Posted by: Mic
Meanwhile, Queen Elizabeth II has passed away.
God save the King! This means Charles's ugly mug is going to be on our money, doesn't it? Maybe they will mix it up. Charles on the 20, William on the 10, Kate on the 50, Camilla on the 2.
Posted by: chupacabra
Posted by: Mic
Meanwhile, Queen Elizabeth II has passed away.
God save the King! This means Charles's ugly mug is going to be on our money, doesn't it? Maybe they will mix it up. Charles on the 20, William on the 10, Kate on the 50, Camilla on the 2.
You use physical currency?
Posted by: chupacabra
Posted by: Mic
Meanwhile, Queen Elizabeth II has passed away.
...Camilla on the 2.
lol
Posted by: Couch_Surfer
Posted by: chupacabra
Posted by: Mic
Meanwhile, Queen Elizabeth II has passed away.
God save the King! This means Charles's ugly mug is going to be on our money, doesn't it? Maybe they will mix it up. Charles on the 20, William on the 10, Kate on the 50, Camilla on the 2.
You use physical currency?
Occasionally, but it has been a while. Panhandlers must not do well in this age.
Posted by: chupacabra
I question how much relationality they actually have with a mammoth that died that long ago, but it would be nice if it remained in town. The common indigenous belief that they have always been on the land can clash with archeology so I would also want to see scientific access.
Yeah, I get your point about relationality. I think the thing to take away is it helps to show how profund many Indigenous peoples connection to the earth is. They simply view their relationship with the earth in a very different way from Western peoples and that connection is something we should learn from.
The Queen chatter in this thread is interesting, although Indigenous peoples relationship with the Crown is also interesting in light of how they have been treated by the government of Canada. There is a strong argument to be made that the crown can and should play a greater role in solving treaty issues with Indigenous people.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/the-special-relationship-of-native-peoples-and-the-crown-1.1189032
The importance of concepts such as Relationality and Reciprocity in Indigenous cultures are well represented in this passage from the book We All Go Back to the Land: The Who, Why, and How of Land Acknowledgements by Suzanne Keeptwo
"The Indigenous economic paradigm was based on the simple tenet—or Natural Law—to never consume more than can be replenished through the natural renewal cycles in a particular ecosystem. It simply did not make sense to overexploit an ecosystem, rendering it incapable of producing enough to sustain the people. This principle also pertained to expending human energy. Not every community had access to, for example, a cranberry bog or shallow bays and sandbars where wild rice grew—hence, the need for collaboration and agreements between kin groups and other nations. If a neighbouring territory had ample resources, it would not make sense to trek extremely long distances to avoid that territory to forage or harvest food. So, because it was not ethical to trespass, agreements to share (while ensuring abundance for all) were necessary and reciprocal."
Posted by: chupacabra
Posted by: Couch_Surfer
Posted by: chupacabra
Posted by: Mic
Meanwhile, Queen Elizabeth II has passed away.
God save the King! This means Charles's ugly mug is going to be on our money, doesn't it? Maybe they will mix it up. Charles on the 20, William on the 10, Kate on the 50, Camilla on the 2.
You use physical currency?
Occasionally, but it has been a while. Panhandlers must not do well in this age.
In China they just carry little cards with qr codes printed on them around their necks.
Posted by: syncro
Posted by: chupacabra
I question how much relationality they actually have with a mammoth that died that long ago, but it would be nice if it remained in town. The common indigenous belief that they have always been on the land can clash with archeology so I would also want to see scientific access.
Yeah, I get your point about relationality. I think the thing to take away is it helps to show how profund many Indigenous peoples connection to the earth is. They simply view their relationship with the earth in a very different way from Western peoples and that connection is something we should learn from.
The Queen chatter in this thread is interesting, although Indigenous peoples relationship with the Crown is also interesting in light of how they have been treated by the government of Canada. There is a strong argument to be made that the crown can and should play a greater role in solving treaty issues with Indigenous people.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/the-special-relationship-of-native-peoples-and-the-crown-1.1189032
True. They have a religious reverence for the land they inhabit so really anything they find like this will be an object of significance. For our part I think a lot of the separation between man and nature is Christian, not necessarily western, and if we went back to western Europe 1500 years ago their world view would have been similar to indigenous cultures here and around the world.
The Queen is interesting in that I think she was respected despite her crown by a lot people you wouldn't expect. I agree that Charles should make setting things right in the colonies a priority. He is our head of state after all and the sins of Canada's past is as much on them as the Canadian government.
Posted by: chupacabra
Posted by: syncro
Posted by: chupacabra
I question how much relationality they actually have with a mammoth that died that long ago, but it would be nice if it remained in town. The common indigenous belief that they have always been on the land can clash with archeology so I would also want to see scientific access.
Yeah, I get your point about relationality. I think the thing to take away is it helps to show how profund many Indigenous peoples connection to the earth is. They simply view their relationship with the earth in a very different way from Western peoples and that connection is something we should learn from.
The Queen chatter in this thread is interesting, although Indigenous peoples relationship with the Crown is also interesting in light of how they have been treated by the government of Canada. There is a strong argument to be made that the crown can and should play a greater role in solving treaty issues with Indigenous people.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/the-special-relationship-of-native-peoples-and-the-crown-1.1189032
True. They have a religious reverence for the land they inhabit so really anything they find like this will be an object of significance. For our part I think a lot of the separation between man and nature is Christian, not necessarily western, and if we went back to western Europe 1500 years ago their world view would have been similar to indigenous cultures here and around the world.
The Queen is interesting in that I think she was respected despite her crown by a lot people you wouldn't expect. I agree that Charles should make setting things right in the colonies a priority. He is our head of state after all and the sins of Canada's past is as much on them as the Canadian government.
I see where you are going with this post but I have to disagree with the Christian part...not only Christianity but basically (and really simplistic and over generalising) all monotheistic religions share that sentiment of good vs evil, the idea of sinning, hell, the earth as something that has to be controlled, an idea that originally came from Persia, I think (too lazy and tired to check) with Zoroastra and his followers. But the Greeks and Romans were similar - one big issue in all of this is the notion that most "civilizations" were based on the idea of Patriarchy, with the males holding all that power in a political and religious sense, whereas most pagan and animistic societies were based on either an equal share of power or with a stronger female aspect, since the earth has always been regarded as a sacred feminine, search for info on archaeologist Marija Gimbutas if you want to dig deeper.
Posted by: Mic
I see where you are going with this post but I have to disagree with the Christian part...not only Christianity but basically (and really simplistic and over generalising) all monotheistic religions share that sentiment of good vs evil, the idea of sinning, hell, the earth as something that has to be controlled, an idea that originally came from Persia, I think (too lazy and tired to check) with Zoroastra and his followers. But the Greeks and Romans were similar - one big issue in all of this is the notion that most "civilizations" were based on the idea of Patriarchy, with the males holding all that power in a political and religious sense, whereas most pagan and animistic societies were based on either an equal share of power or with a stronger female aspect, since the earth has always been regarded as a sacred feminine, search for info on archaeologist Marija Gimbutas if you want to dig deeper.
I just meant that before Christianity was spread into western Europe the various "Pagan" religions were more connected to nature and didn't elevate mankind as the ruler of Earth in the same way Christianity does. The bible gives man domain over all living things.
Posted by: chupacabra
Posted by: Mic
I see where you are going with this post but I have to disagree with the Christian part...not only Christianity but basically (and really simplistic and over generalising) all monotheistic religions share that sentiment of good vs evil, the idea of sinning, hell, the earth as something that has to be controlled, an idea that originally came from Persia, I think (too lazy and tired to check) with Zoroastra and his followers. But the Greeks and Romans were similar - one big issue in all of this is the notion that most "civilizations" were based on the idea of Patriarchy, with the males holding all that power in a political and religious sense, whereas most pagan and animistic societies were based on either an equal share of power or with a stronger female aspect, since the earth has always been regarded as a sacred feminine, search for info on archaeologist Marija Gimbutas if you want to dig deeper.
I just meant that before Christianity was spread into western Europe the various "Pagan" religions were more connected to nature and didn't elevate mankind as the ruler of Earth in the same way Christianity does. The bible gives man domain over all living things.
For those who aren't aware the term Pagan is a term created in 4th Century BC by Christianity to describe anyone who didn't follow the Christian religion. And the Celts where very connected to nature with believing in spirits in water, trees, and so on. The Lady in The Lake of the fictional King Arthur is derived from that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_Animism
Unfortunately have seen current mindset around things when it comes to old customs and religious practices in negative forms towards non North American First Nations. A few years ago had to deal with an inlaw during a discussion about old Scottish aka Scottish Gaelic And Celtic culture who tried to claim two things. First was that one had to be genetically Scottish to wear a kilt claiming cultural appropriation. Then got upset when explained and showed her that she was wrong. She then changed direction when someone mentioned about water spirits and she went on about how only NA First Nations can believe in spirits and deities in tress, water, horses, and so on. Hinting at cultural appropriation Again had to explain that actually many ethnic groups around the world who had no contact at that point with NA First Nations had their version of Animism as a religion.
Interestingly when a year ago chatting about similar stuff to a rider I know who is a Mohawk from the Tyendinaga and when I mentioned had dug into this a wee bit further when I mentioned before Christianity that my ancestors believed in water spirits, same in trees and animals. And so on. He wasn't surprised. And agreed that Christianity and the English did a good job of wiping that all out. Yeah....nothing like marching out a few non believer Scots at low tide, shove them in holes in the sand, bury to neck, and sit back to watch the high tide kill them for not converting to Christianity to send a message yours is a benevolent religion.
And the more one digs into history.....There was alot of bad shite done before 1689 by command of the English Crown in the name of one god. Like Edward Ist conquest of Wales then his orders in 1277 to colonize Wales. So evicted farmers and so on to achieve that aim.
Posted by: chupacabra
Posted by: Mic
I see where you are going with this post but I have to disagree with the Christian part...not only Christianity but basically (and really simplistic and over generalising) all monotheistic religions share that sentiment of good vs evil, the idea of sinning, hell, the earth as something that has to be controlled, an idea that originally came from Persia, I think (too lazy and tired to check) with Zoroastra and his followers. But the Greeks and Romans were similar - one big issue in all of this is the notion that most "civilizations" were based on the idea of Patriarchy, with the males holding all that power in a political and religious sense, whereas most pagan and animistic societies were based on either an equal share of power or with a stronger female aspect, since the earth has always been regarded as a sacred feminine, search for info on archaeologist Marija Gimbutas if you want to dig deeper.
I just meant that before Christianity was spread into western Europe the various "Pagan" religions were more connected to nature and didn't elevate mankind as the ruler of Earth in the same way Christianity does. The bible gives man domain over all living things.
Yes.
Posted by: Endurimil
Posted by: chupacabra
Posted by: Mic
I see where you are going with this post but I have to disagree with the Christian part...not only Christianity but basically (and really simplistic and over generalising) all monotheistic religions share that sentiment of good vs evil, the idea of sinning, hell, the earth as something that has to be controlled, an idea that originally came from Persia, I think (too lazy and tired to check) with Zoroastra and his followers. But the Greeks and Romans were similar - one big issue in all of this is the notion that most "civilizations" were based on the idea of Patriarchy, with the males holding all that power in a political and religious sense, whereas most pagan and animistic societies were based on either an equal share of power or with a stronger female aspect, since the earth has always been regarded as a sacred feminine, search for info on archaeologist Marija Gimbutas if you want to dig deeper.
I just meant that before Christianity was spread into western Europe the various "Pagan" religions were more connected to nature and didn't elevate mankind as the ruler of Earth in the same way Christianity does. The bible gives man domain over all living things.
For those who aren't aware the term Pagan is a term created in 4th Century BC by Christianity to describe anyone who didn't follow the Christian religion. And the Celts where very connected to nature with believing in spirits in water, trees, and so on. The Lady in The Lake of the fictional King Arthur is derived from that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_Animism
Unfortunately have seen current mindset around things when it comes to old customs and religious practices in negative forms towards non North American First Nations. A few years ago had to deal with an inlaw during a discussion about old Scottish aka Scottish Gaelic And Celtic culture who tried to claim two things. First was that one had to be genetically Scottish to wear a kilt claiming cultural appropriation. Then got upset when explained and showed her that she was wrong. She then changed direction when someone mentioned about water spirits and she went on about how only NA First Nations can believe in spirits and deities in tress, water, horses, and so on. Hinting at cultural appropriation Again had to explain that actually many ethnic groups around the world who had no contact at that point with NA First Nations had their version of Animism as a religion.
Interestingly when a year ago chatting about similar stuff to a rider I know who is a Mohawk from the Tyendinaga and when I mentioned had dug into this a wee bit further when I mentioned before Christianity that my ancestors believed in water spirits, same in trees and animals. And so on. He wasn't surprised. And agreed that Christianity and the English did a good job of wiping that all out. Yeah....nothing like marching out a few non believer Scots at low tide, shove them in holes in the sand, bury to neck, and sit back to watch the high tide kill them for not converting to Christianity to send a message yours is a benevolent religion.
And the more one digs into history.....There was alot of bad shite done before 1689 by command of the English Crown in the name of one god. Like Edward Ist conquest of Wales then his orders in 1277 to colonize Wales. So evicted farmers and so on to achieve that aim.
off topic/
Yes, I agree - even the Celtic concept of how a land flourished under a just an rightful king is interesting and was taken up by Christianity, but is a pagan concept.
But the same goes not only for the Celts (British Isles and France, Spain, the Alps and northern Italy) but the Slavic tribes (eastern Europe), and other people like those we often name "Germanic" tribes of central Europe.
This video has strong insights into what Sep 30, the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation is all about.
Catholicism...what's the draw? I don't get it. I'd rather be a Scientologist if I wanted to completely give up on critical thinking.
Forum jump:
