We Asatru are a squabbling bunch. How many people have seen kindreds blow apart because of internal disagreements. In my 8 years of living in Maryland I've seen four of them blow apart
( Read more... )
Whether you call it the same "grouping" or the same "faith" is academic.
I think you're making artificial dichotomies. Frith is not the same thing as peace; there's a big difference between talking frankly about our differences and fighting between ourselves. Why on earth should there be only one--or two, or three--right ways to be heathen? Let's all just do it the way we prefer and save our enmity for our enemies!
You yourself speak of "tact." I'd rather see frankness than tact. It's not that I think my fellow heathens are weaklings who couldn't take it if I expressed my true opinion of their practices. It's that it's an awful counterproductive waste of time to squabble about it, beyond a certain point. Someone wants to be an Irminist? Fine--that's not for me, but fine. Someone calls the quarters at the start of a blót? I think they're a bit confused and I don't think our gods need protecting from malign beings either, but fine, I'm happy they blót--or fain, or offer. And besides, friends talk to each other. They tell each other when they believe the friend is being an idiot.
As I am telling you now :-)
Save the enmity for those who would destroy us. No, I don't think we should ignore the followers of the desert god. I think we should keep an eye on them at all times. That's where the suspiciousness and constant examination of motives are appropriate, IMO.
Whether you call it the same "grouping" or the same "faith" is academic.
Academic, and necessary. The distinctions need to be known and understood by us so that we can communicate them to outsiders. I'm tired of all the BS unity talk. We are not a unified faith. We are many different faiths with commonalities that make us natural allies. That doesn't mean we are the same and should be cajoled into acting like we are the same.
I think you're making artificial dichotomies.
I'm not making anything, but pointing out the exactness that we need in our language when talking about ourselves. These differences are very real and very pronounced. Failure to recognize this exists among both Folkish and Universalists. Understanding these differences is intrinsic to Tribalism, however. It's one of the reasons it's so easy for me to identify the differences between Theodism, Irminism, and Asatru.
Why on earth should there be only one--or two, or three--right ways to be heathen?
This is exactly what I'm speaking against. By treating us all as the same thing rather than recognizing the distinct and important differences we enforce a one way ideal. By saying we are all the same you are saying our differences are artificial divides when they are expressions of our tribal heritage.
I'd rather see frankness than tact.
One does not preclude the other. Too many people fail to understand this. I am being both frank and tactful now. If I wasn't I would be using all of the pejoratives that come to mind to express my utter disgust at the thought forms that lead to the original post. Instead, I choose to express my ideas without being rude or insulting. Frankness and tact are not opposite ideas. Frankness and manipulation are. I see a lot of attempts by various Heathens to manipulate others into not expressing their ideas and opinions because they are too weak to stand on their own merit. They shout down others in order to look strong to others and to themselves. This is the tin viking attitude that I was talking about before. None the less, we need to realize that there are very real and very important differences that make us different faiths under the same general category.
They tell each other when they believe the friend is being an idiot.
As I am telling you now :-)
It is careless turns of phrase like that which lead to the fights that the OP was talking about. You may not have meant to be insulting, but you were.
Also, I mean no disrespect, but you aren't my friend. I don't know you in real life. We have not walked through fire together. We have not shared sorrows or drinks. We are little more than bits of data transmitted over the internet to each other and anyone else able to see the data. While we are cordial to each other, we aren't friends. We like the requirements to be such.
Oh you mean plenty of disrespect, especially when you accuse me of careless phrasing '-) And yes, I know you can be considerably ruder, and could have been considerably ruder in your initial response to the OP
Fine--we are not friends, merely allies.
Fine, you prefer to think of heathenry as a whole bunch of different faiths, and that the differences stem from our tribal heritage, whereas I prefer to focus on our working together. Small matter, use what terminology you prefer, just like the folks who hate the term "heathen" and instead want to be called "Germanic pagan" or "Asatru" exclusively. You said originally that we should not care how the Xians see us--now you are saying we should be precise and unified in our terminology so that we can communicate our differences to outsiders? Clearly we disagree, but I'm also not following your logic :-)
In any case, you know as well as I that if people want to be a different kind of heathen, they will be; I am hardly saying the differences between approaches are "artificial" or should be suppressed. Nor was the OP. Saying that these are all ways of being heathen is no more saying they are all the same thing or enforcing sameness than is saying we have commonalties that make us natural allies.
So let's act like allies. I'll say it again--you are being foolish. I'm perfectly happy to not merely tolerate but defend your right to your choice of expression of your heathenism, but if anyone is close to shouting down others' points of view, it's you. In this response to me you equate the OP's point of view with BS and express "utter disgust" . . . at a proposal that we should tolerate each others' approaches? And accusations of manipulation? Heathens are big boys and girls, capable of making up their own minds, not sheep.
Have another look at the rules of the community, please. There's not just one word for one thing, and there is no contest going on to score points for one's sect's nomenclature. Fine, you are a Tribalist (whatever that means this week) and you regard it as very very very important to call heathenry several different religions. I don't. It's a damned sight more important in my view to keep the alliances active and listen to what fellow heathens--by any name--are saying. We disagree as to priorities here; I truly do not think we disagree much on content. Let's keep it cordial. I like friendship and I like careful use of language, but I like heathenry more.
Do you even know my name? Do you know where I live, or whether I'm married? Do you know the names of my friends? I don't mean to sound like a jerk, but beyond me knowing your first name, I know nothing about you. How can we be friends if we don't even know each other? It's just the truth. You don't need to be snotty about it.
I'm also not following your logic
Just because I think we should have no regard for what they think of us does not mean I don't recognize the need to be able to communicate what we are to outsiders as well as ourselves. Just because I don't give a shit about what they believe doesn't mean I don't know that we have to be able to articulate what we are so as to shut them up. Additionally, in the process of defining what and who we are we create a clear and solid picture for ourselves. We have to revive this understanding because we have had it stolen from us. When you know what you are, you know what you are not.
I prefer to focus on our working together.
Understanding what makes us different does not mean we are making it so we are not able to work together. In fact, knowing what makes us different makes it easier to work together. When we know what the expectations and thoughts of one group is, we are able to speak to each other without stepping on unstated but assumed presumptions, behaviors, and beliefs. Instead of speaking in terms of a false unity, we are able to create genuine agreement because we know ourselves and each other.
you are being foolish
And you are being insulting.
you equate the OP's point of view with BS and express "utter disgust" . . . at a proposal that we should tolerate each others' approaches
Not the goal, but the thoughts that got to the post being written. I'm not opposed to people recognizing that there is a need to get along. What I am opposed to is the inherent nature of what was written that implicitly states that we are all the same and that's why we should "get along." Instead of discussing the need for tact, the OP went after a needless "Reconciliation." There is nothing that needs to be reconciled. Yes, individuals have personal beefs, and I'm okay with that. What I'm not okay with is trying to make people get along based on commonalities without recognizing the differences as important. As I said, I'd rather see us fight it out than force a false peace.
Tribalist (whatever that means this week)
Are you trying to start a fight by being needlessly rude? You're pounding the pulpit of "getting along" and then you are taking shots to be rude and insulting. You can't have it both ways. So far I've refrained from leveling any personal insults. Can you say the same?
I'm afraid you are still contradicting yourself--yes, having no regard for what they think of us does mean we shouldn't care about communicating what we are to them; no, calling for people to get along does not imply that they should deny they also have differences. You're manufacturing oppositions where none exist, and if you think pointing out that that is being foolish is more personally rude than calling someone careless in their wording, or insisting you know the assumptions behind the OP's post and that those assumptions--not what the OP says, but no, their assumptions that you claim to fully know--are BS, then cool, be as offended as you like. You're being a fool and manufacturing a serious disagreement where there need be none. You say yourself we should be allies and that it is important to focus on that; you are the one saying that that involves denying that differences of opinion exist between us--the OP is not, nor am I.
Fine means fine. As a matter of fact I did not claim to be your friend, nor am I the remotest bit interested in your address or your love life.
What interests me is your, my, and the OP's common heathenry and what we do about it.
I think under the circumstances "reconciliation" was a wisely chosen word.
Thank you for proving that you have no desire what so ever to get along with those that strongly disagree with you. Thank you for proving that you speak empty words.
Come to think of it, I'm done with this. I have tried to be nice, and it seems you want to provoke a fight. You are rude and clearly have no concept of frith. You are trying to pick a fight where there is none. Have it your way. People like you need to cease to exist. I am done with you, this thread, this topic, and this forum. Universalist drivel like yours will destroy us. I don't expect others here to see it, but those that matter to me do know that. Feel free to declare victory, I'm leaving.
Nah, I'm sorry, but you just don't like it when people won't let you win all the fights you start.
This one was a silly one to start, since the OP's point was essentially the raison d'etre of the whole community.
Your concept of our differences as a reflection of tribalism needs refining--it's interesting but I think it's very historically naive. I'll be watching for an exposition of it in the future, from you or one of your friends; however, nothing will make "tribalist" a precise term in heathenry--I believe it will always be one of the vaguest words one can use in a heathen context.
I think you're making artificial dichotomies. Frith is not the same thing as peace; there's a big difference between talking frankly about our differences and fighting between ourselves. Why on earth should there be only one--or two, or three--right ways to be heathen? Let's all just do it the way we prefer and save our enmity for our enemies!
You yourself speak of "tact." I'd rather see frankness than tact. It's not that I think my fellow heathens are weaklings who couldn't take it if I expressed my true opinion of their practices. It's that it's an awful counterproductive waste of time to squabble about it, beyond a certain point. Someone wants to be an Irminist? Fine--that's not for me, but fine. Someone calls the quarters at the start of a blót? I think they're a bit confused and I don't think our gods need protecting from malign beings either, but fine, I'm happy they blót--or fain, or offer. And besides, friends talk to each other. They tell each other when they believe the friend is being an idiot.
As I am telling you now :-)
Save the enmity for those who would destroy us. No, I don't think we should ignore the followers of the desert god. I think we should keep an eye on them at all times. That's where the suspiciousness and constant examination of motives are appropriate, IMO.
Frith,
M
Reply
Academic, and necessary. The distinctions need to be known and understood by us so that we can communicate them to outsiders. I'm tired of all the BS unity talk. We are not a unified faith. We are many different faiths with commonalities that make us natural allies. That doesn't mean we are the same and should be cajoled into acting like we are the same.
I think you're making artificial dichotomies.
I'm not making anything, but pointing out the exactness that we need in our language when talking about ourselves. These differences are very real and very pronounced. Failure to recognize this exists among both Folkish and Universalists. Understanding these differences is intrinsic to Tribalism, however. It's one of the reasons it's so easy for me to identify the differences between Theodism, Irminism, and Asatru.
Why on earth should there be only one--or two, or three--right ways to be heathen?
This is exactly what I'm speaking against. By treating us all as the same thing rather than recognizing the distinct and important differences we enforce a one way ideal. By saying we are all the same you are saying our differences are artificial divides when they are expressions of our tribal heritage.
I'd rather see frankness than tact.
One does not preclude the other. Too many people fail to understand this. I am being both frank and tactful now. If I wasn't I would be using all of the pejoratives that come to mind to express my utter disgust at the thought forms that lead to the original post. Instead, I choose to express my ideas without being rude or insulting. Frankness and tact are not opposite ideas. Frankness and manipulation are. I see a lot of attempts by various Heathens to manipulate others into not expressing their ideas and opinions because they are too weak to stand on their own merit. They shout down others in order to look strong to others and to themselves. This is the tin viking attitude that I was talking about before. None the less, we need to realize that there are very real and very important differences that make us different faiths under the same general category.
They tell each other when they believe the friend is being an idiot.
As I am telling you now :-)
It is careless turns of phrase like that which lead to the fights that the OP was talking about. You may not have meant to be insulting, but you were.
Also, I mean no disrespect, but you aren't my friend. I don't know you in real life. We have not walked through fire together. We have not shared sorrows or drinks. We are little more than bits of data transmitted over the internet to each other and anyone else able to see the data. While we are cordial to each other, we aren't friends. We like the requirements to be such.
Reply
Fine--we are not friends, merely allies.
Fine, you prefer to think of heathenry as a whole bunch of different faiths, and that the differences stem from our tribal heritage, whereas I prefer to focus on our working together. Small matter, use what terminology you prefer, just like the folks who hate the term "heathen" and instead want to be called "Germanic pagan" or "Asatru" exclusively. You said originally that we should not care how the Xians see us--now you are saying we should be precise and unified in our terminology so that we can communicate our differences to outsiders? Clearly we disagree, but I'm also not following your logic :-)
In any case, you know as well as I that if people want to be a different kind of heathen, they will be; I am hardly saying the differences between approaches are "artificial" or should be suppressed. Nor was the OP. Saying that these are all ways of being heathen is no more saying they are all the same thing or enforcing sameness than is saying we have commonalties that make us natural allies.
So let's act like allies. I'll say it again--you are being foolish. I'm perfectly happy to not merely tolerate but defend your right to your choice of expression of your heathenism, but if anyone is close to shouting down others' points of view, it's you. In this response to me you equate the OP's point of view with BS and express "utter disgust" . . . at a proposal that we should tolerate each others' approaches? And accusations of manipulation? Heathens are big boys and girls, capable of making up their own minds, not sheep.
Have another look at the rules of the community, please. There's not just one word for one thing, and there is no contest going on to score points for one's sect's nomenclature. Fine, you are a Tribalist (whatever that means this week) and you regard it as very very very important to call heathenry several different religions. I don't. It's a damned sight more important in my view to keep the alliances active and listen to what fellow heathens--by any name--are saying. We disagree as to priorities here; I truly do not think we disagree much on content. Let's keep it cordial. I like friendship and I like careful use of language, but I like heathenry more.
Frith,
M
Reply
Do you even know my name? Do you know where I live, or whether I'm married? Do you know the names of my friends? I don't mean to sound like a jerk, but beyond me knowing your first name, I know nothing about you. How can we be friends if we don't even know each other? It's just the truth. You don't need to be snotty about it.
I'm also not following your logic
Just because I think we should have no regard for what they think of us does not mean I don't recognize the need to be able to communicate what we are to outsiders as well as ourselves. Just because I don't give a shit about what they believe doesn't mean I don't know that we have to be able to articulate what we are so as to shut them up. Additionally, in the process of defining what and who we are we create a clear and solid picture for ourselves. We have to revive this understanding because we have had it stolen from us. When you know what you are, you know what you are not.
I prefer to focus on our working together.
Understanding what makes us different does not mean we are making it so we are not able to work together. In fact, knowing what makes us different makes it easier to work together. When we know what the expectations and thoughts of one group is, we are able to speak to each other without stepping on unstated but assumed presumptions, behaviors, and beliefs. Instead of speaking in terms of a false unity, we are able to create genuine agreement because we know ourselves and each other.
you are being foolish
And you are being insulting.
you equate the OP's point of view with BS and express "utter disgust" . . . at a proposal that we should tolerate each others' approaches
Not the goal, but the thoughts that got to the post being written. I'm not opposed to people recognizing that there is a need to get along. What I am opposed to is the inherent nature of what was written that implicitly states that we are all the same and that's why we should "get along." Instead of discussing the need for tact, the OP went after a needless "Reconciliation." There is nothing that needs to be reconciled. Yes, individuals have personal beefs, and I'm okay with that. What I'm not okay with is trying to make people get along based on commonalities without recognizing the differences as important. As I said, I'd rather see us fight it out than force a false peace.
Tribalist (whatever that means this week)
Are you trying to start a fight by being needlessly rude? You're pounding the pulpit of "getting along" and then you are taking shots to be rude and insulting. You can't have it both ways. So far I've refrained from leveling any personal insults. Can you say the same?
Reply
I'm afraid you are still contradicting yourself--yes, having no regard for what they think of us does mean we shouldn't care about communicating what we are to them; no, calling for people to get along does not imply that they should deny they also have differences. You're manufacturing oppositions where none exist, and if you think pointing out that that is being foolish is more personally rude than calling someone careless in their wording, or insisting you know the assumptions behind the OP's post and that those assumptions--not what the OP says, but no, their assumptions that you claim to fully know--are BS, then cool, be as offended as you like. You're being a fool and manufacturing a serious disagreement where there need be none. You say yourself we should be allies and that it is important to focus on that; you are the one saying that that involves denying that differences of opinion exist between us--the OP is not, nor am I.
Fine means fine. As a matter of fact I did not claim to be your friend, nor am I the remotest bit interested in your address or your love life.
What interests me is your, my, and the OP's common heathenry and what we do about it.
I think under the circumstances "reconciliation" was a wisely chosen word.
Frith,
M
Reply
Reply
Frith,
M
Reply
Reply
This one was a silly one to start, since the OP's point was essentially the raison d'etre of the whole community.
Your concept of our differences as a reflection of tribalism needs refining--it's interesting but I think it's very historically naive. I'll be watching for an exposition of it in the future, from you or one of your friends; however, nothing will make "tribalist" a precise term in heathenry--I believe it will always be one of the vaguest words one can use in a heathen context.
People like me need to cease to exist?
Frith to you too :-)
M
Reply
Leave a comment