Contents | Previous | Next
Date: 12 Aug 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Subject: Human Sacrifice in Traditional African Religion (was The Matamoros Affair (was Palo Mayombe: The 'Dark Side' of Santeria?...))
Message-ID: <20000812151842.15885.00000793@ng-ce1.aol.com>
References:
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Newsgroups: alt.religion.orisha
X-Admin: news@aol.com
>From: eballard@sas.upenn.edu (E. C. Ballard)
>Date: 8/12/00 2:21 AM EST
>Message-id:
>While I have read references to human sacrifice in 19th century Nigeria
>and earlier - it is worth noting that the accounts come from very dubious
>sources - the competition (ie missionaries). There is no record of the
>Kongolese performing human sacrifice as a part of regular religious
>ritual, even as far back as the 1400's when the portuguese first had
>contacts with them.
>
I don't know about the Kikongo, but the Yoruba and the Akan do not deny, in
fact affirm without defensiveness, that ritual human sacrifice is/was part of
their traditional religious practice.[1] To the modern mind this is an
abhorrent practice, and, for many, sufficient to put traditional African
religion beyond the pale (forgive the pun). For those, such as myself, who
would seek to defend traditional African religion on this score, the proper
defense is not indignation, still less is it denial. The proper defense lies,
as always, in Truth.
I will go out on a limb here and say that there is nothing wrong per se in
human sacrifice, although I hasten to add that there is clearly something wrong
in the "human sacrifice" recounted in the Matamoros affair. It depends. There
is an aspect of human sacrifice that can be heroic. In the Akan tradition,
there is the story told of the priest who, when the gods required a human
sacrifice to end the suffering of the people, offered himself. The Christian
crucifixion story is seen by the traditional African as a story of human
sacrifice, of the same noble sort exemplified by the traditional story of the
Akan. In the African warrior tradition, indeed every warrior tradition, it is
understood that the essence of warriorhood lies in his willingness of the
warrior/soldier to sacrifice self for the good of the larger collective. So, to
the mind of the traditional African, you cannot believe in the rightness of
Christ's crucifixion, yet condemn human sacrifice per se. A more nuanced
judgment is required. The traditional African also considers that the
bellicosity of the West (WW I, WW II, Korea, Viet Nam, etc., not to mention the
Jewish holocaust, and the African holocaust) represents a very special kind of
ongoing human sacrifice to appease the insatiable appetite of the gods that the
West really worship. There is therefore again reason to question the sincerity
of Western condemnation of human sacrifice, given the staggering scale on which
the latter, from one viewpoint, appear to practice it.[2]
Be all that as it may, it is also clearly the case that pure and simple murder,
motivated not by the greater good of the collective, but by the wrongful
seeking of private monetary advantage, is simply wrong. When such murder is
committed in a ritual context it is especially abhorrent.
The question it legitimately raises is whether the tradition from which it
derives is also, in an essential way, abhorrent. That would be an unwarranted
conclusion I think. All power is ultimately morally neutral. Moral judgements
must attach to the _use_ of power rather than to power itself. In the case at
hand, it is clear to those who _know of_ (as opposed merely to reading) these
things that a certain power derives from sacrifice -- the offering of the ase
of minerals, plants, animals, and indeed of humans. In my opinion, human
sacrifice may only be justified when the victim volunteers, which was a
condition clearly not met in the Matamoros affair. I also expect that much of
the traditional practice in Africa did not satisfy this condition. But the real
issue at hand requires us, not so much to pass judgment on the morality of
specific acts of human sacrifice, but to pass judgment on the whole religious
tradition from which it derives. My own take on this is that religion, in the
true sense, involves (and literally means) a tying back to oneness with Prime
Creator. This endeavor is essentially spiritual, since that is the true essence
which we share with Prime Creator. Thus a true religion ultimately will involve
the manipulation of spiritual power or ase. However, not all manipulation of
spiritual power serves a religious purpose, and indeed, the wrongful exercise
of spiritual power, indeed of any power, will take us even further away from a
reyoking to oneness with Prime Creator. Traditional African religion is very
clear on this point, as we see from the wisdom inherent in the proverb "what
goes around, comes around", the functional equivalent of the Golden Rule. At
the same time, sorcerers often wear religious garb for the cover it provides.
We must not be deceived by them, nor should we throw the baby out with the
bath-water when we honestly confront aspects of the traditional African
religion that a modern sensibility finds abhorrent.
>
>Salamaleko,
>
>Eoghan
>
Peace,
Grisso
"An offering of ... unassailable inner peace ... is superior to the [ase] of
blood..." -- Ra Un Nefer Amen
[1] I rely here on oral teaching from authoritative Yoruba and Akan sources.
For those who want written sources, see J. Olumide Lucas, "The religion of the
Yorubas".
[2] In this context, see also David Icke, "The Biggest Secret", in which it is
argued that Western world domination has as its spiritual basis the ritual
appeasement of lower 4th-dimensional reptilian beings whose appetite for human
blood sacrifice is appeased through recurrent warfare among other means. It is
alleged there that the British Royal Family are reptilian, also George Bush and
many others of the "Establishment".
--------------8BC58CC04FB98F320FDB7101--
Contents | Previous | Next
Tips for your pocket: