Difficult subject...

[re-pete-a]

Have you ever considered that even the so called cultural purists sell their culture for money..

I know it happens here in Australia with the painters and the relics of culture as well...under many banners...

I also see it happening in the American cultures...

As you said Closrapexa ...
The Mona Lisa is available to all to view regardless of nationality ...it's also known around the world to most...which is what makes it popular ...aspiring artists want to be able to mimic it's style ...Photographers and commercial companies have utilised it...None of these degrade it...It still is what it is...The more that is known about it the more it's image is appreciated or ignored...though it's name is known world wide ...

No different to any other culture... It will be copied, utilized, sold off, commercialized ,judged, taken advantage of and used as a tool for all the same reasons as the Mona Liza...

As I said before ...it all depends on the heart of the person in the culture or investigating or using it...The same for anyone anywhere...

I'm afraid you won't change human nature no matter what label you try to stick to it.

Science is the master usurper ... Knowledge eventually finds and exposes the flaws in any culture... Then they fade into obscurity... Others will be named in the history books ...Some will stay for a little longer as tools.

Human nature will be off again to find something different to use as a separator and leverage to divide, control, utilize, commercialize, promote , or specialize in.. always fighting the inevitable as the divides are narrowed ....

The purse will win for now...But it's contents can't be eaten...
Now Which Indian said that...?

Cultures need to eat too.

 

[re-pete-a]

Here's another thought ...

Most things rot from the inside...

People who lose the plot is an inside job..

Families fall apart from the inside.
clubs.
cultures fall apart from the inside...
companies.
Religions
Governments.


We're all the same... nothings changed over the millenniums...Tarot will fall apart from inside it's circles..as we're seeing now with the proliferation of diverse decks from many cultures...
The Golden Dawn ran the same race as well...Crowley had a hand in it...even his little circle broke up...

Resistance is useless.... The entire world does it ...Rocks to soil...Mountains to hillocks, to plains...

Only one thing can glue this shattered jigsaw back together...

Service to others... sharing...honesty of heart... LOVE..

Not the commercialized versions ...or the intellectualized versions...Just plain old, giving from the heart...by example shall they show their true colours....

Who here is doing that...?

I hear drum beating ...chest beatings... stick knocking...book thumpings...ego beatings ...but no offered solutions except restrictions, separations ,specialist creating ...which are guaranteed to fail ... as they jostle for supremacy ,from the inside.

 

[UrbanBramble]

being_chrysalis

If you didn't bow out of this discussion long ago.... it's gotten quite long...

Aside from issues of cultural appropriation... which I think RiotFemme summed up wonderfully, and which I could spend DAYS talking about...

Cultural appropriation is not the same as acculturation or assimilation. Cultural appropriation is a fairly specific framework for describing the taking of cultural elements from minority cultures by members of the dominant culture. There's a power structure at work and that's really important to recognise. "Cultural appropriation" is applied when the subject culture is subordinated and, typically, when there is a history of colonisation, of ethnic or racial conflict, and so forth. Consider, for example, that when immigrants assimilate in the U.S. or Australia, when they learn to speak English or adopt the style of clothing, we don't think of that as cultural appropriation.

One problem (of many) with cultural appropriation is that we are all too happy to approach a culture armed with a superficial understanding of it (if any), take what we want from it, enjoy it, divorce it from its roots, package and sell it, and have almost no regard for the actual culture - much less the people - we appropriated from. I don't understand how people can, in good conscience, claim to love indigenous spirituality (as if it were homogeneous) and not know anything about indigenous people or care at all about their plight, and to even actually blame them for their current conditions. We treat Mexican immigrants horribly in the U.S., but we're happy to paint our faces like skulls and celebrate the Day of the Dead. Aboriginal Australians live in squalor while we pay thousands of dollars for "Aboriginal paintings" made by white artists. We want their culture; we just don't want them.

With regards to tarot, I acknowledge that there are a number of beautiful indigenous-inspired decks. Since I don't know anything about their creation, very little about indigenous people and if these cards do them justice, I avoid these decks. I feel similarly with "gypsy" decks. I have looked at the Tarot of the Orishas and the New Orleans Voodoo Tarot because those are closer to my Afro-Caribbean roots. However, for me, these decks feel forced and they don't work. The African cultures and European systems that gave us these traditions are so different that, in the end, while they might be lovely artistically, I don't think these decks do justice to either.

This doesn't mean that I think a group owns exclusive rights to spirituality or that people outside a culture can't approach it. I just think it needs to be done mindfully, respectfully, and with care paid to the traditional owners.

Like someone else said somewhere in this thread, vote with your purse; I do. However, I also know that ignoring a problem doesn't make it go away. As someone else said (maybe closrapexa?), I think it's important to talk about and explore these issues.

I think only you can answer your question about using tarot and whether or not it fits into your understanding of the culture and traditions you come from.

If there is not a deck out there that does it for you, make your own! Almost every witch I know has made their own deck to match their own spiritual belief. I haven't made the leap yet but I've thought about it. Also, if you're an artist that wants to publish, I think it would be wonderful to see a deck that represents the traditions of a specific tribe made by a person of that tribe. I'm pretty sure that the ones that exist now in the world were all made by white people (which is so wrong).

Or maybe Tarot needs to stay the in-law. I am just beginning to divorce my understanding of tarot from Hermeticism, which is a framework I just can't get behind after years and years of trying. I'm investigating both new decks that fit my culture more closely and pre - GD decks like the TdM as a way of continuing to use a tool that is important to me without buying into a system that I don't resonate with. I also tend to see Tarot as a psychological tool rather than a spiritual one.

 

[Mabuse]

Isn't occult Tarot itself is a form of syncretism?

Modern occult Tarot is syncretic by its very nature. It's a phenomenon which began when 18th century French occultists began associating the cards with Kabbalah and ancient Egyptian mythology.

In case no one has previously mentioned that in this lengthy thread, I thought I would run that thought up the flag pole.

 

[Tanga]

Modern occult Tarot is syncretic by its very nature. It's a phenomenon which began when 18th century French occultists began associating the cards with Kabbalah and ancient Egyptian mythology.

In case no one has previously mentioned that in this lengthy thread, I thought I would run that thought up the flag pole.

Just what I was thinking.

 

[ravenest]

Not the what but the how .... again .

True, but there is a difference in HOW its done.

That seems to be the main point that some here are easily getting . The protests seem to be assuming it can and should be done 'any old how' .

It's about respectful sharing and incorporation ('blending' , mix and match, adopting similar forms, etc. is part of human nature ) the key is the difference between mis-appropriation and misrepresentation and respect and permission. A point that seems difficult to grasp for some !

The thing with something like '18th century Euro occultism' is that it was based on latter manifestations of Hemeticism, which came from Alexandrian syncretism - a mix of knowledge of the Egyptians, Neoplatonism, the Chaldaean Oracles (roots in the 'Magi', Zurvanism and Zoroastrianism ) and late Orphic and Pythagorean mysteries, and perhaps some 'Kabbalah'.

But here again this is totally different from what is being protested here. In Alexandria diverse cultural knowledge was a 'way in', ships coming into the harbour would have their documents and books and knowledge copied and the copies placed in the Great Library there, temples and schools were set up, teachers from different religions, cults and philosophies taught and debated, synthetic forms were developed, practices and results were compared.

This is very different from grabbing a hand full of Zoroastrian symbols and plastering them over a pagan temple and saying 'here is Zoroastrianism ' while the perpetrator / instigator / designer doesnt even know what the Avestas or Shahnameh is. ... or writes in a book a statement of 'how it is' but does not (or cannot) explain why and when challenged about it tries to wiggle out with some philosophy about 'everyone being right ' or 'every opinion is valid'.

Sorry, it isnt, thats we have academics and specialists, people that devote their time to seriously understand something. And that devotion often is appreciated by peoples of other cultures, where those that want to snip and sample a bit to to suit their own ends are not.

IMO that is the crux of the discussion here ... not just THE usage but the HOW and WHY of the usage ... which some seem to want to obfuscate and try to change this type of respect for others cultural essence into some type of expression of greed , possession and exclusion . That's usually when someone wants to get their hands on something and mess with it.

~

I have some lovely, very old Scotch Whiskey here .... would you like a drop? Have it neat, with water, ice or (shudder) Coca-cola if you want. Yes, it IS made from various ingredients, ones that balance and harmonise together .... we have been making it that way for a long time now. It seems to have passed the test and 'exists in its own right'

Please do not represent your scotch and coke as ravenest's antique whisky though.

 

[gregory]

I have some lovely, very old Scotch Whiskey here .... would you like a drop? Have it neat, with water, ice or (shudder) Coca-cola if you want. Yes, it IS made from various ingredients, ones that balance and harmonise together .... we have been making it that way for a long time now. It seems to have passed the test and 'exists in its own right'

Please do not represent your scotch and coke as ravenest's antique whisky though.

Nevertheless the scotch and coke - mixed generously by you from your excellent bottle - does in fact still contain all the elements of that single malt (I assume it is a single malt ?)

 

[Zephyros]

Nevertheless the scotch and coke - mixed generously by you from your excellent bottle - does in fact still contain all the elements of that single malt (I assume it is a single malt ?)

Not necessarily. When you "enrich" something, you change its basic makeup, and it isn't the same anymore. There is a difference between whole grain, whole wheat bread and "enriched" bread. One has all the good things of the grain, without anything standing in the middle. The other has regular bleached flour enriched by chemicals purporting to be healthy. Even if you enrich the real thing, this or that substance may cancel out this or that vitamin, and the end result isn't something that is as good as the real thing. Whiskey by itself is actually quite healthy, adding coke to it cancels its health benefits.

A "multicultural" deck does what enriched bread does. It bleaches the culture of its substance and then takes snippets that when divorced from context mean nothing, and the result is the soggy white mess people call "white bread."

Let's take another example. Everyone knows that there is only one really good book about the Thoth, and that is the one written by its creator. Discussions about this generally tend to degrade into "everyone has a right to interpret the Thoth as they wish." That argument is a dead end, because of course everyone has a right to, just as everyone has a right to create an indigenous deck. However, when someone like Angeles Arrien takes the Thoth, divorces it from the uncomfortable Crowley and presents her own vision... you really are left with something very comfortable and life-affirming and all that, but none of the "oomph" of the original. You miss the intent of the deck entirely, which is exactly to make you uncomfortable and thus learn about yourself.

In the same way many dark aspects of cultures are glossed over, to make way for something bright and positive and New Age, but those dark areas are essential to it. An Aztec deck probably wouldn't mention human sacrifice, for example, although that practice is inseparable from it. A Native American deck might preach platitudes, but would leave out sweat lodges and their drugs. Oscar Wilde said that the devil can quote Shakespeare for his own purposes, but today rich white people are raping cultures just to further their own ends, and presenting a beautiful and idyllic picture has little to nothing to do with whatever culture they're borrowing from. Like whiskey and coke, these decks merely look and smell like they're from another culture, but that's really all it is, the outward semblance.

 

[UrbanBramble]

True, but there is a difference in HOW its done.

That seems to be the main point that some here are easily getting . The protests seem to be assuming it can and should be done 'any old how' .

It's about respectful sharing and incorporation ('blending' , mix and match, adopting similar forms, etc. is part of human nature ) the key is the difference between mis-appropriation and misrepresentation and respect and permission. A point that seems difficult to grasp for some !

The thing with something like '18th century Euro occultism' is that it was based on latter manifestations of Hemeticism, which came from Alexandrian syncretism - a mix of knowledge of the Egyptians, Neoplatonism, the Chaldaean Oracles (roots in the 'Magi', Zurvanism and Zoroastrianism ) and late Orphic and Pythagorean mysteries, and perhaps some 'Kabbalah'.

But here again this is totally different from what is being protested here. In Alexandria diverse cultural knowledge was a 'way in', ships coming into the harbour would have their documents and books and knowledge copied and the copies placed in the Great Library there, temples and schools were set up, teachers from different religions, cults and philosophies taught and debated, synthetic forms were developed, practices and results were compared.

This is very different from grabbing a hand full of Zoroastrian symbols and plastering them over a pagan temple and saying 'here is Zoroastrianism ' while the perpetrator / instigator / designer doesnt even know what the Avestas or Shahnameh is. ... or writes in a book a statement of 'how it is' but does not (or cannot) explain why and when challenged about it tries to wiggle out with some philosophy about 'everyone being right ' or 'every opinion is valid'.

Sorry, it isnt, thats we have academics and specialists, people that devote their time to seriously understand something. And that devotion often is appreciated by peoples of other cultures, where those that want to snip and sample a bit to to suit their own ends are not.

IMO that is the crux of the discussion here ... not just THE usage but the HOW and WHY of the usage ... which some seem to want to obfuscate and try to change this type of respect for others cultural essence into some type of expression of greed , possession and exclusion . That's usually when someone wants to get their hands on something and mess with it.

~

I have some lovely, very old Scotch Whiskey here .... would you like a drop? Have it neat, with water, ice or (shudder) Coca-cola if you want. Yes, it IS made from various ingredients, ones that balance and harmonise together .... we have been making it that way for a long time now. It seems to have passed the test and 'exists in its own right'

Please do not represent your scotch and coke as ravenest's antique whisky though.

Totally derailing here... but why the hell would you mix scotch with coke?

My auto correct just tried to make me spell he'll instead of hell, because...?

Okay, back on topic...

 

[re-pete-a]

Whiskey was made because somebody wanted something different than what was on offer at the time from The original traditional brewing & fermenting culture.

Then following the original idea and coming up with something different, the process was altered to suit the palates of another Doctor feel good ... culture theft.

Now we have the coke peddlers peddling whiskey ... new age whoopie.. Tarot + culture.

Best pour it all down the drain and go back to the original culture and brew only the original ... in the traditional manner...

OR...

Each to their own...try this, try that ...it's all much better because of your trying...