I'm in the process of writing another children's book.
(You can check out my two other books on Bess's Creative Side, one of my other blogs.)
This one is about the Kensington Rune Stone.
I went to a lecture last night about the stone. It's been a source of controversy all along, but I'm more than inclined to think that it is an genuine artifact from 1362, unearthed here in Minnesota in 1898.
The lecturer last evening disagrees. He avoided archaeological evidence altogether, and came at the subject from a sociological viewpoint.
His main thesis was that the rune stone was a symbol of white power in an age where immigrants wanted to establish authority over the land they had settled in.
I'd never even conceived of that idea before. Actually, it was really offensive! Clearly the Darwinian Paradigm of racial superiority lives in this man's head, and he's trying to lose all the guilt he has associated with that. It was a pitiful presentation, and I'm rather sorry for him. He is not a historian, and chose to belittle the voices of the past as expressed in their own words through publications or journals.
He never addressed the geological evidence, nor the runic evidence brought forth by Reiersgord or Nielson/Wolter. He dismissed Wolter as a sensationalist.
I'm fascinated by the story of the rune stone, simply because it is an indication of much more going on in the world prior to Western Civilization!
There is ample evidence all over the world that people were organized into massive and productive societies throughout North America and South America, as well as in Europe and Asia. It isn't such a reach to believe that humans emigrated via oceans long before Christopher Columbus!
I've read the account of Thor Heyerdahl and his raft "Kon-Tiki." You should, too. It's a fascinating account, and proves that there was far more human migration between the continents than many "intellectuals" believe.
I wondered if this lecturer believed in Marco Polo!
I am presenting Thomas E. Reiersgord's ideas about the stone. I think they are the most researched and most likely. His account brings Knife Lake in central Minnesota into the picture geologically and geographically. He also cites American Indian sources far more than any other researcher. This is compelling!
We'll probably never definitively know the history of the rune stone, but there is certainly ample evidence to piece together a plausible history as more research is conducted.
The lecture I heard last night was a travesty to scholarship, but it's people like the presenter which give inspiration to those of us who have higher motives and real interest in history than to prove that a popular, current societal trend is laughable. (I do not disagree that any racial supremacy is abhorrent!) He mocked and completely misunderstood the attitudes and culture of previous historians. It is anyone's right to interpret, but to scoff is unscholarly. It's offensive.
He also mocked his own evangelical upbringing.
As I left the lecture hall I walked in step with another woman. She was wearing a Norwegian sweater. I engaged her in brief conversation---what did she think of the lecture?
"I still believe that the rune stone is from 1362."
"He never addressed the runic anomaly, nor Knife Lake!"
"Exactly!"
She shook her head in disgust. I was wasn't the only one disappointed.
I'm not sorry I went. I just have to address in my work the issues that he brought up. A refutation is completely easy!
Projects. Such fun!
(You can check out my two other books on Bess's Creative Side, one of my other blogs.)
This one is about the Kensington Rune Stone.
I went to a lecture last night about the stone. It's been a source of controversy all along, but I'm more than inclined to think that it is an genuine artifact from 1362, unearthed here in Minnesota in 1898.
The lecturer last evening disagrees. He avoided archaeological evidence altogether, and came at the subject from a sociological viewpoint.
His main thesis was that the rune stone was a symbol of white power in an age where immigrants wanted to establish authority over the land they had settled in.
I'd never even conceived of that idea before. Actually, it was really offensive! Clearly the Darwinian Paradigm of racial superiority lives in this man's head, and he's trying to lose all the guilt he has associated with that. It was a pitiful presentation, and I'm rather sorry for him. He is not a historian, and chose to belittle the voices of the past as expressed in their own words through publications or journals.
He never addressed the geological evidence, nor the runic evidence brought forth by Reiersgord or Nielson/Wolter. He dismissed Wolter as a sensationalist.
I'm fascinated by the story of the rune stone, simply because it is an indication of much more going on in the world prior to Western Civilization!
There is ample evidence all over the world that people were organized into massive and productive societies throughout North America and South America, as well as in Europe and Asia. It isn't such a reach to believe that humans emigrated via oceans long before Christopher Columbus!
I've read the account of Thor Heyerdahl and his raft "Kon-Tiki." You should, too. It's a fascinating account, and proves that there was far more human migration between the continents than many "intellectuals" believe.
I wondered if this lecturer believed in Marco Polo!
I am presenting Thomas E. Reiersgord's ideas about the stone. I think they are the most researched and most likely. His account brings Knife Lake in central Minnesota into the picture geologically and geographically. He also cites American Indian sources far more than any other researcher. This is compelling!
We'll probably never definitively know the history of the rune stone, but there is certainly ample evidence to piece together a plausible history as more research is conducted.
The lecture I heard last night was a travesty to scholarship, but it's people like the presenter which give inspiration to those of us who have higher motives and real interest in history than to prove that a popular, current societal trend is laughable. (I do not disagree that any racial supremacy is abhorrent!) He mocked and completely misunderstood the attitudes and culture of previous historians. It is anyone's right to interpret, but to scoff is unscholarly. It's offensive.
He also mocked his own evangelical upbringing.
As I left the lecture hall I walked in step with another woman. She was wearing a Norwegian sweater. I engaged her in brief conversation---what did she think of the lecture?
"I still believe that the rune stone is from 1362."
"He never addressed the runic anomaly, nor Knife Lake!"
"Exactly!"
She shook her head in disgust. I was wasn't the only one disappointed.
I'm not sorry I went. I just have to address in my work the issues that he brought up. A refutation is completely easy!
Projects. Such fun!
No comments:
Post a Comment