"If you want to be eclectic, be eclectic, don't try to redefine reconstructionism to suit your whims."

Who defined it, initially?

(Reply) (Thread)

http://www.paganachd.com/faq/whatiscr.html#howstarted

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

You no be sad. I give you hugs.

(Reply) (Thread)

Moran taing, mo charaid.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

> What's wrong with calling yourself eclectic if that's what
> you are? Or Neopagan? What's wrong with being honest?

I was just reminded of something I heard Bill Maher say on TV once: "All I'm saying is, be honest! If your morning coffee contains crushed ice, whipped cream and chocolate shavings, it's not a coffee, it's a fucking milkshake!"

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Oy vey!

(Reply) (Thread)

Tha gu dearbh. *sigh*

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Sorry to you.

Not an excuse for the bad behaviour of others, but you are a look-up-to-able person that others would want to cite, however wrongly.

(Reply) (Thread)

Thank you. It's been a sad day, and I have to think on all this. Right now I am pretty disgusted with the Neopagans. I think that when people think eclecticism is necessary for spiritual growth, all it proves is that they haven't found a home in any living tradition. I am grateful for the deep spirituality I have found in the Gaelic traditions, and baffled that some, including those I once was friends with, would ever think that that grounding somehow hinders spiritual growth.

If someone wants to be a Buddhist or a Hindu, they should respect those paths and fully join them, not try to lump it all together and claim it's Celtic. It's just mind-boggling to me. This is not why we started this. Kym and I started CR specifically to provide an alternative to eclecticism, so I am dismayed that anyone would want to try to pull it off track that way. Well, they can't, really, and I hope that readers can tell the difference between an individual being eclectic and a tradition being eclectic. Just because someone claims to be part of a tradition doesn't make it so, especially if they are violating the founding principles of that tradition. It's just nuts.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

No one in this situation is claiming to represent you or your intentions, caitriona_nnc, by anything they're saying.

As in any religious community, each member speaks for themself and not for the community as a whole; there is no internal structure or perception of authority within CR by which anyone can speak for the community as a whole; there is no "pope" of CR, and long may it be so.

Unless, of course, many of us have misunderstood the intentions of any of the people who first began using the term. Have we?

(Reply) (Thread)

So, what do you make of: "Thanks. I'm taking back CR ;)" accompanied by an icon I made, that includes myself and a bunch of people who disagree with Erynn, smiling.* (I have asked her twice to stop using my icons, and she is still using them. She has banned me from responding in her journal, so I commented anonymously, reminding her that I've asked her to stop using my picture with her posts. She deleted my comment.)

By the above statement, she is implying that she once "had" CR and is now "taking it back." Erynn did not found CR. When I met her online in '93, she was calling herself a "NeoCelt". It is my fault that she picked up the term CR, as I said, "Oh, you're CR" - because I mistakenly believed we were more on the same page than we were. I didn't realize until she visited here in person that we are not on the same page, but that she is eclectic, even to the extent of ripping off Lakota ceremonies (see the Polish Chanupa posts, but I'm sure you've seen her fake Chanupa around the house already).

The reason I mistakenly thought Erynn was on the same page is because she was doing research and, at the time, studying Old Irish. But that is only the beginning. What Kym and I had been doing for years before we met Erynn, and discussing publicly as CR, was something that should be rooted in the living cultures, and *not* eclectic. I understand that once a name becomes publicized you lose control over how people use it and who calls themselves that. But with statements like the above, as well as deleting comments from those who disagree with her, Erynn is implying that because she is eclectic, and a cultural appropriator that somehow she can now redefine CR to include those things. The whole recent thread (first link above) is full of her encouraging people to call eclecticism CR. Multiple times she claims CR will "die" without eclecticism. I disagree. CR will die if any eclectic appropriation is called CR.

And the nerve, the insult to traditional peoples, to imply that inspiration only comes from eclecticism or syncretism. All that says is that the person saying that has no idea what it is to be part of a traditional culture. It's a very American, Neopagan attitude; and if that's what one believes and experiences, one should own that, and be an American Neopagan. But that's not what CR is.

Phil, if you believe CR is or can be eclectic, just read the FAQ. We all, Erynn included, signed off on the fact that: "CR is not eclectic." and "coined the term CR specifically to distinguish their practices from those of eclectic traditions." These statements were not just agreed to by those of us who coined the term, but by Erynn as well. Obviously, she's changed her mind. That's fine - for her. But with statements like, "I'm taking back CR" she's more than slightly implying that she thinks she has the right to redefine CR to suit her mental state.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Incidentally, I've never seen the "chanupa" myself, because it isn't anything that has to do with me or my business, nor erynn999's business with me. And as she had advice on it from a pipe-bearer, unless you want to call that advice and the opinion of that pipe-bearer into question, I'm fine with leaving that whole issue as "fair enough."

There is a very big difference between eclecticism and syncretism. The Irish and Scottish systems of polytheism, both pre- and post-Christian, as they seem to be available to us, were syncretistic, and in fact most living and evolving religions are syncretistic. If one doesn't adapt to new and different situations and religious concepts in one's religion, it does ossify, and leads to fundamentalism and other excesses. If CR is going to be a useful religion in the modern world, it will have to take these matters into account. As long as innovations are marked as such, and the inspirations for them are cited as coming from XYZ cultures, I personally don't see a problem with it. There is a very big difference in saying "this concept in Hinduism might suggest a similar technique in Irish polytheism," and invoking Shiva and the Caillech Berri after one has called the quarters.

If one were to strictly stick with what the attested sources say about ancient Irish polytheism, then it would be entirely permissible to worship Iobh, Mart, Apall, and Os (Jove/Jupiter, Mars, Apollo, and Osiris), because there is one text that says the ancient Ulstermen did exactly that; it is one of very few places in narrative where the figures there referred to are called "gods." If one writes that off as someone not knowing what they're talking about, then one is writing off what the culture itself perceived as its own history, which is not very good practice. You'd then have to question every possible source which reports on this history in order to filter out what you feel is biased, but that will entirely depend on what your notions of bias entail, and what your vision of "cultural purity" involves, and that would always of necessity be a construction and a conception based on--imagine that!--one's own biases.

Taking comparative materials from living cultures, especially living cultures that are Indo-European, is something very useful in all of this. Therefore, Hindu comparisons are very relevant. Paying attention to the living cultures in Ireland and Scotland (even if they are not explicitly polytheistic currently) is also something very good to do. The evidence for a pre-Christian all-female Brigidine flametending order is only attested in a late, Christian, Cambro-Norman, anti-Irish text; the only way one can suggest this happened in pre-Christian times is to take the evidence of the Roman Vestal Virgins seriously and build upon it. But, according to what you've said, that would not be permissible. Likewise, looking to the modern Irish culture that has carried on from the practices outlined in that late source (authentic or not), we see they've changed their policies. But, according to what you've stipulated, we should also ignore that. Who's actually picking and choosing on these matters?

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

"And as she had advice on it from a pipe-bearer, unless you want to call that advice and the opinion of that pipe-bearer into question, I'm fine with leaving that whole issue as "fair enough.""

If you read the thread, you will see that the woman Erynn talked to is Cherokee. Cherokee have no authority over the ceremonies of the Lakota. If Erynn is now claiming "Rainbow" was a "pipe-bearer" (which is a New Age term, by the way) she has once again changed her story. Erynn reads books by outsiders, frauds and shameons and mimicks NDN ceremonies. It's not OK. Especially if she then calls it CR.

Phil, you and I are coming from very different places on this. Just the other day you blogged about doing a ritual where, having combined elements from all these cultures, you couldn't decide whether to treat the disposal of the offerings in a Kemetic, Hindu, Roman or Celtic way. You were wondering this *after* the ritual. Don't you think that affects how the spirits react? That's between you and the spirits, but it's not culturally coherent. Again, you don't have to be culturally coherent in your private practice - just don't represent it as CR.

During my time of rebellion from my parents and the rural Irishisms of the community where I grew up, I became a Hindu for a few years. At 18 I served a year as an apprentice pujari in a temple, living in the ashram, meditating, studying and doing ritual all day. So I'd say I have a bit of understanding about Hinduism, and don't particularly like seeing it used out of context, either.

I believe the study of comparative religion is necessary, and I don't usually disagree with the words you say in these posts. But what I read about what you do - it is eclectic, not CR. You know a lot about Celtic history, and I appreciate that, but the rituals you've described are very eclectic. If you're comfortable with that, own it. Be honest about it. But it's just weird to me that you say you're CR when your practice is eclectic.

If comparative religion as an aid to reconstruction is grounded in the culture, that's not a problem. But that's not what I'm seeing in what you or Erynn are saying.

(Reply) (Thread)

The funny thing is, there's a big chance this "Rainbow" isn't Cherokee, or if she is Cherokee and is still a charlatan. They tried to sell me on her ("er-erm") *for pay* "spiritual services" when I was in Washington. It all made me very suspicious. If I want to study with a Cherokee, I'm going back to my parents' homeland of Oklahoma, probably to Tahlequah. When I told it to my sister, who is in the process of learning Tsalagi, she cracked up laughing, the women's name was so much like those stereotypically used by frauds.
And yes, you're right, even a Cherokee woman providing paid spiritual services from a reservation in Washington State has absolutely nothing to say about Lakota pipe ceremonies.
"Native American" is not a blanket designation. Period.
It makes me ill to see this kind of behavior out of a person who has problems with the generalized use of the term "celtic". It is, quite simply, racist.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Echoing wisewomanjudith's sentiments, I'm sorry to you too. I just hope some good can come of this, somehow.

(Reply) (Thread)