"A place for a new house was chosen carefully. In Central Serbia, it was believed that the best place to build the house on was the one which a flock of sheep chose as it's resting place."
Listening to Benebell Wen on religious syncretism. If you don't already know, this is a thing.
There's this:
"The fixation with reconstructing the past and correlating authenticity with history or even specific [sic] the color of your skin or even your DNA is a fascinating conversation . . . ." Syncretic Religious Practices | Bell Chimes In #4 at 14:11.
That's a great way place to start. She's promised more on that topic. I'm looking forward to it.
And there's also this, on the subject of borrowing from other cultures and reinterpreting the material:
"Slam the door shut on the naysayers and keep doing what you're doing. But I will probably criticize you because imperialism, post-colonialism, social studies, critical race theory, privilege, and politics." Syncretic Religious Practices | Bell Chimes In #4 at 15:16.
The people in my world tend to be metaphysical but they do not like — not at all — these topics. I'm very pleased whenever I find someone who enjoys teasing out the underlying ideas.
More on a related topic from this remarkable woman at Cultural Appropriation | Bell Chimes In #5.
You don't expect Masaman to talk about neo-paganism. At least, I don't. I follow his YouTube channel. It was a wonderful surprise to find his latest.
The main takeaway for me is the sharp dichotomy between neo-pagan politics in America and Europe. Americans on the Left; Europeans on the Right.
The key to the difference, I think, is that the European pagans tend to be ethno-nationalists, while American pagans are often more "New Age" -- although of course we Americans have more than we need of white supremacists doing the purity of blood thing.
The most common totems in the Norse world, at least among warriors, were the bear, wolf, and raven.
We don't know much about the various totems, but bears were prestigious and aristocratic, while wolves came to be associated with outlaws.
Totems are likely connected to ideas of a fylgia, the form the soul takes as shaped by a person's life. For example, someone who was crafty would have a fylgia in the form of a fox.
Revised Oct. 29, 1019 to add links.
Tuisto's name means "twin" or "twice" (perhaps from the Proto-Germanic *twis). Was he the same as Ymir? Or Ymir's twin? There's no agreement but Grim suggests they were twins.
Ymir is the father of Bolthorn, who is father of Mimir and Bestla.
Tuisto aka Buri is the father of Mannus aka Bor who married Bestla. Their children are Odin aka Ingo, Vilje aka Istro, and Ve aka Irmin. Mannus is the eponymous ancestor of MAN-kind. His three sons are the ancestors respectively of the Ingvaeones, Istaevones, and Irminones, the three main divisions of the Gemanic people.
Thus far from Grimm. Then moving on to later structural analysis:
Odin kills Ymir aka Hymir. From his flesh the Earth (Jord), from his blood the sea (Njord), and from his brains the Sky (Tyr). These three can be said to be children of Odin who created them or of Ymir from whom they were made.
So. A tri-partite division of the world, as in most Indo-European religions.
Njord (Sea) marries his sister Jord aka Nerthus (Earth). They have Frey and Freyja. Jord is also married to her brother Tyr (Sky).
Tyr (cognate with Zeus and Jupiter) is the ruler of the gods until he loses his hand, and being imperfect now can no longer rule. War. Odin has learned sorcery from his maternal uncle MImir. Odin becomes king.
Odin takes Tyr's wife Jord. They are the parents of Thor. Now we have the "Hero Twins" Frey and Thor who are maternal half-brothers like the Dioscuri (Castor and Pollux).
But Odin also marries Jord's daughter Freyja aka Frigg. This is why Odin learns sorcery from Freyja, as well as from Mimir. Also why Freyja takes half the dead. Partly because she is Odin's wife and partly because sorcery and half the dead are her inheritance as heir of Ymir. (Alternatively, Frigg and Freya are confused in a different way. It could be Frigg who takes half the dead and knows sorcery.)
Speculation from Jackson Crawford: he thinks Heimdall might be same as Ull.
Then one of the comments on that video he says:
Jumping off the Ullr/Heimdall connection I have always thought that there is some kind of connection between Heimdallr and the figure mentioned in Tacitus' Germania known as Mannus. The reason I came to this conclusion is because of the similarity in how Mannus is said to have fathered the ancestral Gods of the three primary Germanic tribes; Irminones, Ingvaeones and Istvaeones with how Heimdallr is said to have fathered the three races of men in the Rigsmal.
What's curious there is there's a clear etymological progression with the Ingvaeones and the Old English Ing/Old Norse Freyr, and as for the Irminones Irmin is given as one of Odin's many names which, in my estimation, makes Mannus the father of Odin and Frey at least if you're going by the earlier Proto-Germanic versions of the mythos. Of course this contradicts Snorri's recounting of Odin's origins and the Norse creation myth but I've always been of the belief that, that was a much later mythological creation and arguably not indicative of Norse or early Germanic belief.
All that aside I think there's a connection between Heimdall, Ullr and Mannus that we're missing context on, perhaps all three are the same figure.
I don't know why so many heathens equate their religion with white supremacy, but they do. I think that's an ideological mistake.
"During the 19th century, Vikings were praised as prototypes and ancestor figures for European colonists. The idea took root of a Germanic master race, fed by crude scientific theories and nurtured by Nazi ideology in the 1930s. These theories have long been debunked, although the notion of the ethnic purity of the Vikings still seems to have popular appeal – and it is embraced by white supremacists." (Downham)
It's far easier to paint the ancient Norse as open, mobile, and eclectic. In modern terms their sin would be their elitism and patriarchalism, not racism.
"Developments in archaeology in recent decades have highlighted how people and goods could move over wider distances in the early Middle Ages than we have tended to think. In the eighth century, (before the main period of Viking raiding began), the Baltic was a place where Scandinavians, Frisians, Slavs and Arabic merchants were in frequent contact. It is too simplistic to think of early Viking raids, too, as hit-and-run affairs with ships coming directly from Scandinavia and immediately rushing home again."
I was an early member of Stephen McNallen's Asatru Free Assembly. Must have been somewhere around 1977 to 1979. I was quite taken with them, because it was the first time I had encountered modern pagan reconstruction. I wandered away, not for any ideological reasons, but because there was more social support locally for other interesting things to do and be.
Although McNallen is notorious now for his views I don't remember any racism back then. If there was, it wasn't obvious. But to me, the problem of racism lies exactly here. It's a short step from identifying with Norse reconstruction because those are your own ancestors to becoming tribal and exclusive.
Edited Oct. 28, 2019; Nov. 2, 2019 to add links.
I don't know why this is so hard for some people. The Romans were a diverse, multicultural society. Rome cared about getting rich from exporting government, not about racial silliness.
"The Roman empire encompassed large tracts of north Africa, and even though it did not extend to sub-Saharan Africa, its borders were porous and its sphere of influence vast. “Being Roman”, it should be remembered, was not about tracing your origins to one city in Italy: as the empire grew, citizenship was extended across conquered territories. “Romans” could be from anywhere from Carlisle to Cairo, and beyond.
"In Britain, there is plenty of evidence of the presence of soldiers, traders and administrators from all parts of this enormous empire, including from Africa. Some of them would have been passing through; some made a life here. What is more difficult to do is to say with certainty whether such-and-such a person was “black” or “white” in our terms: these were not categories of interest to the Romans, and in the case of elite families from north Africa, say, it’s also unclear whether they were originally Italian settlers."
The explanations are everywhere around us but it seems they all bury the lead-- these were not categories of interest to the Romans. No one cared.
