Originally posted by HunkaHunka
I can understand how it might sound as such, but a romanticism would carry with it a desire.
What you need to understand is that what is happening within me right now is not a desire for something else, merely an awakening to the fact that
Christianity came to my ancestors through their conquerors.
The Celtic history merely is a contributing factor to this. The real romantic relationship I am having right now is with my beliefs. They are now
free of the tyranny of a belief system which just does not belong to my people.
I disagree with the idea that romanticism would carry a desire. A desire for one thing or another might be one conclusion that comes all this, but
ultimately 'romanticism' is an idealised perspective on something.
But how is all this news or a revelation? For you to be seeing this as some kind of epiphany you'd have needed to have some investment in
Christianity in the first place and, in turn, it's impossible to have any kind of investment in Christianity without knowing that it's a middle
eastern religion. Whilst I can't remember exchanging posts with you in the past, I've seen your posts 'around' as it were, and you seem an
intelligent man, I'm struggling to understand how this is such a revelation or news: even the most tenuous understanding of history or religion shows
that this is how culture works.
Once again, you would be right if I was desiring some sort of "replacement" religion. I'm experiencing and celebrating the removal of a the
false religion handed to my people by their conquerors.
The only selectivity I'm exhibiting is in selecting no longer to assume a faith which was given to my ancestors by their captors.
I'm wondering whether what you've said here is really the case. Not in the sense of your lying to me but perhaps aren't aware of how enamoured you
to be. It's bizarre that you claim to not be involved in a selective process and yet you have consciously selected to use the celts as
the 'oppressed victims' here; look at your previous posts in this thread.
Asatru? I'll look into that...
To be honest it seems rather natural to me. Racists would assume one race and set of characteristics is better than another. You can clearly
identify those characteristics both physically and psychologically which generally typify peoples without being a racist.
But again, what might seem "natural" to you, isn't scientific or perhaps even "natural". In fact, this use of "natural" doesn't seem too
different from a lot of the stuff spouted by 'cardiac celts' who claim to hear the green fields of Ireland/highlands of Scotland (delete as
applicable) calling out to them across immense oceans and hundreds of years of history.
This avenue of thinking is a nonsense because one has to draw lines and be very selective about deciding what is 'natural' in the first place. It's
never actually 'natural'. Our histores are a continuum but where you choose to say 'my roots are here' on that continuum is informed by lots of
things and is never actually 'natural' per se
Asatru has a reputation in the 'neo-pagan' community because, for various reasons, there's more people with an ethnocentric take on religion than
elsewhere. Unfortunately for them, history and genetics don't really work too well with claiming that their roots lie in 'northern tribes people'.
Their roots, along with everyone else's, lie much farther back and in much warmer, non-European, non-Aesir/Vanir worshipping communities. For
whatever reason - and occasionally, the reason is obvious - they draw the line at a particular point, usually some brief window of history of a few
hundred years, to say "that's where my roots are".
Also, even Asatru belief (as it is understood now) doesn't give 'racial' preference much weight as Asatru is no different from other religions that
has a creation myth. Ask and Embla are the first humans in Asatru and all humanity is born from them; black, white, yellow or brown. Similarly, Lif
and Lifþrasir, will perform a similar role following Ragnarok. Not much room for racial purity there.
Another issue about 'northern tribes' and Christianity that often is problematic is that often there was no conquering at all, but rather voluntary
conversion. With regards to pagan 'vikings' often this was a career or PR decision. Look at Rollo's agreement with Charles the Simple: Rollo was
the aggressive force raiding Charle's Frankish land (now France), part of the deal that was struck was that there'd be at least some token
conversion and it was that those particular Norseman exploited to no ends in their transition to Normans and their eventual control of much of Europe
through intermarriage &c. Any belief in Odin came secondary to the allure of gold, castles and land.
Look at Iceland's conversion to Christianity in 1000, after several measures to force Christianity on the Icelandic people ultimately it came down to
voting and measures of compromise and appeasement.
Often, on a smaller scale, personal conversions came down - as with today - through specific circumstances: I never thought we'd get through this fog
bank until Gunnbjorn prayed to this god that his Irish slave had been jabbering about. I'd spent all yesterday asking Thor for help and then, shortly
after Gunnbjorn got off his knees, the fog started to lift. There's obviously something in it so, I threw my hammer over the side as soon as the boat
started moving again." This is no different than modern-day examples where non-church-goers pray to Jesus as a last resort for their cancer-stricken
son, and then become evangelical because, at the last minute, the cancer goes into remission.
Please don't get me wrong, I'm hardly a Christian apologist, but often the idea of a conquering Christianity that levels all that it comes into
contact with is often pretty wide of the mark. Often the beliefs of these 'Northern tribes' weren't as important to them as many claim, and were
readily given-up if the opportunity arose.
Once again, specifics do not matter. The only thing that matters is that my peoples of Northern Europe had their religion replaced with one which did
not originate from their own psyches and environmental situation.
Of course specifics matter in this! You are talking about these idealised 'celts' (who are
idealised, if only because first-hand material is
so scant on them, particularly when it comes to belief) as if they are your origins, your ancestors, your roots - genetic or spiritual. Why then,
throughout this thread, have you chosen to frame this discussion in terms of 'celts vs Christian'? What about the people before the celts? In
Britain, for example, there's several known cultures that existed the celts who are likely to have language, belief, and technology culture that was
'superseded' by any supposed 'celtic' culture. Why, until I raised this point, have not acknowledged these kinds of prior people? They are
your roots and not the people you've consciously
selected and mentioned in this thread.
You talk about their 'psyche'? How do you know what their psyche was? You can't seriously be claiming not to romanticising this and yet claim to
know what their 'psyche' was. The celts were a relatively primitive Iron Age culture, whilst there might be some things that you can appreciate -
such as aspects of art, or perhaps a couple of elements regarding what is thought to be their belief system and so on - but that's very removed from
knowing what their psyche was.
True, which is why those are only the contributing factors as to my new found liberation. One thing that is not in dispute, is that
Christianity did not originate from the tribes of Northern Europe.
But, up until now, you seem to have put great store in a celtic alternative - and you have
because you've made much of this thread this about
a Romano Christian culture 'conquering' an idealised celtic one - and yet you really don't know where the much of celtic culture, whether it's
belief or technology &c, actually originated.
Whether you acknowledge it or not, you are
being very selective where you want to draw the line in all this.