Warning Signs that your child might be a Goth...

>Sings songs of conquest, while drinking mead from a horn.
>Insists that the bedroom window have a point at the top.
>Constantly sharpening spearpoints.
>Makes blood offerings to Wotan.
>Talks in a language that is "sort of like German".
>Voted most likely to sack Rome for the High School yearbook.
>Signs the yearbook in runes.
>Brings home a freshly-killed deer every Friday.
>Never tires of almost-raw venison for Friday dinner, but won't eat vegetables.
>Thinks that Vandals are a bunch of sissies.
>Depending upon age, lords it over Pomerania, Dacia, Ukraine, Spain, or Italy.

Quote:

---

Never tires of almost-raw venison for Friday dinner, but won't eat vegetables.

---

Guilty as charged...;)

Sure you mistyped "Goth" for "Viking"? :P

I think that is refering to the germanic tribe called the goths, or visigoths.

vikings generally refers to nordic aka. scandinavian peoples.

This is especially in reference to time of the viking people during the medieval ages when they invaded the britons, as the word viking in norse means raider.

by "the britons" I mean most especially england and the surrounding islands, but in reference to these people I actually mean just the area that was northen Rome (the area of europe between present day Italy and Scandinavia.) These people were descendants of the Romans and the indigninous tribes of the area, including the previously mentioned goths, whom in turn where most likely descendants of the vikings. I point this out ironically, because of the conflict between the groups. But it's apparent that the two groups did not know each other prior to the viking invasion, and despite thier probably common ancestory, were not directly related two each other; As I said before, the britons being of mixed ethnic groups and having long ago ceased to be in touch with viking culture.

The Romans did not have contact with the nordic vikings, but they would have lumped them together with the north tribes and called all of them Barbarians, which to them meant anyone that was not Roman. They took this word from the Greeks, which meant anyone that did not speak greek, and did not really refer to tribal people, who were mostly unknown to the Greeks.

Interestingly enough, the western greek islands/states considered themselves to be the Greeks, and they called the eastern inhabitants Barbarians, who were most likely related to the people of what is refered to today as the middle-east. When eastern greece was unified and allied with western greece, they refered to the entire area as Greece, and all called themselves Greeks, and then the term Barbarian was used to refer mostly to the middle-easterns. Again Interestingly, contrary to the former situation, other people that were conquered by the Greeks, and thus became a part of greece, and greeks themselves in language and culture and politics, were still called Barbarians- the term that stuck long after and was still used by the Romans after they conquered the Greeks, and who were themselves actually Barbarians.

Once again, I find it ironic that as civilization spread north through Europe, the invading people regarded the indiginous (aka. the first inhabitants) as primative and less racially pure (as is evident in the term Barbarian which was not meant as complimentary expression, and the conotations still stick with it's uage today), when in fact those peoples (the barbarians) were the one's with the culture and history and race dating back to thier foundation, NOT the former group that was espousing that ideal- seemingly ignorant of thier own heritage.

Odd they'd mention Ukraine. Agree with Voldta to a point. That could only refer to the varangians (eastern vikings).

Jackie T