The Vikings Discover America Summary

1641 Words7 Pages
Eyewitness to History’s “The Vikings Discover America, ca. 1000” lacks the features of a rigorously checked academic source, resulting in missing facts, diminished accuracy and other academic transgressions. The article skimps on historical detail, suggesting disinterest in the “unexciting” facts. As such, the article uses inappropriate terms that are often anachronistic and biased, pandering towards the enjoyment of the audience. The article is also missing key structural details, demonstrating its lack of authority. It specifically ignores the historical context of the First Nation encounters with the Norse, taking away a complex level of social interaction. And finally, it fails to engage in, or acknowledge any debates, creating a false…show more content…
All of this, “The Vikings Discover America, ca. 1000” ignores, resulting in an article with little academic merit. The article begins with “The Hell's Angels motorcycle gang on steroids - an appropriate description of the Viking raiders ...” Academic articles do not use such anachronistic terms because these comparisons are often inaccurate and simplistic. “The Vikings Discover America, ca. 1000” ignores the fact that “Viking” was a job title, and that they were explorers not just a burly group of men in leather. Anachronisms simplify and misrepresent historical terms. Eyewitness to History also provides an exciting tale of sea adventure. “The Viking's reliance on the sea as their avenue of attack and escape motivated them to develop seaworthy ships and reliable navigational techniques with which they could travel vast distances over open water. These advantages enabled them to travel the cold, treacherous ocean to the west…” Daniel Odess et al. describe a similar situation in their article entitled “Skraeling: First Peoples of Helluland, Markland, and Vinland”. “The increased sea ice meant that travel between Greenland and Iceland became more hazardous, and the lower temperatures reduced the productivity of Norse farms. These changes probability made travel to the north and west of the Norse settlements more difficult.” The first article mentions only the Viking attacks, and calls the water “treacherous”, whereas the academic article mentions the Norse farms and uses the word “hazardous”. Eyewitness to History chooses to use words and phrases that indulge in the reader’s sense of adventure and excitement rather than terms that are accurately descriptive such as those in Daniel Odess et al.’s. The type of language Eyewitness to History uses is more suited to a fictional adventure novel than to historical articles. It provides an inaccurate picture of the
Open Document