Well, I mean, the modern English are sort of descended from Vikings (Anglo-Saxons). Scots and Irish are still mostly Celtic though (I think) and those places are way cooler, so not sure this argument holds

[–] pseudo@jlai.lu 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Not an expert but from the name, I would imagine they descend from the Angles (Engles?) and the Saxes not from the Vikings.

[–] pooh@hexbear.net 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, for some reason I was thinking Angles and Saxons were considered Vikings but I was totally wrong on that. You are correct.

[–] ProfessorOwl_PhD@hexbear.net 2 points 5 months ago

Northeast England and the east coast of Scotland have a fair amount of viking ancestry about from all the raiding, so it's not completely baseless.

[–] Tankiedesantski@hexbear.net 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Descended from is not the same as being. An Italian American is not an Italian is not a Roman even if you can trace descent.

[–] BobDole@hexbear.net 6 points 5 months ago

anti-italian-discrimination

[–] Diuretic_Materialism@hexbear.net 7 points 5 months ago

Do you have a source for this? Cuz I keep encountering historians who say "The idea that people in [insert time period] didn't bath is a myth". I kinda just assume now pretty much in human cultures bathed at least semi-regularly, people don't like smelling like shit. Sure in ye-olden times they probably didn't do it as frequently as we do today because clean water a bit more labor intensive to acquirer but I think it's weird to assume even mayo-kkkrackkers spend 100s of years just walking around with fungus growing in the crotches.