Objectivity? ... huh, anyone?

This is an update on my nerd status. I am getting nerdier by the minute. I am reading my schoolbooks and enjoying it. Actually it goes beyond that. I was actually laughing histerically today over my "educational" reading. It is especially the case when reading a book by Alfred P. Smythe called "Warlords and Holy Men; Scotland 800 - 1000 Ad" and I don't think he wrote it to entertain me, which makes it even more funnier. He really likes to call the people barbarians, no matter who he is talking about, basically everthing that happened before the 1950s is probably in his mind rater primitive and some version of barbarism that was going on.
Today, I was especially focusing on a chapter he wrote about the Vikings (WHY-kings), prettily named as "Vikings: Warriors of the Western Sea". If I didn't know better, and I don't, I would almost think two people wrote the chapter, because the introduction and the conclusion of the chapter are so bizarre. The main argument has merit and is a quite interesting read but it is the intro and conclusion that set me off today. See the following statements taken from the chapter.

'The images of Adomnán reflect the gentleness of a cultivated Classical Christian
civilisation, while the cut-throats and beer-vomiting heroes of the skalds
belong to a world of brutal barbarism.'

He goes on;

'The burning of the monastic library on Iona for instance, might have dealt a
greater blow to western civilisation than the destruction of the entire town ot
Nantes ...'

And on he goes;

'The Vikings returned again and again to centers such as Iona, which in western
Christian eyes were sanctuaries where it was sacrilege to spoil, but which to
the Vikings were shop windows crammed with the loot of centuries'.

No wonder we like to come to Glasgow on shoppin trips. Who would have thought that history books would or could contain such entertaining phrases. Granted this book was published 25 years ago and a lot has happened in the past few years. Sadly that is termed progress which means we don't get gems like this printed as often as we would possibly like.
Although one of his ideas has merit and really ought to be researched further through literature. We know that before the Vikings came to Iceland as settlers there were a few monks sitting around twiddling their tumbs on a rock and then they disappeared from there. That's not the interesting part of it. The Irish monks liked to go rowing about finding an island here and there to use for their meditation and such and Smythe presents the idea that the route to Iceland was well known by the Irish monks and that it was by their help the Vikings found Iceland and settled it. The Irish were probably very happy to finally be rid of the Vikings so they advertised an island in the north. (My thoughts at least). But it could have happened like this and should be explored further. Although that is as far as I am going with my taking Smythe too seriously in this, because in his conclusion of the chapter he sort of states that it wouldn't surprise him the least if the Irish had actullay been the first to find America as well and told the Vikings all about that too.!!!
Well, it shouldn't surprise anyone. He spent the last thirty pages going on and on about how the heck barbarians like the Vikings even managed to put a letter to a page anyway so why shouldn't he wonder how they managed to get to Iceland or let alone America without the help of the 'Classical Christian civilisation'.
His chapter concludes with these words.

'The study of Old Icelandic records presents us with a long line of apparent
historical accidents which require an explanation.'

In a bizarre way I like this guy, he really made my day!