Posted on 02/01/2005 7:49:56 PM PST by franksolich
One wishes such distortions of history would be as big an issue in this country, as it appears to be over there in Norway, the Nebraska of Europe.
"Ping" for Norway.
Hmmm. To expand this "Norway ping list," I guess I will have to offer free "subscriptions" to other ping lists.
In other words, the twisted history and distorted comparisons were merely to help the chillruns think. Right.
I liked the final comment, where the students insisted the textbooks be accurate. Not a frequent demand among kids.
When kids get it so right, the world's going to be okay. Those kids are to be commended.
You're probably too young to remember this, but there was a time--the early and mid-1970s--when the Encyclopedia Britannica omitted any references at all to the Russian invasion of 1968, in its section on "Czechoslovakia."
I'm old enough to remember WW II ration coupons as well as the way that Soviet treatment of neighbors was pretty much glossed over by some.
Uh-huh, and while many spoke about the repressions in the Soviet Union, the mainstream news media ignored them.
This was a sore spot for some of the older Russians and Ukrainians I met there, during the early 1990s--not that they wanted anything from us, but that they found it exasperating that the genocide of Lenin and Stalin was known in the west, but ignored. They KNEW we knew what was going on, and were bothered that no one seemed to care.
Hey, they take their history seriesly.
Well, I see that Norway is celebrating its 100th anniversary of its liberation from Sweden this year, in June to be specific.
I read a short brief "history" of the event (of 1905), and man, there must have been really bad blood between the two.
What I cannot figure out--of course, I have not yet looked it up--is that Norway used to belong to Denmark, but then after Waterloo in 1815, was given to Sweden. I wonder why that happened, unless Denmark had found Norway to be a quagmire. (Joke, tomjohn77)
The other thing that confuses me is that the first king of Norway was named Haakon VII--hey, hold on a second; what happened to the preceding six Haakons?
Norway was an independent country for some centuries before they joined Denmark and later Sweden.
But why was Norway given to Denmark, and then to Sweden?
Am I correct in assuming that since Sweden had been allied with the Duke of Wellington, and Denmark with Napoleon Bonaparte, and since the British beat the short corpulent Corsican, Norway was taken away from Denmark as punishment, and given to Sweden as a gift?
it all started around 1250 if I remember right. Norway, Sweden and Denmark went into a union togheter. Sweden went out of that union, but Norway did not. Then Norway and Denmark sided with Napoleon and as punishment Norway was given to Sweden and we lost Iceland to Denmark. Something like that. Its a little bit complicated and some years since I read about it. We have also lost land to Sweden, but thats around 300 years ago. Danes also lost some land to Sweden
I find it amusing, that the "peace-loving" Swedes--not lately, but in their past history--were notorious land-grabbers.
Swedes in America are some of the nicest people one can hope to meet (most of them in Minnesota, Iowa, and Wisconsin), but their relatives in the Old Country must have been something else.
By the way, just out of curiosity, for future reference--"long term planning" here--how difficult is it to get to Svalbard, from the civilized world?
Is there any history on that island?
I am not being facetious in saying this, but I prefer cold weather. If I had my druthers, I would spend winters in Nebraska, and summers on Hudson's Bay.....which turns most people cold, but one cannot help being the way he is.
You get to Svalbard by boat and plane from Norway. Up there you can watch Polar bears and go on Snow scooter tours. Its an University up there too. Actually the most effiecient coal mine in the world is located on Svalbard.
No way, I want GOOD lutefisk and lefse.
No more; no less.
My family and I did lefse. My old co-workers and I did lutefisk.
Great combo. I've been without and missing for about 6 years.
Yes, that's right - 6 years deprivation of good lutefisk and lefse. Bought Mrs. Olson's lefse online at our our local on-line grocery store. NOT the same! It was rectangle, LOL!! Lutefisk was a whole 'nother story. My lutefisk recall: grandma baked it; mom boiled it in a net. My pal I talked of earlier, used the microwave.
And here I haven't indulged - in awhile. Enjoy for me!
Well, sir, I'm going to check out Svalbard, for a potential future trip--but not next week or next month, or anything, but just some time in the indefinite vague future, whenever I get the wanderlust again.
The climate should suit me fine, in the winter.
I spent three winters in England, one in Scotland, one in France, one in Ireland, and an entire year wandering around the former Soviet Union, where it was mostly winter all year round anyway.
When it comes to "cold," nothing is colder than New Jersey in the winter (where I spent two winters)--Free Republicans from Minnesota and Michigan might insist that their states are cold, but Minnesota and Michigan are like Miami Beach, when compared with standing on the sea-shore of New Jersey in the middle of January.
That reminds me, madam; I suppose I better check to be sure there's non-fish on the diet, in Svalbard.
By the way, I finally got the "profile" in a legible font, madam, thanks to someone on the DUmmie FUnnies.
One has to do this "< >" thingamajig.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.