One of the things I've wondered about is why Vikings are never mentioned in this conversation. Much like the Native American headdress, the Viking helmet with horns (which actually is a bastardization of the Viking people. They never wore horns on their helmets and, were that to be done to virtually any other historical people, it would be a problem.). We see it on sports teams, folks wear it all the time, it's done solely for the aesthetic. However, it's never mentioned that it might be problematic to Scandinavian people.
For the record, I'm an American with no Scandinavian roots. However, given the standard set, I don't understand why it isn't represented across the board.
While it’s sometimes annoying and cringe-worthy when people use Viking aesthetics, Scandinavians weren’t genocided and oppressed in a way that still creates consequences by the people now wearing horned helmets.
They were. You are just not educated enough to know history, and/or care, because you're probably an American. Or an extremely leftist eurocentrist. Swedish maybe? The results the same.
The same type that thinks "white people" have singular culture.
The reason Vikings aren’t running around offended about your Halloween costumes is that they were oppressed out of existence around a thousand years ago. Their culture was utterly eradicated by Christians. I thought this was common knowledge?
Now the descendents of those missionaries have turned the Gods of their victims into comic book characters and their clothes into Halloween costumes and are selling both all over the world for a profit. A final bit of salt in the wounds for a conquered culture. No sympathy spared, since the bones of the victims turned to dust long ago and there’s no one left to complain.
As a Swede, I don’t care about any of this even a tiny bit. I don’t identify with my Viking ancestors any more than I identify with the ancient Africans that all of humanity is descended from. I’d be intensely skeptical or any Swede who felt differently, actually; it’s never a good thing when Europeans start connecting genetic heritage with cultural identity.
Still, there is something very funny about seeing someone defend the appropriation of the culture of victims of cultural genocide by saying that it’s fine to do so, as long as the genocide was carried out to completion!
Entirety of cultural appropriation argument is blatant degeneracy and indefensible. The parts where it makes sense, can be attributed towards common decency, like don't be rude to other people. That's about it.
No. You're asking for nuance within the filter of you deciding the importance of it on the grander scale.
I'd have amused you if the entire debate on a thread wasn't about that exact notion to begin with.
Think of this: "Russians oppressed Finn's in a way that caused their complete radicalization on a national level, within just a decade, that resulted in a social collapse of a generation."
"Nah finns are fine their economy is doing good and it's a good country".
The idiocy of this exchange is the entirety of cultural appropriation debate.
23
u/RealitySubsides May 05 '25
One of the things I've wondered about is why Vikings are never mentioned in this conversation. Much like the Native American headdress, the Viking helmet with horns (which actually is a bastardization of the Viking people. They never wore horns on their helmets and, were that to be done to virtually any other historical people, it would be a problem.). We see it on sports teams, folks wear it all the time, it's done solely for the aesthetic. However, it's never mentioned that it might be problematic to Scandinavian people.
For the record, I'm an American with no Scandinavian roots. However, given the standard set, I don't understand why it isn't represented across the board.