Vinland Saga - Ch. 215 - Thousand Year Voyage Part 24

[SuperOniichan]

Has anybody suggested coming to Vinland was a good idea?

So you can't provide an example. "People who genuinelly don't understand beatings hurt" wouldn't be morally responsible, so I'm right. Those people don't exist, so I'm right. Your not being misunderstood; you choose to argue by analogy, use a terrible and nonsensical analogy, then claim that I'm ignoring your real point, when the analogy was the only point you made against genuine ignorance absolving blame.

The point isn't if all people think alike. The point is if ideological thinkers can overcome the material forces which push broader communities into conflict. Generally, they cannot. Cultural similarity and Thorfinns eloquence didn't work in Europe and wasn't going to work here, regardless of cultural difference.

I think Thorfinn did come to an agreement, then they all started dying of disease and wanting metal and decided to kill them. The problem ultimately wasn't a linguistic or cultural barrier; the war started for (apart from the disease, I guess) broadly similar material reasons for which they would have faced attack trying to start farming in Europe.

Thats the tragedy. Thorfinn went across the ocean but human nature followed.

Dude, do you understand what a metaphor or conditional example is? And yes, some cultures have accepted violence as acceptable for centuries. For example, in Japan it was considered normal to cut off the head of a peasant who accidentally touched your sword. Imagine if a samurai came to London and killed a British peasant with the same logic. Did his cultural ignorance give him any justification? According to your logic, this is simply impossible, because as a Westerner you understand that killing people for such stupid things is absurd. But SUDDENLY in Japan of that time there were different morals and views on morality and violence. And you cannot say that the samurai was objectively wrong even outside of English laws, since now we also judge this from the position of modern morality. Not to mention that modern morality is largely based on Western philosophy.

Have you ever heard the saying: “When a stone is thrown to a fool, he looks at the stone. When a stone is thrown to a wise man, he looks at the one who threw it" ? You were so carried away by the argument with the metaphor that you didn’t even think for a minute about what the argument actually started about and what I wanted to convey to you. And the saddest thing is that you are clearly not autistic and this is not a matter of fundamental misunderstanding that not everything needs to be taken literally.

Sorry, but now you're contradicting yourself. Because by taking my example too literally and stubbornly, you began to actually deny the very fact of different values and outlooks on life, assuming that what is obvious and logical for you is the same for others. Just because you didn’t like the example, putting the letter more important than the meaning. And what’s even funnier is that in the end you had to deny the very fact of our misunderstanding and dispute...in our dispute, in order to at least somehow explain why we argue if people think the same way and cannot look at things differently. Thus, having blinded yourself by trying to argue about form instead of content, you had to resort to even greater and more complex mental gymnastics in order to defend an already obviously erroneous thesis.

Nobody says that the problem is precisely the cultural or language barrier. This is only part of the problem. Nor should we ignore that in their circumstances they simply could not avoid violence. Even people nowadays are not able to do this. With all the philosophy and modern values. What can we say about the early Middle Ages? But nevertheless, the cultural difference also played a significant role, because what can we talk about a dispute between an Indian and a Viking, if even Viking and Viking cannot agree?

 

[Theozilla]

Now that he's here, he has nowhere else to go. It's this or nothing.

That's not true though. Einar knows very well that he would have had a place to live with Thorfinn and Gudrid's families if they successfully retreated to Iceland. Einar's attachment to Arnheid's village isn't simply a case of survival, it represents his attachment to the ideal of Arnheid he holds in his mind (as the editor's comments at the beginning of the chapter note).

Anyways, the tragedy of Einar's situation is that yes, for someone of his abilities, in that very moment, Einar effectively had no choice, to defend his life he had resort to lethal violence, but the other half of the tragedy is that Einar's prior choices are also what led him to being in the situation where he "had no choice".

 

[talathar]

Dude, do you understand what a metaphor or conditional example is? And yes, some cultures have accepted violence as acceptable for centuries. For example, in Japan it was considered normal to cut off the head of a peasant who accidentally touched your sword.

Thinking something is acceptable and genuinely not understanding the results of your actions are two different things. They are not analogous. Sorry, but your argument seems to misunderstand me. People aren't responsible for consequences they don't forsee, regardless of the merits of cultural relativism. Don't blame me for choosing a bad metaphor and then an irrelevant argument.

You can find plenty of places with intermingled cultural groups who are not in a state of violence. People can do this, but they weren't going to in the material and social circumstances of the middle ages pretty much anywhere. That was true if locals were Linu or Vikings. As to who said the cultural gulf was the main issue vs material ones?

but when you come to foreign lands you need to be prepared for the fact that the locals will perceive you with hostility.

you will see that I was talking about what if the people of Vinland were Europeans and could morally understand Thorfin.

then what could be expected from a completely alien and in no way connected with European culture? Do you really not understand that with such a straightforward understanding of my words, my point becomes even more obvious? Or do you think that if Torfin could not come to an agreement with his neighbors, then completely strangers and new people will easily understand his ideas?

You did this whole time?

You suggested, and in your long cultural relativism still suggest, that being foreign and culturally distant was a driving factor behind the breakdown in relations. That the conflict is because they are foreign people in a foreign land.

I suggest that the main factor is that material circumstances cause war. Thats the whole point of the contrast with Canutes philosophy. The manga before coming to Vinland made clear that Thorfinns philosophy was hopeless in Europe. That was the whole point of entire arcs. And, indeed, both the Linu leaders and Thorfinn do understand each others positions, but that didn't matter in the face of the wider communities material desires and needs.

Everyone agrees its a tragedy. Nobody is saying "yay Einar killing people, so cool". The disagreement is we don't think the failure is due to special circumstances of cultural distance from being in Vinland. We think Thorfinns ideals were doomed to fail wherever he did it within the era he lived in.

That's not true though. Einar knows very well that he would have had a place to live with Thorfinn and Gudrid's families if they successfully retreated to Iceland. Einar's attachment to Arnheid's village isn't simply a case of survival, it represents his attachment to the ideal of Arnheid he holds in his mind (as the editor's comments at the beginning of the chapter note).

This is a fair point though. There is a failure by Einar vs Thorfinns ideals as he, at least, has other options. OTOH thats not true for the whole colony (Iceland has pretty low food productivity) and even if Einar had seen things this way, he still would have had to fight right now because he had no option to leave until, possibly, now and the arrival of the boats.

 

[SuperOniichan]

That's not true though. Einar knows very well that he would have had a place to live with Thorfinn and Gudrid's families if they successfully retreated to Iceland. Einar's attachment to Arnheid's village isn't simply a case of survival, it represents his attachment to the ideal of Arnheid he holds in his mind (as the editor's comments at the beginning of the chapter note).

Perhaps the author wants to show that violence cannot be eliminated from a person forever, since even with reason, we are still living beings with emotions, attachments, etc.

Thinking something is acceptable and genuinely not understanding the results of your actions are two different things. They are not analogous. Sorry, but your argument seems to misunderstand me. People aren't responsible for consequences they don't forsee, regardless of the merits of cultural relativism. Don't blame me for choosing a bad metaphor and then an irrelevant argument.

You can find plenty of places with intermingled cultural groups who are not in a state of violence. People can do this, but they weren't going to in the material and social circumstances of the middle ages pretty much anywhere. That was true if locals were Linu or Vikings. As to who said the cultural gulf was the main issue vs material ones?



You did this whole time?

You suggested, and in your long cultural relativism still suggest, that being foreign and culturally distant was a driving factor behind the breakdown in relations. That the conflict is because they are foreign people in a foreign land.

I suggest that the main factor is that material circumstances cause war. Thats the whole point of the contrast with Canutes philosophy. The manga before coming to Vinland made clear that Thorfinns philosophy was hopeless in Europe. That was the whole point of entire arcs. And, indeed, both the Linu leaders and Thorfinn do understand each others positions, but that didn't matter in the face of the wider communities material desires and needs.

Everyone agrees its a tragedy. Nobody is saying "yay Einar killing people, so cool". The disagreement is we don't think the failure is due to special circumstances of cultural distance from being in Vinland. We think Thorfinns ideals were doomed to fail wherever he did it within the era he lived in.

I'm done. If you are unironically going to endlessly argue for the sake of arguing just to keep a good face on a bad game and convince yourself that morality and the worldview are universal, and any differences in views and conflicts are exceptions and violations of the “general truth,” then so be it. It seems that I have once again forgotten the words of Rousseau that trying to enlighten some people is like trying to illuminate the hollow of an Owl.

 

[Eighty-six]

The key problem here is that the mechanism for justifying violence itself is flawed and can trigger very serious consequences for everyone, even if technically your actions made sense.

I agree with that, but that's not what's being discussed, which is that you equated what's clearly self-defense with unilaterally provoked and fatally offensive action without acknowledging that the only option left when rejecting to self-defend against the latter is to be killed.

And did coming to Vinland, where people with even more distant morals live, really help?

In the first place, you charged that the Europeans would have been able to morally understand Thorfinn. Not only did they not, but his morals were diametrically opposed to theirs, and that's why he sought to try to establish a new civilization in a place as far away as Vinland.

The Lnu aren't more bloodthirsty than the Europeans that Thorfinn's party left. They may even be less so given that their religion doesn't glorify violence, even if they're covetous over technology novel to them. The current conflict is happening over very specific reasons that don't have to do with cultural differences which were already being diplomatically mediated.

They expected to see a kinder version of the inhabitants of Europe--

They didn't have any such expectation. Thorfinn had to explicitly ban weapons, because a sizable section of the party traveling to Vinland didn't have such an expectation. He hypothesized that they could engender a peaceful society among themselves and smooth over relations with other civilizations without violence via establishing economic interdependency. While the Nords' way of life affected the land in ways that offended the Lnu's sensibilities, they were at least able to establish stable communication without being immediately chased out.

That fragile peace dissipated because that one shaman-- who already actively distrusted them-- fearmongered about the Nords after a drug trip, and then plotted to engender war sentiment at the same time as one of the Nords sought to. And then on top of that, the tribe suffered a plague that the Nords unwittingly imported. A plague that claimed the life of their chief and put power in the elder who wanted to drive the Nords away in the first place, and used the plague as a casus belli.

Perhaps the author wants to show that violence cannot be eliminated from a person forever, since even with reason, we are still living beings with emotions, attachments, etc.

That's the thesis exactly, which is why it doesn't make sense to suppose that this attempt would have gone on better with Europeans.

 

[SuperOniichan]

I agree with that, but that's not what's being discussed, which is that you equated what's clearly self-defense with unilaterally provoked and fatally offensive action without acknowledging that the only option left when rejecting to self-defend against the latter is to be killed.


In the first place, you charged that the Europeans would have been able to morally understand Thorfinn. Not only did they not, but his morals were diametrically opposed to theirs, and that's why he sought to try to establish a new civilization in a place as far away as Vinland.

The Lnu aren't more bloodthirsty than the Europeans that Thorfinn's party left. They may even be less so, even if they're covetous over technology novel to them. The current conflict is happening over very specific reasons that don't have to do with cultural differences which were already being diplomatically mediated.


They didn't have any such expectation. Thorfinn had to explicitly ban weapons, because a sizable section of the party traveling to Vinland didn't have such an expectation. He hypothesized that they could engender a peaceful society among themselves and smooth over relations with other civilizations without violence via establishing economic interdependency. While the Nords' way of life affected the land in ways that offended the Lnu's sensibilities, they were at least able to establish stable communication without being immediately being chased out.

That fragile peace dissipated because that one shaman-- who already actively distrusted them-- fearmongered about the Nords after a drug trip, and then plotted to engender war sentiment at the same time as one of the Nords sought to. And then on top of that, the tribe suffered a plague that the Nords unwittingly imported. A plague that claimed the life of their chief and put power in the elder who wanted to drive the Nords away in the first place, and used the plague as a casus belli.

I'm not going to debate this crap a second time, especially when you're essentially making the same arguments in form over substance, just in different words and without the passive-aggressive rudeness of that guy. Especially when I have already explained the essence of my comparison or arguments several times when you initially misunderstood them, but that dude decided to make it personal, because in the minds of some people, even admitting a small wrong is unacceptable and harms their pride.

 

[talathar]

I'm done. If you are unironically going to endlessly argue for the sake of arguing just to keep a good face on a bad game and convince yourself that morality and the worldview are universal, and any differences in views and conflicts are exceptions and violations of the “general truth,” then so be it. It seems that I have once again forgotten the words of Rousseau that trying to enlighten some people is like trying to illuminate the hollow of an Owl.

I'm sorry you feel that way. What I said is that they aren't morally responsible for making the Linu ill because they had no way to know that would happen. Thats not related to world view or culture; I was talking about (in this case scientific) genuine ignorance meaning you aren't responsible. If you've taken this as a statement about cultural moral views, thats a misunderstanding on your part, because the two are plainly different things.

Thats quite unrelated to how different cultures have different world views (a point I agree on because its obviously true, but don't think was key to the conflict here which has fundamentally material motives on both sides).

 

[SuperOniichan]

I'm sorry you feel that way. What I said is that they aren't morally responsible for making the Linu ill because they had no way to know that would happen. Thats not related to world view or culture; I was talking about (in this case scientific) genuine ignorance meaning you aren't responsible. If you've taken this as a statement about cultural moral views, thats a misunderstanding on your part, because the two are plainly different things.

Thats quite unrelated to how different cultures have different world views (a point I agree on because its obviously true, but don't think was key to the conflict here which has fundamentally material motives on both sides).

Well, if you had carefully read my comment instead of an argument about an argument, you would have noticed that I said that they were not to blame for the disease, since in principle they could not have known about this danger. That is why I said that the lack of knowledge that is not available to everyone cannot be compared with personal ignorance that can be avoided.

You see, as I said, we misunderstood each other. A classic misunderstanding, which you only intensified by complicating the argument instead of stopping and figuring out whether we understood each other correctly. My example of different cultures was not intended to universally explain their conflict. I used it to show that just because you started a conflict out of ignorance does not absolve you of responsibility for the conflict. Issues of land, food and resources in general are outside of moral issues, so their necessity can be called universal. And naturally, this will cause conflict where they are lacking. People even in the 21st century cannot solve this through non-violent action, although we are trying.

Of course, I apologize if I was being passive-aggressive myself, but as you can see, small misunderstandings very easily become big ones if you don't try to resolve them.

 

[talathar]

Well, if you had carefully read my comment instead of an argument about an argument, you would have noticed that I said that they were not to blame for the disease, since in principle they could not have known about this danger. That is why I said that the lack of knowledge that is not available to everyone cannot be compared with personal ignorance that can be avoided.

I'm sorry but you wrote:

Ignorance does not save you from responsibility

In direct and immediate response to me saying they weren't morally responsible for the disease because of ignorance. I'm not sure theres much to misunderstand in that line. I'm happy our disagreement is now less fundamental and is just a reasonable one on weightings of causes that I am happy to leave as is.

 

[SuperOniichan]

I'm sorry but you wrote:

In direct and immediate response to me saying they weren't morally responsible for the disease because of ignorance. I'm not sure theres much to misunderstand in that line. I'm happy our disagreement is now less fundamental and is just a reasonable one on weightings of causes that I am happy to leave as is.

English is not my first language, so perhaps we did not understand each other's intentions. Did you talk about ignorance only in the context of illness? I thought you meant general ignorance in dealing with locals. I think the issue of ignorance in the medical field is quite vague and a lot depends on the availability of information about the disease, the availability of doctors and treatments.

 

[talathar]

English is not my first language, so perhaps we did not understand each other's intentions. Did you talk about ignorance only in the context of illness? I thought you meant general ignorance in dealing with locals.

Yes, that makes sense and is fair enough. I'm happy to agree it was a misunderstanding between the concepts of genuine ignorance and cultural norms. Such things happen in long threads.

 

[dichotomo]

good god

 

[SuperOniichan]

Yes, that makes sense and is fair enough. I'm happy to agree it was a misunderstanding between the concepts of genuine ignorance and cultural norms. Such things happen in long threads.

Ah, then my apologies. I get belligerent very easily when I feel like people are arguing with me for the sake of arguing. But since we misunderstood each other, I can’t help but note that you were smarter, having tried before me to go back to the beginning and look at the reasons for the dispute.

 

[Jackist]

Eek? Eek??? After the half dozen Eek my eyebrows were raised. And suddenly they get drawn cartoony and childish while the Vikings, who were literally defending the woman and children (who are being targeted in boats), the vikings who were so dehumanized, treated like a metal weapon treasure chest, who were treated like cattle being slaughtered for days suddenly are dark and in shadow and all evilllllll. No, it's not going to work... right...It will work which is the worst part, and the cycle never ends

 

[Gem-Bug]

Brutal chapter in a lot of ways

 

[Snuffsaid]

I wonder what the symbolism is behind Einar willingly giving the Lnu the spear tip, the metal part he specifically came to Einar for.

Like, he's fighting in defense because they want their loot, namely the metal tools they have. He manages to incapacitate the attacker, lethally. Then he goes in the for the kill, brutally, and breaks his spear in half (showing off his impressive strength once again). Einar realizes then that although he had little choice to defend himself or not, he made a choice to finish the guy off brutally. Not only brutally, but also breaking the very thing the Lnu came for and basically giving it to him. So cool, so interesting, so tragic

 

[Maplefield]

I feel like a Einar's gonna change from this

He's leveling up to Zweinar

 

[SpiritusNox]

Not that there had been much doubt for a while, but - seems pretty clear by now that the colony is going to fail. I don't see how either side will find the stomach for sustained diplomacy after the casualties they've taken in this battle, and as long as Thorfinn draws breath, he will do whatever he has to do to keep the colony from inflicting the scale of brutality it would take to maintain their foothold through force.

Only question in my mind is whether the colony is exterminated or simply retreats.

 

[Theozilla]

This is a fair point though. There is a failure by Einar vs Thorfinns ideals as he, at least, has other options. OTOH thats not true for the whole colony (Iceland has pretty low food productivity) and even if Einar had seen things this way, he still would have had to fight right now because he had no option to leave until, possibly, now and the arrival of the boats.

Iceland isn't so low on food productivity that it wouldn't be able to handle the return of less total people than who originally left Iceland only a year or two ago. While returning and readjustment certainly wouldn't be a comfortable or easy process, none of the Norse settlers' very survival depends on being able to still live in the Vinland village specifically. Like there is a reason we are calling the Norse settlers and not refugees, their choice to come and try to settle Vinland was ultimately a voluntary endeavor and not a case of being forced out of their original homes.

And yeah, at the moment Einar is in a situation where he effectively has no choice but to fight for his survival, but the point of the narrative is that Einar's prior choices are partially responsible for leading to be in a situation where he "has no choice".

 

[SpiritusNox]

That's not true though. Einar knows very well that he would have had a place to live with Thorfinn and Gudrid's families if they successfully retreated to Iceland. Einar's attachment to Arnheid's village isn't simply a case of survival, it represents his attachment to the ideal of Arnheid he holds in his mind (as the editor's comments at the beginning of the chapter note).

Anyways, the tragedy of Einar's situation is that yes, for someone of his abilities, in that very moment, Einar effectively had no choice, to defend his life he had resort to lethal violence, but the other half of the tragedy is that Einar's prior choices are also what led him to being in the situation where he "had no choice".

Yeah, in previous chapters Einar himself was - before the chaos and terror of battle set in - fully aware that he's actively choosing war here, not being immutably forced into it. Einar could just leave. Even if the rest of the colonists couldn't be convinced, Einar has the power to choose for himself not to kill. He could flee back to iceland, try to flee somewhere else in Vinland, engage in desperate diplomacy with Thorfinn - any number of things. Those might or might not have changed the fate of the colony as a whole, but he had every opportunity to choose a different role for himself and simply didn't, because the thought of walking away from the ideal he had in his head was simply too painful for him.

This doesn't make him a monster or even a bad guy per se, but the notion that there were no other paths open to Einar is simply apologism.