and gross slandering of cultural heritage. A hundred minutes of pure, undiluted hogwash, and people in multiplexes all over the world will swallow it raw, because they think it was like that. It premieres on Friday, and come Monday morning, history teachers all over the world, especially in the USA, are gonna have their work cut out for them.

Rant over.

[QuenGalad]

Oh, come on, Moonbiter, nobody expects such productions to be accurate! At least nobody I'd care to speak to. There were thousands of movies based on Greek mythology, where one god was always dragged and streched to be "evil" for the sake of the plot. Ares, most of the time. That's ridiculous, and more ridiculous are only sweet blonde-and-blue-eyed Helenas, Ariadnas and Medeas, wearing pink make-up. Achetypical greek woman, that. I won't mention idiotic movies on ancient slavic myths, because there aren't any myths (all the ancient slavic culture was destroyed and forgotten), and movies are still being made. You know what are the warriors wearing? Guess... But there are better things to be mad about, IMO.

[Moonbiter]

Oh, come on, Moonbiter, nobody expects such productions to be accurate! At least nobody I'd care to speak to.

Now wait just a minute! If you make a movie about cowboys you at least make an attempt at featuring hats, boots and horses. If you make a movie about ancient Greece you will probably have some loincloths and sandals, and if you make a frikkin movie about Vikings coming to America, you should try to have some actual Vikings in it, not Orcs! Especially if you pretend to base your stinking movie on facts! It's crap like this and the willingness to accept it that dumbs us down bit by bit.

[Ajtn]

You think its bad to have movies that are historically inaccurate ... or just plane stupid. In Australia we get movies that are meant to be about Australians from the 20th and 21st centuries and they all tell us that all Australians can wrestle crocodiles and then to make things even worse the only person who people ever seemed to recognize as Australian was Steve Urwin (no disrespect intended)

[Fiberfar]

@ Moonbiter: They (film critics) compared the film to 300 and Apocalypto, just that it sucked.

[kathycf]

Massachusetts:

We don't really say things like "pahk the cah in Hahvahd Yahd". Harvard Yard refers to Harvard University, btw. However, folks that I know do have a tendency to say things like "The Red Sox are doing wicked awesome!".

We don't have witch trials anymore. Really. The Salem witch trials took place in 1692, and most if not all of the current people living in Mass were not born then, except maybe Mitt Romney, our current governor.

We are not all blue blooded snobs, nor a bunch of bleeding hearts. I have encountered both stereotypes and they implicity contradict each other. Like many other regions of the country you will have people who hold different political views.

Taxachusetts is a misnomer. Many states have higher tax rates than Mass.

Stereotypes are held by people within Massachusetts about different areas of our own state. This is a link to read about Massachusetts versions of such, as presented by [url="http://www.bostonist.com/archives/2007/02/12/limited_edition_barbie_massachusetts_edition.php"]Massachusetts Limited Edition Barbies[/url] (a satire).

[DarthMarth]

PA: We aren't all Amish
Pittsburg's sky isn't never ending smog
Philadelphia's row houses and cheese steaks are overrated.

[fable]

We don't have witch trials anymore. Really. The Salem witch trials took place in 1692, and most if not all of the current people living in Mass were not born then, except maybe Mitt Romney, our current governor.

Um, Deval Patrick is your governor. Romney is your ex-governor. I spend a fair amount of time up there, and my wife has worked in the Boston area for the last 2 years. We keep abreast of things like that. Especially since we loathe Romney.

As for the Salem Witch Trials, only Christians were burnt at the stake as a result. But the myth has made the city a veritable Disneyland of witches, many of whom have as much street cred as Mickey Mouse.

Taxachusetts is a misnomer. Many states have higher tax rates than Mass.

Unfortunately, Massachusetts accomplishes so much that's considered liberal to the current neo-con government and its press friends that they have to create the lie you spent a fortune for it. If they let it be known you did it by an intelligent use of reasonable tax dollars, they'd have to face too many questions.

[Chanak]

@Moonbiter: I'm guilty of having watched The 13th Warrior. I think that's about as far as my sins regarding ancient Scandanvia go however.

Here's what I *think* I know about ancient Scandanavians (let's test it vs. reality):

1. Not all Scandanvians who traveled abroad were "Vikings," which I already knew had a connection with "pirate." Some were traders and explorers instead. Still others who might have started out as Vikings eventually chilled out.

1a. Yes, not all Scandanavians were the same. They were all different. Probably had something to do with locality.

2. What the Scandavians were during that period in history: brilliant seagoers and shipcrafters who constructed marvels of nautical technology: the longboats. Those things were freakin' amazing. The frame was flexible, permitting better storm survival...and the keel was flattened, permitting travel through shallow waterways. So, those things could ride the waves of the open sea or navigate an inland river (apart from the Legoland dragonheads, the Longboats might be the only thing done justice in movies). Genius. They also used a form of compass, utterly unhead-of at the time. Another freakin' amazing thing.

3. The ancient Scandanavians were an example of a consummate sea-faring culture.

4. Scandanavians were in contact with people as far south as Asia Minor by 800 AD, while the rest of Europe was still busy picking up the pieces of the Dark Ages.

Some years ago, National Geographic did a piece on ancient Scandanavians worth reading. Every once in a while, you will see some worthy journalistic piece pop up that debunks the Viking myth, putting the horned helmets where they belong: as props for moviemakers.

EDIT: I LMAO whenever I see movies depicting Europeans (or others for that matter) cavorting around wearing full plate armor in battle. A leetle artistic license there for sure. A more accurate depiction would be chain jerkins with noseguard helmets, and possibly a shield (depending on the combatant's role). For that matter, plate armor didn't start making an appearance until the very, very late Middle Ages, and even then it was ornamental and reserved for show only. It was horrendously expensive to make and impractical for use in battle. It was virtually obsolete by then anyway, as gunpowder weapons were steadily improving from the clunky, dangerous arqebus to the more practical and relatively safe muskets of the Renaissance.

[fable]

For that matter, plate armor didn't start making an appearance until the very, very late Middle Ages, and even then it was ornamental and reserved for show only. It was horrendously expensive to make and impractical for use in battle.

Exactly so. We've seen a few beautiful examples of plate armor at the Philadelphia Museum of Art, which houses the US East Coast's largest collection of arms and armor. One especially caught my eye, with a bronze finish, a tracery of leaves embossed all over it from head to toe in black lacquer. I'd sell my second best computer for that! (It's also less than 5" tall, so I couldn't wear it. That's another point films tend to deliberately forget: that until the latter part of the 20th century, protein sources were more limited, and people were shorter.) The museum correctly pointed out that this was for ceremonial use only, worn by prince-generals who (of course) never took part in battle, but planned strategy and showed up for parade.

[QuenGalad]

What people doing movies forget is that a plate armour is simply not enough. There are other things you need to have under it, like chainmail where you have to move (arms,neck...), and, under everything, a thick cloth to withstand the rubbing [lack of vocabulary]. Mostly, a practical warrior would wear a chainmail jerkin and hood with helmet on top, and perhaps, if you must have plate things, only a very rich one would wear a plate pauldron. Or possibly the-thing-from-your-elbow-to-your-palm [lack of vocabulary again ] It's called "karwasz" in polish. Nice word .
Because, in europe, every man was responsible for his gear himself, and that's what they miss, too. In movies, you can often see "king's armory" and, with music full of pathos, warriors each getting his weapon and stuff :laugh:
I bet it was so in this "pathfinder" thing.

[galraen]

a thick cloth to withstand the rubbing [lack of vocabulary].

You could us chafing in this context.

For a full list of Armour parts in English:

http://www.beautifuliron.com/images/Dia ... isches.JPG

One of the funniest things I've seen in movies was in a film set in the Enlish Civil war (1642-49), were everyone was running around using Winchester rifles, can't remember the name of the film unfortunately.

Movies, especially Hollywood ones are terrible for grossly distorting history. One of my pet hates is 'Mutiny on the Bounty', the Charles Lawton one. Where the film completely reversed the roles of Bligh and Christian. Fletcher Christian was the villain, not Bligh.

[dragon wench]

What, you mean Vikings actually weren't barbarians who liked nothing better than an afternoon round of raping and pillaging?


OK, somewhat more seriously, I was trying to think of stereotypes of my immediate area, namely Vancouver on the West Coast of Canada.
The problem is that every stereotype I thought of actually has a large grain of truth to it....

1. Everyone on the West Coast is a stoned hippie.

Well, that's not completely true, not everyone spends their time smoking back Mary Jane. However, marijuana is one of British Columbia's biggest cash crops. In fact, we export quite a lot of "BC Bud" down to California apparently... Ah... "North American Free trade"

2. Everyone on the Coast is a health food fanatic and/or a vegetarian.

Again, not everyone... But, at least half of the people we know either are, or were, vegetarians.

3. Vancouver is a city obsessed with the outdoors and most people wear rugged clothing, appearing as though they are poised to run off for a hike at any given moment.

Er... not everyone.. but.. The city as a whole does place a heavy emphasis on outdoor activities, either within the city itself or in the surrounding mountains and ocean. Sadly, this comes at the expense of a heavily neglected arts and cultural scene.


So... er.. yeah... *still trying to think of unfounded stereotypes here*

[kathycf]

Um, Deval Patrick is your governor. Romney is your ex-governor. I spend a fair amount of time up there, and my wife has worked in the Boston area for the last 2 years. We keep abreast of things like that. Especially since we loathe Romney.

Yes, you are absolutely correct. The elections were fairly recent, so I have no excuse except that I am utterly senile (and at such a young age! ). I suppose it is fairly obvious I didn't vote in the election, being hard pressed to choose between candidates that all seem the same. Yes, Romney is....icky.

re: the Salem witch trials, I have actually had people ask me about them. The perception was that these were somewhat recent events, not a travesty of "justice" that took place over 300 years ago.

[Chanak]

@fable: Indeed, the average stature of an adult 600 years ago was rather short by our standards today. The average lifespan was much more brief as well. I suppose the age of 50 was ancient beyond measure during Middle Age Europe.

@DW: Aha...well, certain Scandanavians did indeed do precisely that, thus rightly earning the Viking (pirate) moniker. The inhabitants of the British Isles suffered their raids periodically for quite some time. They certainly weren't the only ones, as people on mainland Europe were visited by these invaders as well. What I find curious was the willingness of these guys to eventually chill out and be assimilated by the people they attacked and sometimes conquered. I suppose it might have been like waking up the next morning after a virulent bout of drunkness, and forgetting what it was you were supposed to be incensed about...so, you just shrug your shoulders and say to the stranger you terrorized the night before, "hey, nice house you got there. Mind if I build one next to it?"

[galraen]

We came, we saw, we bought some real-estate!:laugh:

[Chanak]

Hollywood and history...two words that don't mix very well. Hollywood and artistic license are a better fit.

Take, for instance, the westerns of the big screen and TV from the 1940s to the 1960s. The directors and producers weren't overly concerned with outfitting their actors and actresses in costumes true to the period...nor did they care much about the firearms their villians and heroes toted being true to the period, either (not to mention the revolvers with unlimited ammo... ). The plethora of modern revolvers featuring encased ammunition, and repeating rifles, was far from accurate. A more accurate depiction for the period of 1860 - 1880 frontier America would have been percussion pistols, and black powder rifles...with the rare repeater here and there. Very rare, because they were military to begin with, and the ammo would have been extremely difficult to come by. Grapeshot, on the other hand, would have likely been found at a decent-sized town's General Store or trading post. Same with percussion revolver ammo. Colt percussion revolvers were the mainstay of sidearms during the day.

Although virtually all westerns cannot escape the cheesiness factor, the only ones I ever watched were, of course, the Spaghetti Westerns that Clint Eastwood starred in. Out of them all, they seemed to make some sort of effort to be true to the period. Clint's character would actually spend time before a gunfight loading the cylinders of his Colt .44 percussion pistol..and during said gunfights, you would see him remove an empty cylinder, and load a new one. A big departure from the genre. Another thing about those films I liked: the actors and actresses were appropriately scruffy, as you would expect during a time when a trip to the barber shop was rather expensive, and the only running water you found was in rivers, streams or - if you were lucky - pumped out of an old well.

One other thing about some his westerns I appreciated: depictions of the ravages the Union army inflicted upon the American South during the Civil War. Controversial to be sure, but historically accurate nonetheless.

[Lady Dragonfly]

@Chanak

Take, for instance, the westerns of the big screen and TV from the 1940s to the 1960s. The directors and producers weren't overly concerned with outfitting their actors and actresses in costumes true to the period...

The same can be said about the Old Masters who depicted Biblical characters wearing medieval costumes.

[Malta Soron]

@fable: Indeed, the average stature of an adult 600 years ago was rather short by our standards today. The average lifespan was much more brief as well. I suppose the age of 50 was ancient beyond measure during Middle Age Europe.

No.
- Some time ago, a economist and antropologist Richard Steckel, from the university of Ohio, performed a research which showed the following (roughly translated from a Dutch news item):
"Now appears that the average length of men at least in North-Western Europe in the first half of the Middle Ages was 173.4 cm - with a record of 176 in Sweden. After that shrinking ocurred. In the 17th and 18th century the average length was only 167 cm, with a low point of 166 cm in Holland. After 1750 length increased again, until in the 20th century early medieval lengths again were reached. For comparison: Dutch conscripts at the start of the 20th century were on average 170 cm. The current Dutch average men's length is 180 cm."
- Calculations of the average age in periods before the 20th century (that is, in pre-modern societies) often turn out low because people don't correct for the high child mortality rate. If you look at the life expentancy of 5 year olds, 50-60 is a pretty normal age.

[fable]

No.
- Some time ago, a economist and antropologist Richard Steckel, from the university of Ohio, performed a research which showed the following (roughly translated from a Dutch news item):
"Now appears that the average length of men at least in North-Western Europe in the first half of the Middle Ages was 173.4 cm - with a record of 176 in Sweden. After that shrinking ocurred.

The key is "Northwestern Europe." This is a reflection upon an area with a notably high level of protein intake at a time when they enjoyed a largely non-feudal structure, unlike most of the rest of Europe. I see them as an exception, not the norm, and significantly, Steckel does not mention the feudal and largely agrarian, grain-oriented cultures of what were then the nations occuplying France, Italy, etc.

Still, it's worth keeping in mind that important exceptions exist. The Danes had something very much like democracy at the end of the Middle Ages, long before the rest of Europe. And there was a Tukric nation in the Ukrainian region, the Khanate of Khazar, during what amounts to the height of the European Middle Ages (8-10th centuries ACE), whose national religion was Judaism. Exceptions are fascinating.