Philadelphia Conference Diary
Nov. 23rd, 2005 11:45 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
endymions_bowerJen and I were in Philadelphia so I could attend the 2005 Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Religion and the Society for Biblical Literature. This was a big year for the AAR/SBL and for Pagans at the AAR. That's because this is the last year that the AAR and the SBL are holding their annual meeting together, and the first year that Contemporary Pagan Studies has an official presence at the AAR meeting. Paranoid type that I am, I thought initially that these two events might be loosely connected -- i.e., that the Biblical types were getting tired of hanging around with so many weirdos on the AAR side. This, I am assured, is not the case. But the two events are indeed connected in a different way. The main reason for the split is that the combined conference has become too huge to find venues easily. And indeed, the conference was HUGE. I mean MEGA-HUGE. It seemed as though the Center City area of Philadelphia had been invaded and occupied for four days by members of, and scholars of, every conceivable religion, from Neopaganism to Salafi Islam and everything in between.
This explains the connection between the split and the Pagans' official debut at the conference. You see, as I'm told, the Pagan Studies group, which began as a tiny informal gathering ten years ago, and which has grown over the years into a larger and more structured presence on the fringes of the official meeting, finally had their application for official status at the AAR meeting approved in part because with the split coming, the AAR was going to be able to accomodate more new panels at the annual meeting. This, combined with the enhanced stature the pagans have due to their rising scholarly profile, led to this year's breakthrough.
Now, there may have been a grain of truth to the idea that the SBL people were tired of associating with all the weirdos on the AAR side, but not in the way that I imagined it initially. And this gets me into my personal impressions of the conference. The SBL people ARE actually kind of tired of the AAR weirdos, but the AAR weirdos aren't weird to them because they are pagans and Buddhists and Bahais and whatnot, they're weird because they are mostly anthropologists and sociologists of religion instead of people doing theology and textual criticism and so forth.
It seemed to me as though academic discipline trumped religious affiliation at this gathering. I felt estranged from my fellow pagans on account of the fact that they were mostly sociologists and anthropologists, while I am -- what am I exactly? -- let's say a philosophy-of-religion type. "Contemporary Pagan Studies" = "Studying Contemporary Pagans," a distinction which I do not think I fully marked up front. If pagan theology were a recognized discipline, maybe I'd feel more at home with other theologians, like the people from the SBL. Or maybe not, what with the burning at the stake and so forth.
The first event of the conference for me was the Conference on Contemporary Pagan Studies, which was all day Friday. This is the original group which was founded ten years ago and has met ever since on the fringes of the official AAR/SBL annual meeting, and which continues, even though there is now an official Contemporary Pagan Studies Group at the actual AAR meeting. The CCPS meeting was attended by over sixty people, an impressive turnout. There I met some luminaries in the pagan academic mafia, as it is sometimes known.
The kind of gathering I'd really enjoy would have gathered pagan academics who, rather than studying Neopaganism as a phenomenon, were instead working their way into academic specialties having to do with particular areas -- e.g., Egyptology or Classics or Norse literature or Chinese religion -- of interest to them as pagans and the study of which badly needs the kind of perspective that their scholarship can provide. This was not that kind of gathering; in fact, I did start to get tired of people making cracks about Reconstructionists.
There is a big difference between people who think that the core of the pagan movement is nature worship, and who regard the existence of particular deities as at best a secondary concern, and those for whom the core of the movement is the renewal of contact between humans and the Gods in the wake of Christian and Islamic hegemony. The former are firmly rooted in the 60's and 70's counterculture, and basically see paganism as the religious wing of that movement. Which I used to be fine with, but now I'm starting to see the hair in the egg, as they say. Because the way in which the pagan movement articulated itself in that era is starting to be a stumbling block for pagans today.
For instance, it is assumed that the "perennial tradition" of Western esotericism, as manifest in things like ceremonial magick and Theosophy, should naturally be of interest to me as a pagan; and at a certain point it indeed was. But at this point, I'm trying to figure out what, for example, the ancient Egyptians were really saying INSTEAD OF what occultists since the Renaissance have said about them. Occultism was the life-support for the pagan legacy during the long dark ages, just like the counterculture movement was the stimulus for the neopagan revival in the West in the postwar era. But we're off life-support now, thank the Gods, and now, frankly, I think a lot of pagans would just as soon pick up where we left off, if such an idea isn't totally ridiculous after 1500 years. And where we left off was with a paganism which was not a "nature religion" but an EVERYTHING religion. It was the religion of the city and the country and of philosophers and of artists and of elites and of slaves and of everything else, all over the world. Then it was extinguished in the lands conquered by Christians and then Muslims. It has reestablished itself in those lands through a long and sometimes meandering path, and now seeks to reestablish connection with those indigenous traditions that escaped Christian or Muslim domination. Perhaps as books come out like Charles Clifton's forthcoming history of Neopaganism in the U.S., "Her Hidden Children," and other books which help to tell the story of how paganism was reborn in the West, people will start to have a sense that one's past doesn't have to be one's future, and that the elements which kept the embers of paganism in Europe glowing and which rekindled the flame in Europe and America are not, simply on account of that, the essential elements of the movement. This may also be helped by the beginnings of real theological debate in the pagan movement, as evidenced by two recent books by Jordan Paper and Michael York, the latter of whom was a leading presence in the Pagan Studies events at the AAR conference. That's not to say I necessarily agree with the pagan theologies proposed in these two books.
A further dimension of this issue is the "problem" (or pseudo-problem) of affiliation. This became really apparent to me in the second pagan studies event I attended, the first one which was an "official" AAR event, a panel on Eastern European Neopaganism done in conjunction with the New Religious Movements Group. This was a fascinating discussion of the state of Neopaganism in the Ukraine, Lithuania and Russia. It was great to hear the way that Neopaganism is burgeoning in this region, not only in the Orthodox areas, but also in Muslim areas like the Crimea. But it was sad to hear that there is so much racist ideology mixed up in the pagan groups there, especially in Russia. It didn't seem like it was that way in Lithuania, though. Ukraine sounded like it came in somewhere in the middle. Plus, a fellow who wasn't on the panel stood up and said that in Bulgaria, where he's from, the pagans joined some fringe right-wing party en masse and were as a result totally discredited, so I would assume it's a problem there too, unless their right-wingness had to do with marginal tax rates.
Now obviously these countries have a lot of problems in any event, and the pagan movement here has much less racism in it, if for no other reason than that racist discourse is just not tolerated here the way that it obviously is in the former Iron Curtain countries. But here's what worries me. What alternative paradigm do we have to offer pagans in these other countries? Because to my way of thinking, there are really three paradigms for pagan identity. One is that paganism is essentially a universal nature religion, differentiated at most according to bioregions. This is a kind of spiritualized ecology which I don't think cuts it as a paradigm for modern paganism. Another is that paganism is a loose assemblage of ethnic religions. This has some accuracy relative to how ancient paganism understood itself, but it brings in all the baggage associated with ethnicity in the modern world. What if I want to worship the Gods of an "ethnos" I don't belong to? Is there something wrong with that under this paradigm? Something unnatural? Finally, there is the paradigm that puts individual Gods first. One worships the Gods one chooses and to whom one feels called, and it is understood that while ethnic pantheons have value, they are instruments through which the Gods work, not structures upon which the Gods are dependent for their existence. This paradigm is to me the least hubristic, the most accurate in terms of capturing the ontology implicit in most ancient pagan praxis, and the most promising for not getting in the way of individual choice. But it is also the least developed of the paradigms, and one that I did not get the feeling there was a whole lot of grasp of among the people attending the pagan studies events at the AAR. Nor is it a very prominent point of view in Eastern Europe, as I was told point blank by one of the panelists. But not only is a paganism that leaves out the Gods not going anywhere, IMO, but the whole movement is going to be tarnished by an ethnocentrism having no counterbalance aside from a flabby ecocentric universalism.
Now for personal matters. Philadelphia was cold and distinctly less fun this time than on our last trip there. My meetings with the Neoplatonists, who have groups in both the SBL and the AAR, were pleasant. I got to meet a number of scholars who have just been names on books for me, like Gregory Shaw, Sarah Rappe, and most of all, the eminent John Dillon. I finally met John Finamore, head of the International Society for Neoplatonic Studies. But the big disappointment to me was my paper at Monday's AAR Neoplatonism panel. I wrote an abstract for this paper ("Neoplatonism and Polytheism") which I thought was absolute gold, but then I just couldn't write a paper that lived up to it, for some reason. So as a result, I feel as though I had a golden opportunity to read a paper in front of John Dillon and the paper I wished I was reading wasn't the one in my hands. Well, maybe he'll read my article coming up in "Dionysius", or even look at my dissertation, as he indicated he might when I spoke to him after the SBL Neoplatonism panel on Saturday. Otherwise, turnout was light at my panel; Monday was a travel day for many. No pagan studies attendees, at least not that I recognized.
There was a book fair at the conference which was to die for. There's a brand new translation of the Pyramid Texts by James Allen and a brand new translation of Iamblichus' "On the Mysteries" by, among others, John Dillon. I'm still trying to make up my mind about the frighteningly expensive but mouthwatering giant deluxe edition of a demotic Egyptian text called "The Book of Thoth". No, not the one by Crowley but what appears to be a mind-melting 30 page ritual text straight from the sacred library of Hermopolis. I think it's $160 with the AAR/SBL discount? As Shakespeare wrote, "Exit chased by a bear."
Bought some fun things. From the Nataraj Books booth, a Hindu classic-comics version of the myth of Durga, as well as an animated movie about Hanuman and a movie called "Naag Shakti" which appears to be about the queen of the Nagas, plus a neat little book about Saraswati and a glossy children's book, a guide to the Hindu pantheon. Also a book called "Gardens of the Gods" about, well, trippy gardens, and from the Reading Terminal Market, a beeswax owl for Athena!
Oh and I almost forgot, at the pagan studies conference on Friday they showed an incredible documentary about contemporary Hellenic pagans in Greece called "I Still Worship Zeus" (I learned that in Greece they pronounce 'Zeus' like 'Zefs', isn't that cute?). Greece is a scary country because it's illegal to worship the Olympian Gods EVEN IN YOUR OWN HOME. Plus all the schools teach Orthodox Christianity. There are no secular public schools in Greece. But I appreciated the comment of a woman in the movie who works at a shop that sells replicas of ancient statuary, who said that she thinks it's okay to worship the Olympian Gods "as long as you're Christian."
This explains the connection between the split and the Pagans' official debut at the conference. You see, as I'm told, the Pagan Studies group, which began as a tiny informal gathering ten years ago, and which has grown over the years into a larger and more structured presence on the fringes of the official meeting, finally had their application for official status at the AAR meeting approved in part because with the split coming, the AAR was going to be able to accomodate more new panels at the annual meeting. This, combined with the enhanced stature the pagans have due to their rising scholarly profile, led to this year's breakthrough.
Now, there may have been a grain of truth to the idea that the SBL people were tired of associating with all the weirdos on the AAR side, but not in the way that I imagined it initially. And this gets me into my personal impressions of the conference. The SBL people ARE actually kind of tired of the AAR weirdos, but the AAR weirdos aren't weird to them because they are pagans and Buddhists and Bahais and whatnot, they're weird because they are mostly anthropologists and sociologists of religion instead of people doing theology and textual criticism and so forth.
It seemed to me as though academic discipline trumped religious affiliation at this gathering. I felt estranged from my fellow pagans on account of the fact that they were mostly sociologists and anthropologists, while I am -- what am I exactly? -- let's say a philosophy-of-religion type. "Contemporary Pagan Studies" = "Studying Contemporary Pagans," a distinction which I do not think I fully marked up front. If pagan theology were a recognized discipline, maybe I'd feel more at home with other theologians, like the people from the SBL. Or maybe not, what with the burning at the stake and so forth.
The first event of the conference for me was the Conference on Contemporary Pagan Studies, which was all day Friday. This is the original group which was founded ten years ago and has met ever since on the fringes of the official AAR/SBL annual meeting, and which continues, even though there is now an official Contemporary Pagan Studies Group at the actual AAR meeting. The CCPS meeting was attended by over sixty people, an impressive turnout. There I met some luminaries in the pagan academic mafia, as it is sometimes known.
The kind of gathering I'd really enjoy would have gathered pagan academics who, rather than studying Neopaganism as a phenomenon, were instead working their way into academic specialties having to do with particular areas -- e.g., Egyptology or Classics or Norse literature or Chinese religion -- of interest to them as pagans and the study of which badly needs the kind of perspective that their scholarship can provide. This was not that kind of gathering; in fact, I did start to get tired of people making cracks about Reconstructionists.
There is a big difference between people who think that the core of the pagan movement is nature worship, and who regard the existence of particular deities as at best a secondary concern, and those for whom the core of the movement is the renewal of contact between humans and the Gods in the wake of Christian and Islamic hegemony. The former are firmly rooted in the 60's and 70's counterculture, and basically see paganism as the religious wing of that movement. Which I used to be fine with, but now I'm starting to see the hair in the egg, as they say. Because the way in which the pagan movement articulated itself in that era is starting to be a stumbling block for pagans today.
For instance, it is assumed that the "perennial tradition" of Western esotericism, as manifest in things like ceremonial magick and Theosophy, should naturally be of interest to me as a pagan; and at a certain point it indeed was. But at this point, I'm trying to figure out what, for example, the ancient Egyptians were really saying INSTEAD OF what occultists since the Renaissance have said about them. Occultism was the life-support for the pagan legacy during the long dark ages, just like the counterculture movement was the stimulus for the neopagan revival in the West in the postwar era. But we're off life-support now, thank the Gods, and now, frankly, I think a lot of pagans would just as soon pick up where we left off, if such an idea isn't totally ridiculous after 1500 years. And where we left off was with a paganism which was not a "nature religion" but an EVERYTHING religion. It was the religion of the city and the country and of philosophers and of artists and of elites and of slaves and of everything else, all over the world. Then it was extinguished in the lands conquered by Christians and then Muslims. It has reestablished itself in those lands through a long and sometimes meandering path, and now seeks to reestablish connection with those indigenous traditions that escaped Christian or Muslim domination. Perhaps as books come out like Charles Clifton's forthcoming history of Neopaganism in the U.S., "Her Hidden Children," and other books which help to tell the story of how paganism was reborn in the West, people will start to have a sense that one's past doesn't have to be one's future, and that the elements which kept the embers of paganism in Europe glowing and which rekindled the flame in Europe and America are not, simply on account of that, the essential elements of the movement. This may also be helped by the beginnings of real theological debate in the pagan movement, as evidenced by two recent books by Jordan Paper and Michael York, the latter of whom was a leading presence in the Pagan Studies events at the AAR conference. That's not to say I necessarily agree with the pagan theologies proposed in these two books.
A further dimension of this issue is the "problem" (or pseudo-problem) of affiliation. This became really apparent to me in the second pagan studies event I attended, the first one which was an "official" AAR event, a panel on Eastern European Neopaganism done in conjunction with the New Religious Movements Group. This was a fascinating discussion of the state of Neopaganism in the Ukraine, Lithuania and Russia. It was great to hear the way that Neopaganism is burgeoning in this region, not only in the Orthodox areas, but also in Muslim areas like the Crimea. But it was sad to hear that there is so much racist ideology mixed up in the pagan groups there, especially in Russia. It didn't seem like it was that way in Lithuania, though. Ukraine sounded like it came in somewhere in the middle. Plus, a fellow who wasn't on the panel stood up and said that in Bulgaria, where he's from, the pagans joined some fringe right-wing party en masse and were as a result totally discredited, so I would assume it's a problem there too, unless their right-wingness had to do with marginal tax rates.
Now obviously these countries have a lot of problems in any event, and the pagan movement here has much less racism in it, if for no other reason than that racist discourse is just not tolerated here the way that it obviously is in the former Iron Curtain countries. But here's what worries me. What alternative paradigm do we have to offer pagans in these other countries? Because to my way of thinking, there are really three paradigms for pagan identity. One is that paganism is essentially a universal nature religion, differentiated at most according to bioregions. This is a kind of spiritualized ecology which I don't think cuts it as a paradigm for modern paganism. Another is that paganism is a loose assemblage of ethnic religions. This has some accuracy relative to how ancient paganism understood itself, but it brings in all the baggage associated with ethnicity in the modern world. What if I want to worship the Gods of an "ethnos" I don't belong to? Is there something wrong with that under this paradigm? Something unnatural? Finally, there is the paradigm that puts individual Gods first. One worships the Gods one chooses and to whom one feels called, and it is understood that while ethnic pantheons have value, they are instruments through which the Gods work, not structures upon which the Gods are dependent for their existence. This paradigm is to me the least hubristic, the most accurate in terms of capturing the ontology implicit in most ancient pagan praxis, and the most promising for not getting in the way of individual choice. But it is also the least developed of the paradigms, and one that I did not get the feeling there was a whole lot of grasp of among the people attending the pagan studies events at the AAR. Nor is it a very prominent point of view in Eastern Europe, as I was told point blank by one of the panelists. But not only is a paganism that leaves out the Gods not going anywhere, IMO, but the whole movement is going to be tarnished by an ethnocentrism having no counterbalance aside from a flabby ecocentric universalism.
Now for personal matters. Philadelphia was cold and distinctly less fun this time than on our last trip there. My meetings with the Neoplatonists, who have groups in both the SBL and the AAR, were pleasant. I got to meet a number of scholars who have just been names on books for me, like Gregory Shaw, Sarah Rappe, and most of all, the eminent John Dillon. I finally met John Finamore, head of the International Society for Neoplatonic Studies. But the big disappointment to me was my paper at Monday's AAR Neoplatonism panel. I wrote an abstract for this paper ("Neoplatonism and Polytheism") which I thought was absolute gold, but then I just couldn't write a paper that lived up to it, for some reason. So as a result, I feel as though I had a golden opportunity to read a paper in front of John Dillon and the paper I wished I was reading wasn't the one in my hands. Well, maybe he'll read my article coming up in "Dionysius", or even look at my dissertation, as he indicated he might when I spoke to him after the SBL Neoplatonism panel on Saturday. Otherwise, turnout was light at my panel; Monday was a travel day for many. No pagan studies attendees, at least not that I recognized.
There was a book fair at the conference which was to die for. There's a brand new translation of the Pyramid Texts by James Allen and a brand new translation of Iamblichus' "On the Mysteries" by, among others, John Dillon. I'm still trying to make up my mind about the frighteningly expensive but mouthwatering giant deluxe edition of a demotic Egyptian text called "The Book of Thoth". No, not the one by Crowley but what appears to be a mind-melting 30 page ritual text straight from the sacred library of Hermopolis. I think it's $160 with the AAR/SBL discount? As Shakespeare wrote, "Exit chased by a bear."
Bought some fun things. From the Nataraj Books booth, a Hindu classic-comics version of the myth of Durga, as well as an animated movie about Hanuman and a movie called "Naag Shakti" which appears to be about the queen of the Nagas, plus a neat little book about Saraswati and a glossy children's book, a guide to the Hindu pantheon. Also a book called "Gardens of the Gods" about, well, trippy gardens, and from the Reading Terminal Market, a beeswax owl for Athena!
Oh and I almost forgot, at the pagan studies conference on Friday they showed an incredible documentary about contemporary Hellenic pagans in Greece called "I Still Worship Zeus" (I learned that in Greece they pronounce 'Zeus' like 'Zefs', isn't that cute?). Greece is a scary country because it's illegal to worship the Olympian Gods EVEN IN YOUR OWN HOME. Plus all the schools teach Orthodox Christianity. There are no secular public schools in Greece. But I appreciated the comment of a woman in the movie who works at a shop that sells replicas of ancient statuary, who said that she thinks it's okay to worship the Olympian Gods "as long as you're Christian."
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
in which my mind skips around from thought to thought
Date: 2005-11-24 12:56 am (UTC)Absolutely.
Thinking of this in terms of paganism touching every aspect of a single life - I think I can get there sometimes, probably more often now than in past years. When I do - the world is a much more enchanting astonishing place.
One worships the Gods one chooses and to whom one feels called, and it is understood that while ethnic pantheons have value, they are instruments through which the Gods work, not structures upon which the Gods are dependent for their existence.
I think I may needlepoint this on a pillow if I can find one big enough. Loverly.
But not only is a paganism that leaves out the Gods not going anywhere, IMO, but the whole movement is going to be tarnished by an ethnocentrism with no counterbalance aside from a flabby ecocentric universalism.
Are the gods "quaint" or is rejection of deity a knee-jerk against Christianity. I know which one I think it is.
I wonder, too, about the impact of myths "written down" to a child's level. On the one hand, groovy introduction, on the other, it can be hard to break away as an adult from the idea of myths being stories that have as much to do with one's life as do the three billy goats gruff or Rose Red. I think that the "problem" here is that, unlike in Christianity with the Bible for instance, the myths aren't encountered within a framework of the faith itself.
Were there many pagan religions where outsiders weren't allowed to worship because of their ethnicity? Honest question, I don't know. My first guess is no.
My environmentalism came first, then got wrapped up in neopaganism, and now it is a part of an encompassing belief in the importance of balance, healthiness, and interconnection.
You know what's odd? The very idea of pagan movements. I know they exist, certainly, and have for ages, but sitting here in my house in Marana, Arizona, it's hard to imagine. Reading about academic progress is thrilling, but it also seems surreal. I guess because for well over a decade the idea of a well-written, well-researched, thoughtful treatise on paganism (in any era) seemed like an impossibility - a pipe dream. Well, until I met you, then it became a possibility. Reading that it's happening... it's wonderful and weird.
I am rather ignorant about the history of neopaganism anyway.
mouthwatering giant deluxe edition of a late Egyptian text called "The Book of Thoth". No, not the one by Crowley but what appears to be a mind-melting 30 page ritual text straight from the sacred library of Hermopolis. I think it's $160 with the AAR/SBL discount?
Oh man
Greece is a scary country because it's illegal to worship the Olympian Gods EVEN IN YOUR OWN HOME.
the hell?
she thinks it's okay to worship the Olympian Gods "as long as you're Christian."
Hee!
Re: in which my mind skips around from thought to thought
Date: 2005-11-24 03:47 am (UTC)Ethnicity was not a bar to one's participation in a cult in antiquity, especially as time went on and people became more mobile. No one in antiquity seems to have had a notion of ethnicity that went beyond the language one spoke. Hence one had to understand Greek to be initiated at Eleusis; but this didn't have anything to do with a notion of an "Hellenic spirit" the way that some of these benighted Eastern European pagan groups that I heard about speak of a "Russian spirit" or a "Ukrainian spirit" or whatever.
I think in the West people go in a non-theistic direction because of all the factors you cite; the Gods seem quaint, the myths have been worn smooth in being told as stories, Christianity has made theism uncool. There's also a certain rhetoric about distinction itself being somehow suspect, artificial, divisive. Spirituality is just supposed to be ABOUT dissolving boundaries, according to this view -- "mystical unity".
no subject
Date: 2006-01-05 10:48 pm (UTC)I think that monotheism has encouraged people to grow lazy about the way in which they think about unity and multiplicity, so that when people approach polytheism, they have in their minds the idea that there are all kinds of problems with it, even though they usually have not evaluated the supposed problems for themselves. Polytheism has few defenders and many detractors, including polite ones who think that they are being helpful or giving the ancients credit for something noble and intellectually progressive when they reshape ancient polytheism in less polytheistic terms.
I could go on at length about the different forms that this takes and the flaws I see in the typical arguments on this subject, but it would run to an absurd length. I will just say that I think the concept of individuality is a very underrated one in the history of thought, and that in my opinion, resolving the pseudo-problems people perceive with a radically polytheistic metaphysics could contribute to debates in other areas, debates about pluralism and relativism in the social sciences, for example.
no subject
Date: 2006-01-14 06:07 pm (UTC)Perhaps I will take you up on this and share some of my writings with you sometime. They are generally written for academic journals or philosophy conferences, and so tend to be a little dense. They do address these issues, however. I'm working on an article right now on divine names which could use another pair of eyes.
I'm so pleased you happened along!
no subject
Date: 2006-02-01 12:29 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-02-01 04:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2023-04-16 11:57 pm (UTC)"But we're off life-support now" - do you still believe this? I've been hearing about "Neopagan collapse" in the US, and I think the rise of some forms of polytheism which might be considered outside that term isn't compensating. (Where I live, no European-polytheism has achieved anything to my knowledge, and the practitioners of Afro-American religions are likely to claim to be Christian, i.e. monotheist.)
Do you happen to have any news, or any terms I might search, regarding polytheism in Crimea? AFAIK in Lithuania, the nationalists (of whom the polytheists are nearly a proper subset) just hate Russians, and that's "not racist" (in Western depictions) even though they're likely to claim that Balts and Slavs aren't the same race (with Baltic and Slavic religions being nearly the same thing from what I see, besides the historically-known connections), or, in alliance with Ukrainians (topical now!), to paint only the Russians as Tatar-mongrels (though, if anything, you'd expect Ukrainians to have more Turkic blood and Russians to have more Finno-Ugric - a small component in each). (Also, with this war, both Ukrainians and Russians are growing sympathy for the "right" kinds of Muslim; I don't imagine this will be good for Slavic religion's future.)
"What if I want to worship the Gods of an "ethnos" I don't belong to?" - under a definition of "ethnicity" that isn't synonymous with "race" (i.e. a proper one IMO) you could change what ethnicity you - or your descendants at least - are if you bothered to change your language, customs, and possibly religion; that'd leave open conversion and immigration possibilities without justifiying the "absence of borders" some people want. (That said, I don't favor a strong ethnicity-religion coupling, but one is often obsereved in practice - see, say, https://violetcabra.dreamwidth.org/384613.html .)
(More comments forthcoming - but I warn you that I do consider myself to understand politics much better than religion! (I was an atheist-stereotype not long ago.))
no subject
Date: 2023-04-18 11:46 pm (UTC)"But we're off life-support now" - do you still believe this?
Of course; you need to read the context. I was speaking of the ability of paganism to disaggregate itself from occultism; that's not something that's going to reaggregate.
As for claims of "Neopagan collapse", that's just silly.
Regarding the state of polytheism in Crimea, the Baltics, Ukraine, etc., it's something that others are far better informed about than myself.
When you quote "What if I want to worship the Gods of an 'ethnos' I don't belong to?", I get the feeling that you don't understand that this is a rhetorical question. As I go on to state, I believe that the correct position is based on recognizing Gods as individuals. Worshiping Gods of an ethnos I don't belong to is not a problem in my view.
no subject
Date: 2023-04-19 12:25 am (UTC)