Propagande : la télé invente des vikings noirs ?

The speaker addresses a post by Jean Messia, which presents five photos of Black actors with blue eyes, stating they portray Vikings in a new Swedish historical series produced by state television. Messia implies that this portrayal is abnormal, incoherent, problematic, and serious, garnering thousands of likes on social media. The speaker notes that Messia's unstated message suggests a form of propaganda, asserting that Vikings could not have been Black and that public television is deliberately promoting misleading images, thereby inciting indignation. The speaker aims to explain that beyond the underlying racism, Messia's post suggests a broader propaganda effort. Many people react to Messia's claims, assuming his indignation is well-founded. However, the speaker emphasizes the importance of verifying what Messia implies, as his statements rely on unstated presuppositions. Upon investigation, the images in question are found to be from a 2023 program titled "The Stone Age circa 14500 B.C. - 3700 B.C." This documentary focuses on prehistoric populations of Northern Europe, long before the Viking Age, which spanned from the 8th to the 11th centuries. The program specifically examines human groups in Scandinavia after the retreat of glacial ice, starting from the Mesolithic period, thus having no connection to Vikings. Regarding the appearance of humans during this prehistoric era, ancient genetic evidence provides answers. Western European hunter-gatherer populations often exhibited a combination of traits that are counterintuitive today: dark skin, light eyes, and dark hair. The best-documented example is Cheddar Man, a Mesolithic individual from the British Isles. Genomic analysis confirms his dark skin pigmentation and light eyes. The speaker explains that Cheddar Man was not an anomaly. Large-scale analysis of ancient DNA shows that genetic variants associated with light skin became frequent in Europe relatively late, influenced by Neolithic migrations and selective pressures. Early European populations of the Paleolithic and Mesolithic periods predominantly carried alleles associated with dark pigmentation, with a gradual transition to lighter complexions over subsequent millennia. This transition is linked to the need for sunlight exposure to produce vitamin D in northern latitudes, where lighter skin offers a selective advantage by allowing more radiation to penetrate. Conversely, darker skin in sunnier regions like Africa provides protection against UV rays. Therefore, a period of transition was necessary as human ancestors, originally from Africa, were dark-skinned. The documentary in question discusses the period before this transition. In Scandinavia, these dynamics reflect a complex migratory history, with groups from the south and east meeting and mixing in territories freed by ice. This process largely contributed to modern Europeans, further enriched by Neolithic contributions from Anatolia and steppe populations. The history of human lineage is complex. The speaker also clarifies a point of vocabulary: the documentary never mentions Vikings. The term "Viking" does not denote a homogeneous people or a biological identity; rather, it refers to an activity. Vikings were Scandinavians engaged in maritime expeditions, conquest, pillaging, or trade between the 8th and 11th centuries, belonging to societies that had already undergone millennia of demographic and cultural transformations, long after the prehistoric figures depicted in the documentary. Using the term "Viking" to describe prehistoric populations is an anachronism. Presenting dark-skinned individuals in a prehistoric Northern European context is scientifically coherent and supported by current knowledge. However, understanding this requires moving beyond an imaginary, timeless, and idealized image of Vikings as tall, beautiful, white, and blonde, which the speaker labels as intellectual laziness. Over 10,000 years ago, all human populations had dark skin. Messia's tweet is thus based on ignorance and essentialism, serving a specific agenda. The speaker suggests that Messia's indignation, choosing this topic over more serious global issues, fits into the "culture wars" narrative, which seeks to denounce an ideological alteration of a "natural" past. However, scientific data describes a complex, changing, and diverse past that does not align with mythological or national narratives. The speaker argues that personal mythologies and national narratives should not be privileged over evolving scientific knowledge about the world's true past. Messia's reaction is indicative of an ideological obfuscation strategy. His tweet presents scientifically accurate images as suspicious while imposing a simplified, identitarian view of the past. The goal is to provoke public indignation and anger against a program that provides scientifically validated knowledge. The speaker expresses understanding for those who are indignant because they genuinely believe the program is misleading, attributing this to a lack of public dissemination of these scientific facts. This situation is compared to creationists who misunderstand scientific explanations of Earth's history. The speaker warns against political discourses, regardless of their origin, that attack science, stating that such attacks are never for the common good. These discourses invariably aim to defend a personal, situated "truth" at the expense of better-established scientific truth. The speaker highlights "Brandolini's Law," noting that Messia's few words can create chaos that takes much longer to explain and correct. The speaker encourages explaining to those who share this indignation, without calling them foolish or malicious, that they are simply misinformed and should not be swayed by false narratives.