Scandinavian Gentlemen?

In this post, I would like to pick up the lead from one of my May posts, "Norwegian "politeness"", and continue on that. The other day, I had a little discussion with some of my colleagues at work about gentlemen. It might be said that we Scandinavians are not truly behaving like gentlemen, at least not in the classical sense - e.g. like a Frenchman. We often don't help the women put on their coats, hold their chairs, open the doors for them, etc. - all the things that would be expected from the classical gentleman.

Personally, I think the 1970s did a great deal of harm to the concept of being a gentleman in Norway. That probably holds true in some other countries as well. The 70s were of course a time of great liberation for women, and we (both women and men) should be very thankful of that. Still, the gentleman in the classical sense was largely sacrificed on the altar of equality at that time.

In the biological sense, the reason women need men at all after the act of conceiving their child is protection. Men are stronger than women, and particularly when the woman is pregnant, they are better equipped to gather food for her and care for her and her offspring. And when the family was faced with danger, the man is of course better equipped to ward off those dangers. To me, the classical gentleman embodies a lot of that strength and that ability to take care of his woman, albeit in a slightly more sophisticated form than the neanderthal club-wielding brute.

In the 70s, with the women's liberation, women seemed to not need men to take care of them any more. They could get jobs of their own, earn their own money, and take care of themselves. When men were trying to take care of them, that was seen as reactionary and as if they wanted to turn the clock back to the time when women were chained to the kitchen - which was not necessarily true.

It seems to me that the Norwegians (especially women) see equality as being the same. Instead of cherishing the difference between the sexes, we want men and women to be the same, and to be doing the same things. We want the same number of female truck drivers as male, the equal number of construction workers, electricians, computer technicians etc., and we want the same number of female and male nurses and kindergarden teachers.

Thanks to the developments from the 1970s, the Norwegian society is one of a very large degree of equality between the sexes, but at the same time one that does not seem to appreciate the virtue of gentlemanliness. Although I do appreciate the fact that men and women do have equal opportunities, I think it is a little sad that being a gentleman is not really something that is valued in our culture. Personally, I think we should celebrate the fact that men and women are different. Of equal value and with equal opportunities, but still different.

There is nothing wrong with men taking care of their women and children. Still, I think it is true for a lot of men that our culture have not instilled in us a sense that this is an important value (living with a French woman, this is something I get pointed out all the time). Our women are capable of taking care of themselves, so what do they need us to do that for? What do they need us to hold the door for them, or hold their coat, or bring them flowers? Of course they don't need us to, but how nice is it not when we do?

Sweet brothers? Norwegian-Swedish relations...

Commenting on my blogpost on meatballs, Renny jokingly said that he hates when people mix up the Norwegian meatballs with the "Swedish substitute." In that comment lies a little trace of a peculiar neighbourhood-relation with our "Sweet brother." I'm sure it's not unique for Norway and Sweden, but the relationship between us is quite fascinating.

In any Norwegian joke where Swedes are present, they are portrayed as the dumb ones, coming up with one stupidity after another. There is one joke where two Swedes are on holiday with a Norwegian guy who for some reason went missing. In the police office the two Swedes are asked to describe the Norwegian. The two Swedes think long and hard, then one of them says, "yeah I know - he's got two holes in his bum!" The policeman, who thinks that was a somewhat unusual description ask "and how do you know that then?!" "Because everytime we go somewhere, people are saying: There's that Norwegian with the two assholes!"

So, that's generally the Swedish stereotype. The Danes are not portrayed as dumb, but still not quite up to the Norwegian intellectual level. Finns are not either dumb nor smart, but are portrayed as hard drinkers with a insatiable sexual appetite. Icelanders are generally absent from Norwegian jokes.

It's not only in jokes that the Swedes are the dumb ones. One needs only think of the song "Jag är inta sjuk, jag är bare svensk" (I'm not ill, just Swedish). And there is something comic about how sports journalists seek up Swedish sportsmen for interviewing every time the Norwegians place first, just to rub it in that we won and not they.

Historically, it is at first glance a little strange that the Swedes, and not the Danes are the ones we want to make out to be the stupid ones. Norway has been under both Swedish and Danish yoke, but definitely the longest under Danish. And I dare say that the Danish period was the worst for Norway. Some has even dubbed the period of Danish rule "The night of four hundred years." So, from that perspective, the Danes are the ones that really should have been at the receiving end of our jokes.

Still, the period when Norway was in union with Sweden from 1814 to 1905 was a period of national awakening in Norway - the period when Norwegian-ness took hold in the people's mind. So - although I do not have empirical evidence for this assumption, I do think that the seed of the current-day relationship with Swedes stem from that era. It might also be that we have a eeny-weeny little bit of inferiority complex to Swedes - the Swedes being twice the size of Norway, it was a regional superpower in the Vasa-era (ca. 1521-1654), and more successful in their industry (IKEA, Volvo, Saab, etc.) than us..

Still, at the end of the day, even though we make all kinds of joke about Swedes, on a deeper level, there is no bad feeling between our two countries. The relationship is harmonious and friendly, greatly helped by cultural and linguistic similarities. But as with all relationships between brothers, there is bound to be some competition, and brotherly love is after all.. well, brotherly love..

Some reflections on history - Scandinavian influence on the British Isles

Even though I am an historian by education, my knowledge of certain parts of history is admittedly a bit patchy. But I do make an effort to close those gaps from time to time, mainly because I think it is immensely interesting. One of those areas where my knowledge is a bit lacking is medieval history, which in Norway chronologically correlates roughly to the Viking period.

During that time, Scandinavians (i.e. the Norwegians and even more, the Danish) had a huge influence on the British Isles. From the sacking of the Lindisfarne monastery in 793 up until the Norman invasion in the 1060s, Scandinavian vikings ruled large parts of Britain and left their mark on culture, language and politics. And even with the Norman invasion, the Scandinavian link is clear - William the Conqueror was a direct descendant of Rollo (or Ganger Hrolf), the Scandinavian viking who founded the viking principality that would become Normandy. William the Conqueror was the direct ascendant of the present-day Royal family in Britain, which in turn makes them direct descendants of Scandinavian vikings. Intriguing.

Contrary to common belief, the vikings were not simply bloodthirsty hethen warriors. More importantly, they were traders, who established extensive trading networks in areas such as the British Isles, Russia, Belorussia, Normandy, etc. Evidence of the extent of viking trade can be seen from frequent findings of Arab silver, Byzantine silk, and Rhenish glass in viking graves. Maybe the view as vikings being such merciless murderers stems from the fact that much of the history about the viking raids were written not by the victors, but by the people being raided, from the monks of the Lindisfarne monastery and onward, or from people highly sympathetic to them. Every historian, including myself, have got an agenda with what they write.

I have brushed upon the linguistic influence the Scandinavians had in my post from April 14, titled "Linguistic whores". A more thorough account can be found on the websites of the Rheinisch-Westfälische Technische Hochschule (RWTH) in Aachen, Germany. Interestingly, some of the linguistic influences where quite profound:

Not only lexical, but also grammatical changes were due to Norse language influence, for example changes in the pronominal system: The Present Day English forms they, their and them were borrowed from Old Norse. The Old English forms were hie, hiera and him. Other influences on the English grammatical system are assumed to be the Norse influence on the verb to be: The original form of the plural present indicative in Old English was sindon, and it is assumed that Norse influence changed it to are. The inflectional ending –s of verbs in the 3rd person singular present indicative is also assumed to go back to Norse influence.¹

Another interesting point is that some words that we think of as borrowed from English, actually are words we have "gotten back", after English first borrowed them from us, and then them having fallen out of use in Scandinavia. One such example is the English word "bag", which was first borrowed from the old Norse word "Baggr".

In Ireland, vikings founded among others the city of Dublin. Many great cities, most notably York and London, were main trading centers for Norsemen. York was described by an unknown writer in 1000 AD as "…..filled with the treasure of merchants, principally Danes."² Other evidence of viking influence can be seen in names of towns and cities. Endings like -by, -thorpe, -thwait, and -toft are all of Scandinavian origin.

The viking also intermarried happily with the local population. Considering the viking love for red hair, one might do some speculations about the Irish ginger hair and the vikings.. However, intermarrying was not only constricted to Ireland, but happened commonly wherever the vikings settled, with the consequences that must have had on culture, both ways.

The historical links between the British Isles and Scandinavia are strong. Now that I live in the UK I have a good incentive - if I ever needed one - to delve into that part of history, which is undoubtedly very interesting.