Vinland Saga - Ch. 214 - Thousand Year Voyage Part 23

[noblesslayer]

average riddance, motherfucker.

 

[Gem-Bug]

From the Nord ships, it looks like everyone on the beach is dead. Where the fuck is Einar??

It was nice but bittersweet that Ivar's last thoughts were of more peaceful times with his brothers. I'm sympathetic but a lot of this war was his fault.

Thanks for the upload. We're what, like 3 months with no Thorfinn?

 

[Ezrah25]

You're wrong. The sword was a catalyst but the seeds of war were sown even before that.
Also, no one brought war to the natives, the natives knew war before Thorfinn was even born.

War is part of human nature, that is the story's main point.
Some people fight this nature, some people accept it, some people live because of it.

Had it not been the sword, it would have been the tools, the bread, the plague. Bad people will use any excuse they can to exact war.


Remember that you're supposed to disagree with this. This quote is not from Cormac, but from a character Cormac wrote to be so evil some people argue he (the character) is actually the devil himself.

They had small incursions, little territorial fights, the Nords, specifically Ivar, brought items SPECIFICALLY designed for war. Although the Lnu did want their stuff, they were happy to trade, whether it be through intermediary or direct means. The cultivation of farming, crops, and livestock DO NOT mean that war is necessary. Rather than trying to prove me wrong, remember that the shaman was only able to gather that large group of tribesmen AFTER the unveiling of the sword, and subsequent attack on the Shaman. The only reason why they are attacking and sacking the Nords are again, WEAPONS AND TOOLS OF WAR. Even in the previous chapters most of them do not care about the sickness, the warnings, the signs, the food, but seek WEAPONS. War is not a constant, we do not have "war" in our genes. War is perpetuated by incompetent leaders, people finding faults with pointless differences, or dire need of resources/land.

 

[Sunbroski23]

Man this feels bad, what an emotional chapter and spectacular arc

 

[Gem-Bug]

Man this feels bad, what an emotional chapter and spectacular arc

I'm at the point where I could see Thorfinn, Einar, and possibly Hild dying, with Gudrid and Cordelia making it back to Iceland. And then like "The End"

 

[LordofAlI]

Ok I mean he got what he wanted. He fought and died in battle. This is war. People are dropping one after another

 

[dsfargeg]

Remember that you're supposed to disagree with this. This quote is not from Cormac, but from a character Cormac wrote to be so evil some people argue he (the character) is actually the devil himself.

So to paraphrase, you believe evil people are somehow incapable of saying true things? I know nothing of that character, but he's right. Resources will always be finite and killing someone to take their stuff will always be profitable if you can get away with it.

 

[Kushikime]

Thanks for the chapter

 

[Makenai]

I have to give props to Yukimura sensei. That whole conflict feels very realistic. Also the way Ivar was written. Even a war seeking idiot has friends and things he cares for. There was also that moment where Styrk told him it's pretty much their fault things escalated and he was shocked by it. He came of as very immature. He wanted war but wasn't really aware of the consequences until it was too late.

 

[dsfargeg]

War is not a constant, we do not have "war" in our genes. War is perpetuated by incompetent leaders, people finding faults with pointless differences, or dire need of resources/land.

This is objectively wrong and I'm impressed by how sheltered and naive you are.

Everything has violence in their genes. Even plants attempt to kill nearby competitors by blocking out their light and sucking nutrients from the soil first. Certain colony insects like ants have dedicated warrior castes that have a bunch of physiological differences that make them useless as workers but fantastic at killing things.

Let me explain basic evolution real quick so you can get these silly thoughts out of your head: All species are driven by an urge to reproduce as much as possible. The species that didn't do that were wiped out by the ones that did. Populations grow until they hit that region's carrying capacity which is dictated by adequate food, shelter, water, and mates.

Once the carrying capacity is hit, survival and reproduction is determined by the ability to access or acquire resources that other members of the population already have laid claim to. The ones who are good at that get to reproduce. "The ability to hurt others and take their stuff" gets selected for, and individuals with mutations that make them better at that pass those mutations on.

What is one of the strongest adaptations that allows for success at taking things from others? Teamwork and cooperation. The strongest individual loses to 3 average guys. The ability to cooperate also gets passed on.

What do you call it when two or more organized groups attempt to harm each other? A war. War is in our genes.



As for incompetent leaders and pointless differences, these statements betray incredible immaturity.

Think of the role of a leader in a war. What does he do? Mostly, he hangs back and orders people around. He rarely puts himself in direct danger. When leaders are put in direct danger from war, it usually signals the end of the war. For example. the European theater of WW2 ended when the Americans reached Hitler's bunker. It was not a matter of crippling their infrastructure to limit their ability to cause harm to end the war, it was doing that to the point that they were able to capture the leader.

Why? Because leaders first and foremost act in their own self-interest. People are selfish. Selfishness is the biggest driver of all human behavior. Calling a leader "incompetent" because he acts in his own self-interest is utterly foolish. Leaders always do that. A leader's self-interest and the followers' self-interests only occasionally align. Sending others to die to benefit from their deaths isn't incompetence, it is a very practical and effective way to secure resources for yourself to benefit from. When the leader can no longer benefit from war because the leader is in danger, he will call off the war. Expecting a leader to act in the interests of his followers is like expecting a unicorn to vomit gold coins and winning lottery tickets into your lap. The leaders with an inborn tendency to betray their followers to their own benefit are the ones that tend to pass on that tendency. The ones foolish enough to do it brazenly tend to get killed by their followers, so exploiting the commoners and tricking them into thinking it was for their own good or some greater good is a trait that's naturally selected for.

Leaders are not your friend. None of them are. They're people with their own agenda that want you to think they're acting on your behalf. Expecting otherwise is childish.

Lastly, for pointless differences, I'd highly recommend you read practically any of Robert Cialdini's books. Influence would be a good one to start with. Broadly, humans do not see a pointless difference and attack someone over it. Humans use those "pointless differences" to justify going after a group after they have already decided they want to attack that group. Humans don't tend to act on emotions like that, they use those differences to convince themselves that simple greed or envy was justified. Trying to explain that process would already turn this eye-rollingly long essay into a whole book, so I'm going to leave that to someone who's already written a book about it.

 

[Theozilla]

There's a difference between conflict and war, while the latter falls under the extremely broad umbrella of the former that doesn't mean they are or should be completely conflated. Conflict may be inherent to all life (and even then it is not always bloody and violent, "the ability to hurt others and take their stuff" is not always selected for in evolution, plenty of species have evolved to have mutualistic and cooperative strategies for survival and reproduction, it isn't always kill or be killed in non-human life).

 

[Ezrah25]

This is objectively wrong and I'm impressed by how sheltered and naive you are.

Everything has violence in their genes. Even plants attempt to kill nearby competitors by blocking out their light and sucking nutrients from the soil first. Certain colony insects like ants have dedicated warrior castes that have a bunch of physiological differences that make them useless as workers but fantastic at killing things.

Let me explain basic evolution real quick so you can get these silly thoughts out of your head: All species are driven by an urge to reproduce as much as possible. The species that didn't do that were wiped out by the ones that did. Populations grow until they hit that region's carrying capacity which is dictated by adequate food, shelter, water, and mates.

Once the carrying capacity is hit, survival and reproduction is determined by the ability to access or acquire resources that other members of the population already have laid claim to. The ones who are good at that get to reproduce. "The ability to hurt others and take their stuff" gets selected for, and individuals with mutations that make them better at that pass those mutations on.

What is one of the strongest adaptations that allows for success at taking things from others? Teamwork and cooperation. The strongest individual loses to 3 average guys. The ability to cooperate also gets passed on.

What do you call it when two or more organized groups attempt to harm each other? A war. War is in our genes.



As for incompetent leaders and pointless differences, these statements betray incredible immaturity.

Think of the role of a leader in a war. What does he do? Mostly, he hangs back and orders people around. He rarely puts himself in direct danger. When leaders are put in direct danger from war, it usually signals the end of the war. For example. the European theater of WW2 ended when the Americans reached Hitler's bunker. It was not a matter of crippling their infrastructure to limit their ability to cause harm to end the war, it was doing that to the point that they were able to capture the leader.

Why? Because leaders first and foremost act in their own self-interest. People are selfish. Selfishness is the biggest driver of all human behavior. Calling a leader "incompetent" because he acts in his own self-interest is utterly foolish. Leaders always do that. A leader's self-interest and the followers' self-interests only occasionally align. Sending others to die to benefit from their deaths isn't incompetence, it is a very practical and effective way to secure resources for yourself to benefit from. When the leader can no longer benefit from war because the leader is in danger, he will call off the war. Expecting a leader to act in the interests of his followers is like expecting a unicorn to vomit gold coins and winning lottery tickets into your lap. The leaders with an inborn tendency to betray their followers to their own benefit are the ones that tend to pass on that tendency. The ones foolish enough to do it brazenly tend to get killed by their followers, so exploiting the commoners and tricking them into thinking it was for their own good or some greater good is a trait that's naturally selected for.

Leaders are not your friend. None of them are. They're people with their own agenda that want you to think they're acting on your behalf. Expecting otherwise is childish.

Lastly, for pointless differences, I'd highly recommend you read practically any of Robert Cialdini's books. Influence would be a good one to start with. Broadly, humans do not see a pointless difference and attack someone over it. Humans use those "pointless differences" to justify going after a group after they have already decided they want to attack that group. Humans don't tend to act on emotions like that, they use those differences to convince themselves that simple greed or envy was justified. Trying to explain that process would already turn this eye-rollingly long essay into a whole book, so I'm going to leave that to someone who's already written a book about it.

The level of astounding patronizing and innate condescension shows that you have no attempt to even have civil discourse. I didn't say violence wasn't in our genes, I said WAR. We do NOT need to propose the necessities of fueling and perpetuation that we are constantly needing in resources and without thought and consideration. There are plenty of animals that kill on an entire group opposed to them, but we are not animals. We think, feel, understand, and discuss, but you obviously have no intention other than incredible amount of patronizing.

What is pretty interesting is how unbelievably small minded and red pill you are. The leader should ALWAYS seek discourse through discussion prior to seeking reparation or restitution, and not selfishly seeking their own preferences and desires. Your intent to disprove and disrespect me shows that you just flew off the handle with the intent of showing off your own narrow and shallow readings. You've written a book? I doubt anyone has ever read and concurred with you, so please keep your acerbic and destructive criticism to yourself. Do I believe our leaders are our friends? Never, especially nowadays, where everyone is desperately seeking social media clout and justification for their own agendas.

Your desire to lock humans into a very specific catagory itself shows how locked into your beliefs you are, and will absolutely intend to argue this out to the point of senselessness. Do you think that humans have to follow the primal instincts, without any recourse or reconsideration? If you do, you must be a very sad and pitiful primate. Do you think the leaders who have no idea what they're doing, and foolishly plunge an entire nation into war for resources aren't incompetent? Do you think that international treaties that support neighboring countries is for the sole intent to take resources from the countries themselves? Do you have no basic understanding of economy?

 

[infernoWRLD]

The level of astounding patronizing and innate condescension shows that you have no attempt to even have civil discourse. I didn't say violence wasn't in our genes, I said WAR. We do NOT need to propose the necessities of fueling and perpetuation that we are constantly needing in resources and without thought and consideration. There are plenty of animals that kill on an entire group opposed to them, but we are not animals. We think, feel, understand, and discuss, but you obviously have no intention other than incredible amount of patronizing.

What is pretty interesting is how unbelievably small minded and red pill you are. The leader should ALWAYS seek discourse through discussion prior to seeking reparation or restitution, and not selfishly seeking their own preferences and desires. Your intent to disprove and disrespect me shows that you just flew off the handle with the intent of showing off your own narrow and shallow readings. You've written a book? I doubt anyone has ever read and concurred with you, so please keep your acerbic and destructive criticism to yourself. Do I believe our leaders are our friends? Never, especially nowadays, where everyone is desperately seeking social media clout and justification for their own agendas.

Your desire to lock humans into a very specific catagory itself shows how locked into your beliefs you are, and will absolutely intend to argue this out to the point of senselessness. Do you think that humans have to follow the primal instincts, without any recourse or reconsideration? If you do, you must be a very sad and pitiful primate. Do you think the leaders who have no idea what they're doing, and foolishly plunge an entire nation into war for resources aren't incompetent? Do you think that international treaties that support neighboring countries is for the sole intent to take resources from the countries themselves? Do you have no basic understanding of economy?

Dude that guy unironically quoted Judge Holden without even knowing who the fuck he is lmfaoooo. Don't bother wasting your time arguing with him.

 

[Gem-Bug]

This is objectively wrong and I'm impressed by how sheltered and naive you are.

Everything has violence blahblahblahblah

Wild to begin by calling someone naive and then following with an entire essay showcasing how stunted you are in every capacity.

 

[77BLc9JwJGpLVARkamJx]

Damn, already wiped out? Time for some viking rampage next chapter.

 

[poemofdevil]

Fuck Ivar

Really beautiful art in this chapter.

 

[Ahab19]

Kill all redskins.

 

[CurlyBruce]

...remember that the shaman was only able to gather that large group of tribesmen AFTER the unveiling of the sword, and subsequent attack on the Shaman. The only reason why they are attacking and sacking the Nords are again, WEAPONS AND TOOLS OF WAR.

More poignantly, even the shaman himself seemingly realized his mistake to gather the tribes since he realized they also ended up behaving the same way the Nords were (in his mind and from his prophetic dreams). He pretty much immediately regretted it once he saw how they didn't give a fuck that Thorfinn agreed to pick up his people and leave which was the entire point of the show of force.

I will say that weapons weren't the only reason the Lnu were attacking though since one of the main arguments the other tribes used was effectively "Well, we're already here to fight. We aren't going to just go back home after gathering everyone up like this." so I think the Shaman was equally tone deaf of how his own people behaved just like Thorfinn took for granted that everyone who followed him would follow his philosophies wholesale.

 

[NotSomeone]

They had small incursions, little territorial fights, the Nords, specifically Ivar, brought items SPECIFICALLY designed for war. Although the Lnu did want their stuff, they were happy to trade, whether it be through intermediary or direct means. The cultivation of farming, crops, and livestock DO NOT mean that war is necessary. Rather than trying to prove me wrong, remember that the shaman was only able to gather that large group of tribesmen AFTER the unveiling of the sword, and subsequent attack on the Shaman. The only reason why they are attacking and sacking the Nords are again, WEAPONS AND TOOLS OF WAR. Even in the previous chapters most of them do not care about the sickness, the warnings, the signs, the food, but seek WEAPONS. War is not a constant, we do not have "war" in our genes. War is perpetuated by incompetent leaders, people finding faults with pointless differences, or dire need of resources/land.

You're missing the point.
It's not about IF Ivar was responsible or not for the escalation of the conflict - he very much was.
My point is that, even if Ivar did not exist, war here would have happened, if not with the Lnu then with another tribe, if not for swords then because of something else.
And I don't make my point because I believe humans are warmongers and "We have war in our genes" (?), I make my point because that's how the story is structured.
"War is bad but inevitable because bad people will always exist" is pretty much what Yukimura Makoto communicates to us.

So just blindly hating on Ivar is missing the whole point. He's not a warmongering savage that brought a sword to the new world because he's a manly manly warrior guy who just has to kill things. He's not a psychopath, he's a product of the world he lives in. His agression is born out of fear and a desire to protect his people, but he is also not a great guy and kind of an asshole.

 

[sixtem]

They had small incursions, little territorial fights, the Nords, specifically Ivar, brought items SPECIFICALLY designed for war. Although the Lnu did want their stuff, they were happy to trade, whether it be through intermediary or direct means. The cultivation of farming, crops, and livestock DO NOT mean that war is necessary. Rather than trying to prove me wrong, remember that the shaman was only able to gather that large group of tribesmen AFTER the unveiling of the sword, and subsequent attack on the Shaman. The only reason why they are attacking and sacking the Nords are again, WEAPONS AND TOOLS OF WAR. Even in the previous chapters most of them do not care about the sickness, the warnings, the signs, the food, but seek WEAPONS. War is not a constant, we do not have "war" in our genes. War is perpetuated by incompetent leaders, people finding faults with pointless differences, or dire need of resources/land.

While I agree in part, I also think it's foolish to view it as entirely the fault of them bringing weapons (and building a fort to continue that thought). We see from the abandoned colony that direct fighting could perhaps have been avoided, but the threat of violence and the forced displacement of the colonists was inevitable. That's still conflict.

Assume there was no sword and no fort. The epidemic would still have started and the Lnu would, quite reasonably, try to force the colonists out. We see from Einar that the main colony would not have fled and what began as attempts to scare the Nords away like at the smaller colony would've turned into open violence.

In his attempt to run away from the realities of the world, Thorfinn has created another doomed version of colonialism.