Contents | Previous | Next
Date: 13 Aug 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Subject: Re: The Matamoros Affair (was Palo Mayombe: The 'Dark Side' of Santeria?...)
Message-ID: <20000813151640.24318.00000304@ng-fb1.aol.com>
References:
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Newsgroups: alt.religion.orisha
X-Admin: news@aol.com
Subject: Re: The Matamoros Affair (was Palo Mayombe: The 'Dark Side' of
>Santeria?...)
>From: eballard@sas.upenn.edu (E. C. Ballard)
>Date: 8/13/00 11:38 AM EST
>Message-id:
>
>In article <20000813025055.15744.00000807@ng-cj1.aol.com>,
>
>> No. Human sacrifice in traditional African religion is/was permissible in
>> certain contexts. In impermissible contexts, it is sorcery, not religion.
>
>First of all, you paint with far too broad a brush. It is IMPOSSIBLE to
>speak of African religion in general. There are an incredible number of
>cultural groups, languages and very divergent religious traditions. It is
>not even possible to speak of "traditional religion on a single point
>without finding dozens of contradicitions and differing positions.
>
I disagree. To recognize difference is not ipso facto to deny commonality. Take
two brothers, John and James, say. By assumption, they are clearly different,
since they are not *the same*, yet there is also, by assumption, something that
they share in common, namely belonging to the same family. I acknowledge their
difference, and at the same time assert their commonality. You cannot deny
their commonality by asserting their difference. Both are true. So, when I
speak of traditional African religion, I appeal to that which is common beneath
all the surface differences. I would also allude to the Bonaabakulu Abasekhemu,
which is the Zulu name for a religious society whose members are drawn from all
the peoples of Africa.[1, 2] I also allude to the palpable commonality of
religious method and world-view that you find in African traditional religions,
whether Akan, Zulu, or in-between. To deny that is to deny the obvious.
>A sorcerer is not a bad person. In many contexts, certainly in Central
>West African Bantu cultures such as the Kongo, the Mbundo, the Chokwe,
>etc. A sorcerer is not defact evil. A distinction is made between sorcery
>and witchcraft. Witchcraft is evil, sorcery isn't.
>
This is a semantic question. I do not dispute the reality of the distinctions
you seek to draw, but I do dispute your use of language. In my copy of
Webster's, the word "sorcery" is defined as "the use of power gained from the
assistance or control of evil spirits". Evil is implicit in the word. Now, evil
is also implicit in certain uses of the word "witchcraft", but enlightened
usage nowadays distinguishes "good" witches from "evil" witches, and likewise
"good" witchcraft from "evil" witchcraft. Therefore the word "witchcraft" has
in common usage now been restored to a morally neutral place, in the same way
that "magic" is effectively morally neutral, given the distinction usually
drawn between "white" magic and "black" magic. So far, I am not aware of a
usage that similarly rescues the word "sorcery" to moral neutrality. Therefore,
I think my usage is justifiable. I will continue to make the distinction
between sorcery (the wrongful seeking of personal gain through super-physical
means) and religion (a tying back to oneness with Prime Creator).
However, I take your point, which I also have made, that power, per se, is
neutral, and it is the use of power that carries moral value. Thus there is a
practice involving the seeking of gain through super-physical means, which, to
the extent it is not wrongful, is not sorcery. All kinds of healing work falls
into this category. Call it white magic if you like. From what I could gather
of African languages, these distinctions are easily made therein, without the
value-laden prejudices that we have in the English. For example, the very word
"witch" appears to me to derive from the Kemetic "Uatchet". Uatchet represents
the energy that is deployed in offensive witchcraft, through which psychic
assault takes place. But it is not per se negative or evil. It is the same
energy present in electricity. It is the same energy again that is referred to
by the Chinese when they speak of "gung ho", or get-up-and-go. It is again the
same energy that is manipulated in the Chinese art of feng shui, that has to do
with electromagnetic lines of force and their subtle influences on energy flows
in buildings, depending on the layout and placement of furniture, plants,
ornaments, mirrors, colors, etc. And again it is the same energy at play in the
Western witchcraft that is advertising in all its forms. It is the energy that
"rides the wind", and so is associated with Oya. The point is, that in the
African understanding of Uatchet, and Oya, there is moral neutrality to the
energy per se, unlike the English (and other European) languages, where these
things have become hopelessly confused, and the confusion is now hardwired into
the language. So, when you take a perfectly clear African concept, and
translate it into European languages, what you get is confusion, not only the
confusion of using value-laden words to translate value-free notions, but also
the confusion that arises from European condescension, which gives us nonsense
constructs such as "witch-doctor".
>Lastly, for Cat, I am unaware of any cases in the African Kongo tradition
>of the use of human body parts from sacrifice for any magical purposes.
>The use of bones, usually of ancestors was commonplace in the Kongo. This
>was extended somewhat in the new world to include bones from the deceased
>who had specific attributes - wisdom, strength, magical ability, etc. In
>neither case was murder or sacrifice involved.
I would again point out that the Kikongo and Bantu traditions embrace more than
witchcraft/sorcery (take your pick as to value imputations). There is also a
religious tradition, as distinct from witchcraft/sorcery, in the sense that I
have defined earlier. Perhaps this religious tradition is foreign to Palo. I
would really like to know.
>
>Eoghan
>
Peace,
Grisso
[1] See Patrick Bowen, "Ancient Wisdom in Africa", in Journal of Comparative
Religion, 1969.
[2] For discussion of the Bonaabakulu Abasekhemu (keepers of the wisdom which
comes from of old, ie. Ancient Kemet), see my article entitle "Ancient Wisdom
in Africa" on the web at http://TheAfrican.Com/Magazine
--------------7D84288D4EF2DC3F0A197E99--
Contents | Previous | Next
Tips for your pocket: