From: altheimm@nextnet.csus.edu (Murray Altheim)
Newsgroups: alt.pagan,alt.magick
Subject: Re: Santeria
Date: 10 Nov 92 01:30:42 GMT
Organization: California State University Sacramento

In article <BxCqFI.Jtq@ddsw1.mcs.com> eshin@ddsw1.mcs.com (Eshin-Fun) writes:
>>>altheimm@nextnet.csus.edu (Murray Altheim) writes:
>
>(stuff deleted for the sake of brevety)
>
>: >How old is this twirp?? How long has he studied the subject. Has he
>: >travelled to Haiti, Cuba Brazil or Lagos?? Does he read???
>: >
>: >There seems to be, in some occult circles, a preoccupation in labaling
>: >everything "white" or "black" when really most of these moralists haven't
>: >got the slightest idea what they are talking about!
>: 
>: [long flame excised...]
>: 
>: >BRAVO!!!!!! Mr. Quellas, I applaud you for your succint observations and
>: >conclusions!
>: >
>: >Eshin-Fun
>
>Now to the point:
>
>>>: Christ, guys, mellow out. Get a life. You both sound like net hacks with a
>: need to find SOMETHING to rant about. If you'll note I was only adding a  
>: comment to a thread, a comment I prefaced quite plainly with the fact that
>: it was only one opinion from one person in a Voudoun group, who happens to
>: have spent part of his childhood in Haiti, and is currently part of an 
>: active, legitimate Voudoun group here in California. He is in his mid-forties
>: and has been involved in Voudoun for at least ten to fifteen years.<<
>
>It's amazing that when the "shoe is on the other foot" then commentaries are
>not flames, nor slurrs or anything that could be taken out of context. But
>let someone respond and suddenly one has to "mellow out" "cool off" and a
>series of other adjectives that admonish any defense.
[...]
>The statement that Santeria is "black" is an outrage to anyone who knows a
>smidgen of Haitian history. And I am surprised that someone who alleged is
>so into this can make such a sweeping commentery.
>I also know people who are actively into the Haiting form of African
>religion and have even been initiated to it. They are the first that would
>contest these statements. That you should report it is alright, that you
>should state a defense to our reaction in the manner which you came accross
>is another.
>  
>: I'm sorry this one man's opinion has threatened the very foundations of
>: your belief system, but as I said, it is just his opinion. I made no claim
>: to its validity, nor to my belief in his beliefs. Nor yours. Nor anybody
>: else's. I suppose the two outraged replies so far have served my unintended
>: purpose of bringing forth a discussion of some of the aspects of Voudoun/
>: Santeria, a subject I readily admit I know little about.<<
>
>This sarcastic apology betrays a bruised ego. Don't flatter yourself that it
>has shaken anything remotely suggesting the "very foundations of our belief
>system". By the obvious impact our response has had in you, suggested by
>your reply it is >you< that now has second thoughts. If indeed you are
>interested in bringing forth a discusion of some of the aspects of
>Voodoun/Santeria then though you may make a quote, ask "questions" or at
>least phrase it as one.

Yes, it was sarcasm, and no, my ego wasn't bruised. I was only surprised
at the strength of your reply, and the tone. I pictured the two of you 
doing a high-five over the net. It seems both of you missed the intention
of the original post, which was not to state a truth, but an opinion that
to me seemed contentious. I felt a reply was necessary, and you followed
through. I wouldn't call it a devil's advocate stance, but I hoped there
would be a counter response.

>I have been writing a number of posts on Santeria/Lukumi and have made
>references on Voodoun for sometime now. None of which you reference.
>What seems to be the outrage is the usual attitude that everything is
>"white" or "black" that Santeria is merely an aspect of Voodoun.
>
Actually, if you go back and look at my original post, I did frame it as a
statement, not a question, and deliberately. It reflects the belief (or
bias) of one group of people, and yes, I have been following some of your
posts regarding Santeria/Lukumi enough to understand some of the 
differences.

My background of study is in philosophical and religious Taoism, and on
another thread Gil Hardwick has been referencing this subject from a 
fairly narrow (though commonly understood) viewpoint. I have not found
it necessary or desirable to counter his statements, as his general 
principles are within the "boundaries" of historical Taoist thought.

I brought up this "white/black" dichotomy because it struck me at the 
time (and when reading the post) as a misunderstanding due to ignorance.
I made no claim in my original post as to my expertise in Haitian or
African religion; in fact I claim to no very little. This does not 
exlude me from discussion -- how else does one learn? I don't feel that
the tone of my original post made any claim to a soapbox authority, so
I didn't understand the reply. 

>Voodoun is, as I have pointed out, a religious contrivance of the New World,
>not Africa. And in fact, it is created by the Haitian. In Voodoun there are
>the Rada and Petro rites the latter which is full of "black" oriented magick
>that is so fearful to your friend.
>Voodoun is suggested by scholars was brought into western africa later after
>its conception was initiated in Haiti by the Arada tribe.
>
>That a discussion could be initiated, there is no problem. But you cannot
>start a discussion for example about magick by saying that it is "evil" and
>godless hocus pocus" because everyone that will arouse annoyance of those
>people that may view it with a different color.
>: 
>: Excuse ME.
>: 
>: Murray the Krispy-Krusted
>: 
>..When you apologize, try not to grit your teeth. It is obvious by your
>krispy-krusted Excuse ME.

I'm sorry you misinterpret my "Krispy-Krusted" but it was meant in humor.
I think to sum up, my reaction to all of this (and hence my sarcasm) was
that you took this all so seriously. When I said lighten up, I meant
lighten up. This is not a retraction. It's just that the original post
was not meant as a statement of fact, nor do I see how it could have been,
prefaced by my statements about who it came from. If in a normal discussion
between a group of people, I said, "I've got a friend who thinks this-and-
such" I would not expect two others to roundly condemn not only this
friend's opinion but my own statement of it as well. I would expect someone
to contradict the statement, following up with some reasonable references.
In this case the reaction was not polite. Your sarcasm brought forth my
"Excuse ME", not my gritting my teeth in apology. I WILL apologize for any
misunderstanding the post caused, but not for my motives, which remain
the same.

>On the net there are no visual or audible apperances so words will have to
>do. Statements are never taken personally, or should never be so taken, as
>the perties involved, dissatisfied, could easily just skip your thread or
>turn off their computer. But if any time is taken by anyone to answer
>publicly a statement then they have to understand that it will equally be
>answered according to the manner that it was written whether you like it or
>not.

I agree wholeheartedly. My original post was not written in an angry or
attacking tone, nor did it attempt to misrepresent a truth.

>If your ego fears apparent contradiction then write e-mail where it is kept
>confidential and your pride will not be bruised. But pleeease, avoid the
>hysterium of calling any kind of intense rebuttal a "Flame".
>
>It has become boring and tiresome that people with the lack of intelligent
>command of a language usually resort in their accustaion of that which
>rebuttals their statements as a Flame.

It's funny how even in your attempt to move the decorum of the discussion
up a level you must resort to an insult. I have more than adequate command
of the English language, thank you. As for use of the word "flame", you
apparently take this much more seriously than I do. Not to make light of
what is a serious topic, just that IMHO a flame is not such a big deal. 
There seems to be levels of heat just as in a face-to-face argument. And
I felt the heat of your rebuttal to be unwarranted. 

>The above is neither intended nor IS a "flame". It is just a clarification
>of how your statements come accross to me. I cannot speak for anyone else.
>If you will note, my commentary to your original post, sarcastic as it may
>have been at times was directed more to the credibility of your "friend's"
>statement than it was intended to  admonish you. It was an observation of
>decorum that I questioned your motivations which you have answered above.
>
>But don't twist my words and confuse the issue by stereotyping my answers or
>questions as a threat of what I know that you don't.
>
>Eshin-Fun

And please don't mistake my apology as obsequiousness. I am sorry that 
there has been a misunderstanding between us, as I find it probably due
to the medium's lack of facial expression etc. I'll try to be less 
sarcastic with you if you're willing to do the same. I have no trouble 
with your discussions of Santerian/Lukumi religion, and in fact have 
wanted to thank you for a number of illuminating posts you've made 
recently.

Blessings,

Murray

-- 
Murray M. Altheim      "Ils ont l'orteil de Bouc, & d'un Chevreil l'oreille,
Instructional Consultant    La corne d'un Chamois, & la face vermeille
CSU, Sacramento          Comme un rouge Croissant: & dancent toute nuict
altheimm@csus.edu       Dedans un carrefour, ou pres d'une eau qui bruict."