The term “Viking Age” was invented at a time when there was a strong desire for renewed national pride in several of the Scandinavian countries.
In no time, the term – along with “Viking” – was abused to promote ideas that the Vikings of the past would not have been able to understand.
Obviously there have been both imbeciles and lunatics among the Vikings, a thousand years ago, but modern day meatheads are pulling them into an ethnicist narrative that would have made no sense to them.
It’s called “Nordicism”, and surfaced for the first time in the 1930’s.
It’s the belief that Scandinavians are a purebred superior ethnic group, that should rule the world, or at least be left alone to stay “uncontaminated”.
Hitler used this in his propaganda, and now neo-nazis, like Nordiska Motståndsrörelsen (“the Nordic Resistance Movement”) or Jacob Chansley, the self-proclaimed “QAnon Shaman” from Arizona, are doing the same.
Obviously they haven’t read a single page about Vikings before jumping on the wagon of inspiration: Tall, blond, strong, violent, homophobic, racist misogynists.
Oddly enough, it is always the least attractive members of an ethnic group who shout about their ethnic superiority.
Let us get this straight…
In the late 1990s and early 2000s, there was a tendency for Scandinavians to refrain from using Viking symbols – and even their own flag – so as not to be mistaken for mentally disabled racists.
Fortunately, this trend has changed and normal sane people have taken back the symbols.
The more people learn about Vikings, the less Viking symbols become associated with racism – on the contrary!
The Vikings of the Iron Age were curious, ready for change, eager to travel and learn, and spread and collected DNA 3000 kilometers in all directions (horny bastards).
A few remarks on burning Qurans
You shouldn't burn books, because it's daft and pointless, and a testemoni of limited intellectual capacity.
Criticising people's choices in words and artistic expressions is, however, the foundation for a civilised society.
That's the quandary: You should be allowed to, but you shouldn't actually do it.
The vast majority of the Scandinavian population is thoroughly ashamed of Rasmus Paludan, mainly because he's a little annoying racist moron.
Simultaneously most are against legislation protecting specific books from being set on fire.
I believe most would prefere if an artist had burned copies of all known religious books in a pile.
It's important to notice a defining distinction:
Generalising and criticising innate characteristics, such as ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation, is stupid, immoral and illegal.
Debating, cristisising and ridiculing people's choices, such as opinions and beliefs, is the basic right to free speech, and a vital cornerstone in a democratic society.
Free speech means individuals or small groups can express opinions that are not sanctioned or shared by the government or the majority.
Acting against a whole country because of unassociated individual's opinions means you don't understand the concept of individual rights.
If you want to act against the RIGHT to criticise Islam (et al), in words, cartoons or flames, by burning our flag, a picture of the queen, the bible or the constitution, go ahead, make your day.
We don't actually care.