Responses to "Druidry and Witchcraft"

By Irreverend Hugh, KSC

The following are my responses to the article "DRUIDRY AND WITCHCRAFT" by Ly de Angeles which can be located at the website http://www.lydeangeles.com/entrance.html (click on the link to see the site).

Upon reading the title of this article, my hopes were raised. I should not have let that happen, but I was interested in the cross-over phenomenon that many of us know happens. There are small 'w' witches within every religion and/or spiritual tradition. I naturally assumed that the article would explicate this topic with regards to druidism, or at least the Neo-Pagan form of druidism. The article was so muddled and 'all over the place' that my hopes were dashed quickly.

To be honest, if one really wants to get to the bottom of small 'w' witchcraft and its intertwining with druidism, one may want to consult the works of Isaac Bonewits, who has done the research. (He has publish material related to the topic in two of his books Witchcraft: A Concise Guide and Neo-Paganism: A Concise Guide.) There is also a vertible library of works dealing with druidism, both ancient and 'revived,' for anyone interested.

Much of what the author of this article discusses deals more with conceptual stereotypes than with anything else. I have chosen to response to the article, piece by piece. As is my usual habit, I have quoted the article in full with my repsonses interspliced (which is also standard internet practice).


DRUIDRY AND WITCHCRAFT
(or why some witches are Druids and some Druids are witches)

-Ly de Angeles

Published through THE DRUID NETWORK (2003)

http://www.druidnetwork.org/articles/lydeangeles.html

It's quite funny, really. To write about the strong link between Witchcraft and Druidry I feel the need, initially, to talk to you about the differences between Witchcraft and Wicca simply to round the whole thing off as there is so much misunderstanding about these two separate, if linked, ways of the sacred.

Currently many Druids realise that they are also witches (and vice-versa). This has probably always been so, but since the British Commonwealth laws repealed the Witchcraft Act in 1951, and the subsequent build-up and dissemination of relevant information that has allowed for freer dialogue on both topics on a public platform, a collective 'Ahh!' has been heard in the Deep.

Okay, here is where I start to get a feeling that there is to be muddled thinking. She uses the small 'w' witch word in her title, yet turns around and immediately uses capital 'W' Witchcraft and raises the point that 'Witchcraft' and Wicca are different. There may be a difference, but contrary to the cherished falsities of many Neo-Pagans, capital 'W' Witchcraft didn't exist until after Wicca was developed and contains within its practice and ideas, many concepts that can clearly be shown to be Wiccan in origin. There is nothing wrong with this. I myself practice a from of Neo-Pagan Witchcraft which I feel must be called that in preference to the term 'Wicca.'

However, the small 'w' witchcraft is simply the practice of magic and traditional ways of mental/physical healing. This witchcraft exists everywhere and has no real dependence upon nor connection to any religious or spiritual conceptions. In light of this, of course there would be some members of the revived druid community who would be 'witches.'

And yet things are still strange and strained, because our freedom is still young. Some may not see it as such, but then I was born in thee same year that the laws ceased their ability to prosecute us for our affiliation to other than what was considered as mainstream. I had been an initiate of the Craft for 11 years when Neville Drury (author, editor and anthropologist) compiled Other Temples, Other Gods and I declined participation out of a very honest angst that going that public could bring harm to my child (this was the same year that a witch in the western suburbs of Sydney had her caravan (her home) burned to the ground because she had trusted that it would be okay to mention her way to others).

There is still a lot of misunderstanding about Neo-Pagan spirituality, especially about those going around calling themselves 'Witches' to be sure. This is not surprising given what terms like 'witchcraft' (or Witchcraft) and 'Pagan' have meant to the mainstream for centuries. The author's little factoid about being born in the same year as the repeal of the Commonwealth Witchcraft laws is interesting, but irrelevant. (I won't begin to discuss the torturous syntax she uses which gives the impression of 'occulture.' I'll have to save such linguistic examples for another can of worms to be opened at another time. I'll just mention that tortured syntax seems to be the marker of the usual occult attitude of "okay, listen up...the following is magickal.")

Sad to say, there are still incidences of religious bigotry and hatred even today in the new century. As an aside, it appears such things are becoming more commonplace in the USA due to the social and religious climate of the times. There are still many valid reasons why many people wish to keep their Pagan or Witchcraft affiliations private which have nothing to do with discrimination however.

Gerald Gardner gave the public Wicca, along with an entire system that has been both emulated and transformed (in various ways) ever since. Wicca, in its more traditional sense, has clear boundaries of grade and rank, is a religion in the accepted sense, and draws heavily on the ways of both Witchcraft and certain aspects of Ceremonial Magick for both its ritual and its extra-curricular activities. There were, close to its inception, three schools of Wicca - Guardinarian (formulated by Gerald Gardner), Alexandrian (formulated by Alex Sanders) and Traditional Wicca (said to stem from Old George Pickingill). From them sprang Seax Wicca, Dianic Wicca, the Faerie Traditions, neo-Paganism and many variations of the same theme. Most schools incorporate the five-fold kiss and the laws of both 'An it harm none, do what thou wilt' and the law of the three-fold return. Many traditions of Wicca draw on certain of the practical workings of either/both Thelemic magick or the Golden Dawn ceremonial systems as an adjunct to their trainings.

Not only did Gerald Gardner give Wicca to the public, he developed and created it. If Wicca was a 'prophetic' or 'revealed' religion, we would then have to conclude that he was its first 'prophet.' In that light it is useful to see the man as 'divinely' (or spiritually) inspired. The author is right in saying that Wicca has been emulated and transformed since the days of Gardner. But traditional Gardnerian Wicca is still going strong and its influence upon the rise and development of Neo-Paganism as a whole cannot be overstated.

Now when the author says that Wicca "draws heavily on the ways of both Witchcraft and Ceremonial Magick," she is correct if by "Witchcraft" she means the small 'w' folk witchcraft. Capital 'W' Witchcraft developed out of Wicca. This is easily seen in the fact that much of those who call what they do Witchcraft appears suspiciously similar to Wiccan practice. I don't want to say that I am one hundred percent certain, since it is possible that there may be a form of Witchraft that has not come down from all the various permutations of Wiccan traditions since the 1970's. Possible, but highly improbable.

Alexandrian Wicca can be shown to be an offshoot (one of the first) of Gardnerian Wicca. As for "Traditional Wicca," I doubt that it did not also come from the same source, myths about Mr. Pickingill aside. Buckland developed Seax Wicca as is clearly spelled out in his own writings. It appears that besides some research into older pre-Christian Saxon ideas and practices, that the most innovative concept of Buckland's variant was the practice of self-initiation. That actually had an explosive influence on the way Wicca was thought of and practiced leading to others taking up the idea (to the point that such solitary self-initiates may be the majority of Wiccans). Dianic Wicca came later, though I wish the author had said something about it being more of a "feminist" or "Goddess" spirituality movement than a Wiccan tradition. The "Faerie" traditions (all of which seem to now have their own different spellings) can be shown to be the work of Victor Anderson. (Two of his students, Starhawk and Francesca Di Grandis, can be credited with spreading this family of traditions and practices.)

I object to the author saying that Neo-Paganism came from Wicca, despite the fact that Wicca did inspire and influence much of it. There are trends and traditions that could be technically considered Neo-Pagan, such as Discordianism, Celtic Reconstructionism, and Asatru, which show little to no influence of Wicca. Also many 'older' variants of Neo-Paganism such as the Church of All Worlds have had as much of an impact on the entire Neo-Pagan movement as Wicca has.

The Golden Dawn and Thelema influence on the creation of Wicca is obvious to anyone familiar with those traditions. I haven't run into, nor heard of, any Wiccan traditions that use specific Golden Dawn or Thelema practices as an adjunct to their members' trainings. Wiccans are free to learn anything from the occult plethora. Most of the GD and Thelema practices that have been incorporated into Wicca are so interwoven that they fit seamlessly. As to the five-fold kiss, the rede, and the threefold return law, yes... they seem to be everywhere universally proclaimed by Wiccans of all traditions...well I lied. The five-fold kiss appears to be falling out of use among today's rising tide of the fluffy bunny hordes which may overtake Wicca.

What we have in common are Esbat (the lunar rites that honour the Night) and the eight seasonal Sabbats, certain sacred objects used in our rites and an alliance with the Déithe [day-ha] - gods (plural/multiple) including those of earth and air, fire and water.

Actually, this is only generally true. Many of the Faerie traditions don't use athames or many of the other tools common to Wicca. They do use sacred objects but this is more based on individual practices and idiosyncrasies. Some Wiccans are actually atheists or nontheists, but overall, most have some sort of relationship towards deities of one or another stripe. I highly disagree with the author's phrase "gods...including those of the earth and air, fire and water" as this is the first time I ever heard of such gods. I thought that those were better related to as elementals, but silly me and my quaint notions! I also disagree with the esbat definition. Perhaps if she is talking about her own group or coven, then she should make this clear so we don't assume she is speaking about Wiccans, or Witches as a whole.

I saved my pet peeve for last here. I highly dislike it (read "it fucking grates on my nerves!") when people use Gaelic terms in an effort to give themselves some sort of aura of magic or authenticity/antiquity. Why can't she just say "the Gods"? Why use the word "Déithe"? If she is going to posture herself as a Celtic exponent or even as a Celt then she might as well have used all of the Celtic elements (of which there are nine or more, depending on one's path of training and level of understanding).

I don't know. Seems like there are a lot of pseudo-Celts in the Pagan community. (Maybe because such people don't know that we are still around.)

Many Wiccans are also witches and many witches are also Wiccan. The differences between Wiccans and witches are in the structure, 'religiosity', hierarchical necessity and formality (or in the case of witches, the lack of the need for such) and the fact that whereas Witchcraft is a way, witches are a generic (I'll get to that later).

What?

Now the first statement is correct. But then the paragraph just falls apart on the rocks of its own errors. The difference between Wiccans and small 'w' witches is clear: Wicca is a modern religion. A Wiccan is a follower/adherent/participant of the religion of Wicca. A witch (small 'w') is simply a magical operator. Then the author writes "Witchcraft is a way" which, based on the way the paragraph went, I am assuming she is referring to Wicca. This is an incorrect assumption. Witchcraft (more exactly prefaced by "Neo-Pagan") does come from Wicca, and can be used to describe Wicca, but should not be used indiscriminately or out of context. Many people who call what they do Witchraft, wouldn't consider themselves Wiccan at all, but neither are they small 'w' witches. It is important to be exact with the terms, at least in specific contexts, if not always.

Of course I'm generalising! With so many variations having sprung into existence since the 1950's there are sure to be exceptions, but the need for public acceptance as an orthodox religious institution (particularly from the 1970's onward) has led many down the path of becoming 'ministers' and to establish 'churches' which have absolutely no relationship to the Craft whatsoever as too much organisation and regimentation, too much public interaction, dilutes the Draíocht [dree-uckht] - magic and its attending mysteries leaving enactment in its place (which is a pretty dry and lifeless 'thing'), let alone turning out white-as-snow, febrile, fluffy-bunny-rainbow, 'goddessy' wannabe-witches (excuse me if I offend those who are not like this!)

This entire paragraph is simply hogwash. She says that she is generalizing to excuse the previous confusion in her writing. I am not fooled. Many competent writers, researchers, and teachers have studied the 'variations' in all their seemingly byzantine complexity. It isn't that difficult to be clear when one is presenting a treatment of the various offshoots of Wicca and its relation to 'witchcraft' and other magical bugbears.

She makes the assertion that by becoming a legally recognized clergy member or by having legally recognized congregations the "magic" is diluted. Yet she backs this up with no examples. In fact there is very good reason to gain legal recognition and to have public interaction. And, as anyone experienced in the 'Craft' knows, it is easy to keep the "magic" (energy?) "and its attending mysteries" undiluted by simply using differing sets of rituals for public and for private ceremonies. Coven groups need not be public (and for practical reasons may not wish to be), but there are very real tangible benefits to groups of them getting together and forming legally recognized religious bodies. (Tax exempt status, the ability to marry couples, the right to minister to prisoners, the right to perform rites for the dead and dying, etc.).

Then the writing falls apart in muddled syntax again. She goes on about the fluffy stuff and such, but does she honestly think that public recognition is the cause of that set of phenomena? (I would assert that it's writing like this essay that causes fluffyanity.)

Again she whips out a Gaelic word (probably from her Irish dictionary, you know...she looks at the English entry 'magic' and sees the word 'draíocht' and then says "I'll use this word for it!"). I am serious about this, even though it makes me laugh after the irritation goes away. I speak Irish Gaelic, so to me the practice of Gaelic term-dropping is amusing. She is correct though as draíocht does mean magic. But it doesn't have the further connotation of "all of its attendant mysteries." The word is also used to refer to the practices of the druids several hundred years back but only in history. I don't know why she would pick ths word when Gaelic has so many others for magic and witchcraft related things. (Perhaps her dictionary was one of the smaller ones.)

Moreso, in relation to the Druids that I know personally, it is actually the differences, at a core level, between Witchcraft and Wicca that are the alikenesses between Witchcraft and Druidry, although there are, also, differences between certain 'schools' of Druidry and those differences are similar to those between Wiccans and witches - namely grading, ranking systems, concepts of hierarchy, ideology and intent.

Her continued use of the capital 'W' term "Witchcraft" for witchcraft is annoying. But I have gotten over it as I know what she means. (Though I wonder why she capitalizes Witchcraft but not 'witch.')

Another paragraph that is really somewhat much of a nothing. She fails to explicate any meaning from her own writing. What the hell is she saying?

As to ranking, grading, hierarchies, intent, and ideology...these vary widely among adherents or groups within the same family of traditions. They are not necessarily the best examples to cite when talking about differences/similarities between (capital 'D'...the fun never ends) Druids, Wiccans, and witches. (And/or whatever other titles people want to throw into the mix.)

[NOTE: the following paragraph was so huge, that I have broken it up into more easily manageable (and readable) chunks.]

Witchcraft is not a religion in its contemporary interpretation as we do not worship, rather we align. The word 'religion' has as its etymological root the word religere (Roman), meaning to bind back. In the deeper sense, then, Witchcraft could be said to be one but only in the ancestral sense.

And Witchcraft is, primarily, animist, pantheistic, ancestral and totemic in its nature. Druidry is blest insofar as it actually has a word - Awen - to describe what Witchcraft doesn't have a word for. The closest description we have for that which inspires awe and wonder is anima - the vital principle; source of energy and creative action; soul; life. The word 'soul' is an interesting one - in certain tribes among the Amazon the word soul is the same for the word child and that makes more sense than any nebulous Christian concept as it links us with the continuum of forever (but that's another HUGE topic). Pantheism relates to the collective gods of a people (that's actually very specific - I'll discuss this in a minute) and for more detailed information regarding a witch's deepest reverence - for the ancestors - please read the relevant information on my website www.lydeangeles.com if you feel so inclined. Our totemic affiliations are based on each witch's unique connectedness to whatever species: plant, animal, insect, reptile etc with whom they resonate at a deep familial level.

I don't know. I both worship and align. And I am a Witch. Perhaps the author should be more specific about whether she is trying to speak for all if us, or only for her own group. Blanket statements such as hers do nothing but irk the rest of us. Her meander into the Latin etymology of "religion" is not necessary.

I agree that Witchcraft is primarily animist and pantheistic. I disagree with the choice of terms like "totemic" (Witchcraft is not a tribal shamanic system unless one falls prey to bad anthropology) or "ancestral." I certainly didn't get my Witchcraft from my ancestors (who would probably be laughing their asses off at the very thought).

The word "awen" is Welsh (pronounced "AO-wen") and refers to a type of mystical inspiration. It also refers to "fire in water" as a symbol for the energy of the universe. This can go further and interested people should consult the plethora of Celtic Reconstructionist and Neo-Druid writings.

I have nothing more to comment on this snippet as the rest of it appears to be the author relating her own group's ideals.

The Craft cannot be truly taught from books or by correspondence - a witch can merely be given guidelines from such - as its complexity lies in its realisation that each witch is individually, circumstantially and, most importantly, environmentally different and must be trained with this in mind.

The Craft does not consider that 'All gods are one god and all goddesses are one goddess …' (Dion Fortune), although, in terms of Anima Mundi that could be said to be so - and we don't collect them (is this understood? If not please feel free to discuss the implications). After all, Herne is not the In Daghdha, In Daghdha is not Govannon, the Mórrígan is not Breosaighit and Breosaighit is not the Scáthach.

Of course the 'Craft' can't be taught from books. It must be learned via practice and reflection. We all know this.

What she says about the 'Craft' attitude to the Gods is interesting. But what does she mean? Does she mean Witchcraft (the Neo-Pagan path), Wicca, or small 'w' witchcraft? Many Wiccans would agree with Dion Fortune's assertion. Many other Neo-Pagans may not. It all depends on the person. None of the Gods are interchangeable, but they are all divinity. None of us humans are interchangeable either, but we are all human. There is much to be learned along this contour of thought.

All witches are 'solitaries' ( in distinct difference to traditional schools of Wicca) insofar as they are not bound, nor obligated, to attend rituals with their Coven. The Coven is a 'the gathering place' much like a temple, a grove, a sanctuary, a nemeton. All of our interactive training takes place at the specified Covenstead which is always a home as the hearth, and all that is implied by that, is considered as most sacred, although many of our seasonal rites take place in relatively wild and remote places. The trainings in the ways of Witchcraft, other than in the workings or rite and ritual, are very much focussed on life-skills (which do involve sorcery) and what is learned is mainly learned by word-of-mouth. It is not necessary for us to agree on all things as one person's 'talent' may be accessed very differently to another's. There are many tasks required of each initiate but that's no different to Druidry.

Witches are born witches. The rite of initiation is the individual's decision to 'walk-across-the-line' and devote their lives, with guidance, to the way of either 'priestess' or 'priest' (for lack of a better word) because they have been called by Déithe and have answered.

Now at this point I get the notion that the author is discussng the practices of her own group, otherwise it makes no sense. Generalizing statements like "All witches" are only going to get her into trouble with the many people who disagree or who do things differently. I myself am usually solitary, but I also meet with a group ('coven') on regular occasions (not as regularly as most other group members). I am sure that others have various different experiences and practices as well. As an urban person, many of the rituals I have been involved with were indoors and some of them were outside in "wild places." The word-of-mouth teachings are important but, as in all things, they must be put into practice.

"Witches are born witches"? Is that like rabbis are born rabbis, or druids are born druids? Obviously no one is born anything (despite the sentimentalized beliefs to the contrary) but human. Witchcraft (both small and big 'W') is not carried by blood. One is made into a witch or a Witch by themselves, their environment, or by others. This leads me to an interesting but related segue:

I once got into an argument with someone over this issue, except they were calling themselves a druid. I asked them about their practices, rituals, knowledge and studies, and their status within the Celtic world. They could not provide me with evidence of their druidism. It was basically a lot of New Age glossed over with Celtic terminology. When I asked them why they called themselves a druid, they responded angrily and said something like "I KNOW I am a druid because I can feel it in my blood! I have memories of being a druid in a past life! Who are you to say that I am not?"

People, thinking along those lines is NOT a good sign.

As to being called by deities. That makes one a priest/ess and a worshipper. That doesn't necessarily mean one is a witch/Witch.

Witches do not rely on a 'belief system'. Inherent in the word belief is the concept of doubt ("I believe that to be true" implies that the person speaking is not 100% certain). In the Craft there is only ever one initiation. There are rituals that mark the journey of the witch through his or her training culminating as High Priesthood/Elder (always marked by a rite of transition), a place of honour amongst equals. This rite is always in recognition that the individual has trained to a degree that they are capable of passing on the learning to others. Many remain as Elders within our clan - a rare few leave to form their own Coven, usually because of distance and circumstance. Having strong Elders ensures the newer initiate a sound variety of opinion through the first several years of their training (the actual number of which is a variable). The work of High Priesthood is first and foremost that of responsibility and dedication to other initiates and to both clan and community.

Witches acknowledge the traditional eight seasonal celebrations of the solar calendar, and are aligned to our ancestral Déithe and do not consider those Déithe as 'apart' from ourselves, or omnipotent - and, at this particular phase of forever, are very much in need of our alliance due to the incalculable threat of that species of two-legged that we refer to as The Blind. We do not consider our goddesses as necessarily tripartite (i.e. maiden, mother, crone) as the Mórrígan and her Sisters would be dreadfully upset if we did so! Our gods are invariably associated with the earth and its immediate environmental conditions and the Déithe are not 'made in our image'.

We do not have the three-fold law ('whatever you do comes back at you three-fold') to fall back on that can (and does) prevent many a justifiable geis or restraint.
We do not avow to the 'An it harm none …' theory as it is unnecessary.
Wicca does not recognise the profundity of the geis.
Witches do not believe in reincarnation in the commonly-accepted stereo-type.

Again I feel the author is talking specifically about her own group, in which case, she should make this clear.

I don't know why the author feels that the Mórrígan would necessarily care about whether some group of humans considers goddesses to be tripartite. And anyway, though the Maiden, Mother, Crone conception is from Wicca, the idea of triple aspected deities is ancient. In Celtic conceptions many goddesses, including the Mórrígan, are triple aspected. As to her ideas about the Déithe: If she is refering to Irish gods then she had better learn that while they may not be "made in our image," they most certainlys interact with us through a combination of the environment and our imaginative processes. (It ties back to that idea of "awen," though the Irish call it "imbas/iomas").

"Wicca does not recognize the profundity of the geis." And modern Neo-Druidism and/or Witchcraft does? Also the druids would not have any threefold law, but they would have something along the lines of a triple aspected approach to contemplating the ramifications of every action. Such an approach is very traditional and endemic to Celtic cultures and still survives to this day among the poetic traditions in the native languages of Wales, Scotland, and Ireland. The geis (pronounced "GESH") is as much a taboo as it is an expectation that must be met. The word and the idea is still very much alive among Irish Gaelic speakers today. So tread lightly around the word as it is still the cultural possession of a specific people and it has specific contexts.

Witches of both capital and lower case 'w' varieties can't be held to such blanket statements. And also, what about the Witches who happen to be Wiccan?

I could go on and on further about this paragraph. But why?


I can only speak for myself and for those with whom I am affiliated. Please understand that nothing of what I share with you is generalisation. What I am aware of is that the word 'witch' is a generic rather than a title, like the word 'shaman' or 'sorcerer' (pretty much the same species of practitioners). Just as the word 'artist' resonates a talent, and 'poet' resonates a talent, so also does 'witch'.

I don't know if this paragraph can excuse her lack of clarity and her marked confusion over what she claims to be talking about. Yeah..."I only speak for myself" and such things should be made clear in the beginning of the article and slightly re-asserted throughout it. That way, she won't step on anyone else's toes.

The word 'witch' is not a generic term, though it has one generic meaning along with the many other definitions. It is one of those terms that does have more than one meaning. Thus it is very important to state which understanding one is using so that the audience will actually know what is being said. The generic meaning is simply 'one who practices magic (usually divination and spells)' and it has neutral to negative connotations. Now capital 'W' Witch is a title which refers to a participant of Neo-Pagan Witchcraft. And contrary to the author's claim, even the small 'w' word is used quite successfully as a title. ('Shaman' and 'sorcerer' are specific words refering to specific occupations however, despite the muddled research and thought of the New Age.) Her last statement should be the entire paragraph. The rest should just be deleted.

Circumstantially the Covenant of WildWood Gate is a bunch of Celts (again, excuse me, a generic term), therefore it is the Celtic Déithe with whom we resonate and are, consequentially, aligned. We do not 'work' with the gods of Egypt, or the gods of the Maya, or the ancestral deities of the Koori, the Chinese, the Norse, the Hindu, the African, the Native American or the Maori. We know they are there and we honour them greatly and we learn, as an aspect of our training, as much about how they live with the earth, or amongst the stars and with whom they dwell as a matter of respect for both the differences and the likenesses of many of them. We also learn a great deal about the invasion of the monotheistic traditions into the common psyche as the thoughtforms invoked by this common psyche are very dangerous entities (such as the cruel god, the devil, the perpetual sacrifice and the obligatory virgin).

Wait just a fricken minute here! Since when did a culturally specific term such as "Celts" become a generic term? Granted many people use it in very sloppy and muddled ways, but that is not something admirable. Since there are cultures which today identify themselves as Celtic (six of them to be exact), how can "Celts" or "Celtic" be taken as a generic term. I am not sorry but I cannot excuse this. To be clear, if one uses the term "Celts" in a generic sense then it means one is referring to the Six modern cultures and nations that have survived along with any other Celtic groups that have been extinguished in historical times. This is not what the author contends though, does she? No. She assumes, like most citizens of the Global Anglo-American world, that she can simply take on aspects of Celtic cultures with little to no regard to the actual feelings of the people who today still adhere to Celtic cultures and languages. In Celtic cultures, to be Celtic, one must be able to speak a Celtic language and participate in one of the Celtic communities. I don't know about the rest of you out there, but shouldn't there be a respect for people of different cultures?

So what does she mean? Does she assert that her group is a "bunch of Celts" simply because they have assumed for themselves aspects of Neo-Pagan worship overlayed with Celtic-sounding deities? Her consistent use of the Gaelic word 'Déithe' (Gods) can be seen as an attempt to gloss over her own insecurity over the fact that she and her group are not really a bunch of 'Celts.' In reality they are a bunch of people who, for whatever reason, have decided to pick at the Celts because perhaps they feel that there are really no Celts left in this day and age who would challenge them.

As a habitual polytheist, I am tempted to agree with the last statements in the paragraph, but I cannot for the simple reason that I don't really care. I can't really see the 'monotheistic thoughtforms' as dangerous. They may be odd for me, after several years of polytheism, but dangerous? No.

Living in Australia, and as a result of the originally invading hegemony, it is a mater of necessity to understand the sacredness of the pattern of this land's immortals so that we do not disturb, or walk heavy-footed.

A momentary side-track: in the 1970's I was sent a letter from an Englishman running a magazine devoted to paganism in one form or another who inappropriately proposed that as we lived in this part of the world we should 'drop' our association with 'the European Gods' and 'work' with the gods of the Aborigines. That was a sick letter. As Lupas, a tribal Elder now living in Canberra at the tent embassy, said to me several years ago "Haven't these whities taken enough? Now they want our magic?" (this was in disgusted response to the trendiness of acquiring 'all things Aboriginal'). The colonisation of Australia was a barbaric piece of history where a people gripped by poverty were enslaved to the gulags of a hostile land far from the hearth of their ancestors, in the name of the law and for mostly contrived crime (easy pickings, the poor!). Could anyone doubt that they brought the spirits of their ancestors with them? As such this land is peopled with the Déithe of many indigene … but a dog can be born in a stable - that doesn't make it a horse!.

WTF, mate?

The profundity of the sheer amount of intellectual and verbal gymnastics that the citizens of genocidal settler states are willing to go through to assuage their own guilty consciousness is astounding. Truly. They go on and on about how wrong it was to dispossess and kill off other nations, and yet they seem unwilling to give up the social and economic privileges acquired from such 'historical' or 'past' atrocities. It is truly amazing.

I hate cultural destruction and theft. I hate the fact that Euro-people think they can adopt any other cultural expressions at whim. (Which is of course a symptom of the colonizing or imperialist mindset. "It's all human now. WE have as much of a right to it as anyone else," or some other similar statement is usually made in defense of such cultural genocide practitioners.) But on the flip side of that, I also respect the sovereign rights of indigenous people and nations everywhere, this includes an ackowledgement that such people themselves have a right to adopt other individuals into their nations, if that is what they wish. Culture is not bloodline. So if some white person seriously assimilates into the culture of one of the indigenous nations, those people have every right to adopt that person as one of their own.

In the same vein, the author asserted a few paragraphs above they she and her friends were a bunch of Celts. How can she excuse the behavior of both herself and her friends (appropriating an identity from another people and group of cultures and using those peoples' expressions such as godforms) who are doing the same thing as the "whities" that her Aboriginal friend speaks of? Or does she feel that the Celts are fair game for the easy pickings of their colonial 'masters' (anyone who is a member of English-speaking global society) because their skin color is similar to those of their oppressors?

I get what she meant by the whole dog/horse statement. But I think it is racist. Does she contend that indigenous people are a different species? Also, why does she insist on using the Gaelic word for "gods"?

The ways of Druidry that I have come to know over the years are not those practiced by the white-robed old men who have coerced the authorities into allowing them Stonehenge at the Midwinter Solstice - it is not a good 'ol boys club invented in a pub in 1717 because generic Druids are alive now who know that they are Druids and who seek to train with those in whose eyes and principles they see themselves mirrored. What I know of Druidry is that its very sacredness comes from its connectedness and its determination to throw off the white-washed, christianised mediocrity that has remained, as with Witchcraft, its garment of both invisibility and self-preservation through the centuries of discrimination, bigotry and danger. What I understand of Druidry is its earthy richness, its lack of denial of the wild, 'the mud and the blood' (Bobcat, BDO), the seasons of life and death (which are one thing anyway) it's artists and, no matter what the academics say, its ancientness.

I infer that she is talking about the British (English) Druid orders that arose with all the other 'secret' societies. Obviously she is ignorant of the Welsh Druidic revival and the cultural place that the Welsh Neo-Druid groups (along with their respective Breton and Cornish relatives) now have in the Celtic world. Her assertion is correct though. Druidism has nothing to do with prancing around Stonehenge pretending to be 'ancient.'

A lot of confusion over the Druids still exists which is why there are so many people claiming to be druids. I must break it to people, but druids are a Celtic institution. They are not nor ever were merely a magical order, or a group of religious priests/esses. Outside of the context of Celtic culture and society druidism can not exist. Anyone who thinks otherwise has simply been dazzled by the rambles of spiritual hucksters who playact the cultures and identities of cultures they know little to nothing about outside of stereotypes.

That said, there are some people who are aware of this problem in terms of Neo-Pagan expressions of druidism, and are seeking ways to solve it. To those people, some of us Celts gladly bestow the title of 'Druid' in recognition of their learning, erudition, and the help they have given towards our cultural survival as Celtic peoples.

(WildWood Gate Coven is also known as a Covenant insofar as many of its members are not initiates, nor even witches but are, definitely, clan, and their affiliation is based on certain codes of honour and mutuality. The workings and trainings of the actual Coven itself are not shared with these people, neither do they want it to be shared. Our deep connection is based on mutual work within the world, spiritually, politically and/or environmentally.)

On this I have no comment. As other people's coven business is their own business. I should conclude my critique with something however...

I should, but I really have said all I feel I need to say.

-Irreverend Hugh, KSC

http://www.lydeangeles.com/articles2.html (A Mind Like Clear Water)

http://www.lydeangeles.com/entrance.html (HOME)

Never Again the Fluffy Times!