Originally Posted by Dadaist

Feminisim is pretty much considered a dirty word, almost as dirty as being called a socialist in the states, probably worse actually. I can not find any policies of the Icelandic feminist movement that have not been anything but benificial to the country. Attaining a level of almost 50% of parliment being female, is in my opinion not a feminist ideal, but something that should be a political reality in a modern democracy. What feminism has achieved in Iceland, makes their nearest neighbour Ireland look like a social and cultural back water.

Its easy to achieve "equality" if you bring in laws to force it (gender quotas)
Its more of an achievement if you as a woman get to a position of authority/influence/power without such laws giving you an advantage ie Angela Merkel
Although thats a separate issue

In relation to iceland and people praising it member its a population of 350000
Its easy to achieve social equality when your population is so low

Originally Posted by duthealla

I
Having been to Iceland i was not struck by how Irish/celtic looking they were. Their women are jaw dropping beautiful

any photos?

Great !!!

Originally Posted by PeeOKneel

What about The Spanish Armada being responsible for a large amount of dark haired people on the West coast here?

Almost certainly a popular myth.

There's no way that there was sufficient immigration related to the Armada for it to have a significant influence on the local gene pool. Anyway, most Irish people are dark haired, whatever part of the country they're from.

As for 'Spanish blood in our veins', there's a theory (see Stephen Oppenheimer's 'Origin of the British') that the inhabitants of the British Isles have a similar genetic make-up to the inhabitants of the Basque country. The theory is that this is due to the fact that the Basque region was a 'refuge' during the last Ice Age. So, after the ice melted, people moved north to Ireland and Britain (which were not islands at the time) and settled in the lands which had been almost depopulated due to the freezing temperatures.

By no means everyone accepts this theory - or any similar theory - but it's interesting nonetheless, and certainly of far more substance than any Spanish Armada myth.

Another Viking connection to the Irish gene pool came via the Gallowglass, the Norse/Scots mercenaries:-

Gallowglass - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Lb

Originally Posted by Liverpoolblue

Another Viking connection to the Irish gene pool came via the Gallowglass, the Norse/Scots mercenaries:-

Gallowglass - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Lb

Indeed, although Gallowglass geneaologists tried to deny such a connection. The Clann Shuibhne claimed descendance from Aodh Athlamhan, who was a collateral dynast of the Uí Néill, which may reflect the fact the Uí Néill had originally employed them. The Clann Dhomhnaill (and thus the Clann Mhic Chába, Clann Dubhghaill and Clann Síthigh) claimed ancestry through Somhairle the Viking Slayer back to the three Collas, the progenitors of the Airghialla. Genetic evidence for the Clann Domhnaill seems to show viking origins in the male line, however, and even were it not the case, many of their followers would have been.

Originally Posted by FireWolf

Just a little correction. L'Empereur (Napoleon) succeeded to occupy Moscow. The problem was that the city was empty...

Rats! You're exactly right there. Napoleon has always been one of the numerous blank spots I got in history and I let myself be taken by the propagandistic claim that no one has never taken Moscow.

One awesome piece of history right there, I see: the French Emperor marching into the capital, expecting it to surrender and feed the army and the Czar to offer capitulation and fold up as per the classical rules of warfare, and the Czar instead of that just steps out of the city with all the people. "Congrats on the capture of Moscow, now don't let attrition hit your ass on the way home!"

Old Alex was one smooth operator. But that I already knew.

And there's always just something in it when someone chooses not to obey the warfare traditions. Some general setting up a textbook cavalry assault and failing miserably as the other guys have cheated and positioned the machine guns...

Originally Posted by Liverpoolblue

Another Viking connection to the Irish gene pool came via the Gallowglass, the Norse/Scots mercenaries:

Oh yes, on the topic: them northern Germanics have this fascinating trait of succumbing people, breeding in and then abandoning their own ways, disappearing completely except genetically.

Originally Posted by Blacknorth

It was amazing to see the Viking grafitti in the Blue Mosque in Istanbul. I wonder if any Irish slaves were sold in the Arab world.

Ok, more back-pedalling from me. I still am not sure if the varangians would have taken any chance Irish they had with them to the eastern trade routes but the damned Wikipedia knows to tell us in the article "Arab slave trade" that the Danish too had merchants based in the Volga area who dealt with Slavs and Arab merchants. Apparently "non-Muslim slaves were valued in the harems, for all roles (gate-keeper, servant, odalisque, musician, dancer, court dwarf, concubine)".

From 16th to 19th century "Barbary pirates" from Berber areas on Africa's Mediterranean coast raided on North Atlantic as far as Ireland and even Iceland, with the main purpose of capturing Christian slaves for the Islamic market in North Africa and the Middle East.

And the Scandinavian fun didn't end with christinization. Quoth the article "Thrall":

Because the enslavement of 'heathens' was sanctioned by the Catholic Church whereas the enslavement of Christians was a sin, when Christianity arrived in Northern Europe, there arose an increasing demand for non-Christian slaves. With the end of the Viking Age around 1100 A.D., the thrall population became composed of fewer Christians and more Slavic and Scandinavian pagans. The Catholic Scandinavians had a de facto monopoly on trading thralls because of the large pagan populations that remained in Scandinavia.

The thing with slavery is that it has been the hoot just about everywhere there has been humans. I don't really know what to make of the popular conception of seeing slavery mainly as black and white European and African issue. The nasty fact is that when African slaves were taken to New World the white didn't so much capture them as traded them from the coastal Africans who had their supply in the tribes of inner continent. Some countries as the Kingdom of Dahomey had African slaves as their main export.

I'll blame the American civil rights movement.