Comments on: Continuing Discussions on Pagan Definitions

By: Great Kerfuffalo Rising « Pagan Godspell

Great Kerfuffalo Rising « Pagan Godspell — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 15:39:45 +0000

[...] know, I know, Pagani. There’s a kerfuffle afoot. I have actually been kind of paying attention, I swear. I just….well….frankly, [...]

By: Gwendolyn Reece

Gwendolyn Reece — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 03:35:58 +0000

For example, a top spiritual priority for indigenous people is having the bones of their ancestors returned from the museums. As a witch who directly communicates with spirits, you don’t have to explain this to me! I want the bones of their ancestors returned and I’m desperately hoping that there are still people who have the skills to help those spirits return to a harmonious state! Hell…I want Mummies returned, I don’t care if the Egyptians don’t want them back! Find dominate society people who think like that.

I just think that we, as pagans, tend to GET these kinds of things…and many more. I am hoping that we can start having the real honest discussions, realize we do think a lot alike and often have some shared core values, and figure out how to stand in solidarity with each other when we have common cause.

By: Gwendolyn Reece

Gwendolyn Reece — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 03:35:40 +0000

Having observed and talked to various people, I think trying to establish some bridges between Pagan traditions and other indigenous traditions is a very, very young initiative and is mixed in its initial success. I hope this attempt continues because what I definitely saw opportunities for unity when I spoke to people from numerous backgrounds [or I should say, those representatives of the indigenous traditions that were the spiritual leaders…there were a number of people at the Parliament who were political people, not spiritual leaders and didn’t come from that perspective]. The truth is there are significant differences in practices, but we Pagans often tend to think a whole lot more like other indigenous people than people in dominant society. I’m not sure that other indigenous groups are ready to hear that or to believe it, but I think it will gradually become more obvious as we are able to have real dialogues. [Continued again...sorry]

By: Gwendolyn Reece

Gwendolyn Reece — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 03:33:58 +0000

Iam ineffably privileged to have been able to attend the Parliament, to hear some of the wonderful and inspiring Pagans who presented, and to have had the chance to talk with numerous indigenous elders from a variety of traditions. I do have to say that as soon as anyone tries to give a name to groups of people to describe some common characteristics, there are always a ton of problems. Naming is a treacherous enterprise. It can also be a sacred one because it can help bring unity from diversity. That’s part of the function of the act of naming which, in any tradition that has sound cosmology, is a sacred act. [Continued]

By: Gwendolyn Reece

Gwendolyn Reece — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 02:49:20 +0000

Not that anyone who is not me will read this or care, but I do just want to clarify that I didn't mean the previous post in any way to suggest that the Lakota are not indigenous or that their sacred ways that are based in their current homeland are not every bit as sacred as if they had been their since the dawn of time. Just to agree with Robin that these definitions are inherently difficult and problematic.

By: Apuleius

Apuleius — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 20:02:51 +0000

The French are a pretty interesting case. Almost all of their colonial territories in Africa and the Middle East were in areas that were already Islamic and, therefore, not considered genuinely "Pagan" by the Christians. One exception was Madagascar, where the populace proved to be nearly as ferociously hostile to Christianization and Conquest as the Saxons were back in the day. Madagascar also provides an excellent example of how missionaries served as proxies for the colonial powers that back them. The Protestant missionaries in Madagascar worked for the British, while the Catholics worked for the French. The other main French colonies were in Indochina. The Catholic Encyclopedia article on Indo-China has a long section on the history of missionary work in that region. The resistance to the gospels also proved to be quite strong in Indo-China: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07765a.htm Despite ending up with little to show for it, the French sent tens of thousands of missionaries around the world as part of their empire building. The idea that the French empire was strictly "secular" and that its "mission" was strictly "civilizational" is based on ideology, not on facts. Or at least that is the case made by J.P. Daughton in "An Empire Divided: Religion, Republicanism and the Making of French Colonialism": http://books.google.com/books?id=OC3OHQ0SygYC

By: Khalila RedBird

Khalila RedBird — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 16:25:01 +0000

To all the discussion of "Christianity" did this or that, I offer a different point of view. I suggest that a religion is often used by people with a particular agenda as a tool to accomplish that agenda, whether the religion and the agenda have anything tying them together or not. Christianity itself was used, in the 4th century, as a tool to bind together what became the Holy Roman Empire — getting people under your control through the influence of their religion works very well. Even today, the jihadists and terrorists are not promoting Islam itself but attempting to make political, territorial, or financial gains. Like stage magicians, want-to-be conquerors wave the flag of religion — or force conversion to subdue people. Religion has been correctly termed "the opiate of the people", because it can distract people while real damage is being done to their well-being and freedom. If I control your relationship with the Divine, I control YOU.

So, in the name of clear speaking, let's put the blame where it is due — on the intent and actions of the perpetrators, not on the religion itself.