! Assembly of The Elder Troth - Article - Schmitt

Contacts Database

The Assembly of The Elder Troth would like to welcome you to our website. Please click on the links to the left to enter the relevant area of our site.

Heil and welcome to the Articles section of the Assembly of The Elder Troth website. Here you can find items written by many wide and varied folk. The idea is to provide a venue for discussion, debate and education amongst the folk by giving people an individual flavour to the information provided. Every article here is the work of its' author. Copyright rests with the Author, reproduction is prohibited without the authors permission.

Folkway Identity, Social Identity & Definitions - by Dirk Schmitt

"Suggesting that special interest groups be treated as anything other than special is like soooo toataly draconian."

This is a pre-supposition laden statement, after all, our Folkway, as it stands, can easily be defined as a 'special interest group'. Or do you disagree? How many of us are there as a proportion of the entire population in our respective countries? Maybe 0.1% if we're lucky, and within that 0.1% we are further divided into Asatru, Theodish, Odinist, etc. Each of these sub-groups is another 'special interest group' within and of itself. After all, each has their own perspective on our ancestral Folkways, and whilst similar, they do things differently, and no doubt interpret things slightly differently. But of course we are not seeing them clamouring for the attention that other segments of the community do in most cases. I would say that this could possibly be a function of the fact that our Folkways in no way support a victim culture and the requirement to see oneself as a victim, if anything, it is the opposite. Most 'special interest groups' which I have researched tend to follow the victim mentality of "I've been kicked a lot, gimme, gimme, gimme", and they proclaim this loudly and often. Naturally the old adage of 'The squeaky wheel gets the oil' holds true, and it is for this reason that often organisations which pursue such an agenda have a very polarised view in the community, where-as our own Folkway barely raises a blip on the radar except for the odd occassion. Should one be advocating making more noise? Well, yes, and no. I think that making more noise is only appropriate when there are systems in place to deal with the return you'll be getting, both positive and negative. If you don't have the factors in place to be able to sort this out, then it's better keeping quiet.

There is certainly a great deal of operation against the White Male, that's a given, but unless we can hold ourselves with honour and dignity, rather than name-calling and testosterone fuelled machismo, we'll lose the fight before even starting. If the past is any indication, it shows very clearly methods of doing things which work, and which fail. Our ancestral Folkway held that one of the most important things a person could have was a good name, and taking up a fight by the process of ranting and raving is the best way to gain derision and bemused consideration from those outside our Folkways. Even the most extreme White Power people out there, the most intelligent ones know that the best way to take up their fight isn't waving Nazi flags and beating people up, but by carefully crafted information. It's the same for the Creationist Science band of people. To those whom fail to have the critical evaluation skills to be able to see through such information, they'll take it on face value, and be swayed by what appears to be sound and solid reasoning. Just look at what Maria Gimbutas has achieved with her World Goddess concepts, which for a few decades held sway before people finally started voicing clearly crafted and analysed objections to her work. Yet still, do a Google search on her and see the number of sites which still reference her work and take everything she says as Gospel, as it fulfills what they WANT to hear. The same is true for White Power, Creationist Science and any number of other theories.

As a minority group, we need to be presenting our voices in a clear, and well thought out manner when-ever and where-ever we can. Those whom are capable of writing well, should address issues and such as the time avails them. It's one of the reasons that we have the AET website, to be able to present writings to the community at large. There are many other good sites out there with well written articles. But we have one major failing insofar as I can see. That being that articles tend not to be revised and remain. Where new information or additional information is found, articles should be updated to include the new information. We need to keep up with the times. That is certainly a challenging thought though, as most of us have little time to do such things, let alone write the originating articles, what with work, family, and working actively in many cases, to build out communities at a local level and deal with the issues that dealing with other human beings on a personal level entails.

Our ancestral Folkway placed far more importance on worth, than on 'colour' or any of the other notions which our modern day society chooses to use as reasons to view people negatively or with hate. The Lore shows us what behaviours gain favor and those that do not. Certainly society was stratified, but the mobility of those strata was some of the highest to be found. Those at the top could be toppled rather easily, and those at the bottom could move up easily too. Unlike a rigid caste system, this mobility ensured that people would actually work at gaining higher status, but would also be happy to maintain their level if they wished to do so, or even to drop in level where necessary, for moving back up the ladder wasn't too difficult once the reason for having returned to the bottom of the pile had been removed. The notion of slaves as chattels did exist, but seems to have been more prevalent in the Middle Ages and the trading of people, as a commodity, no doubt lent itself to such ideas. The solidification of such a system, with the Slave Trade becoming highly entrenched and a rigid heirarchical system in place ensured the devaluation of those whom were a the bottom of the pile. It should be noted that this didn't just apply to those of 'colour', but was as much pursued by 'Whites' against other 'Whites' whom were culturally and politically at variance with those whom wished to control them (Irish and Scots in the British Isles are a good exemplar of this).

As society increased in population, it was much easier to dehumanise others, as we are more and more capable of being discriminatory in our dealings with others. We can choose out of the millions of people around us, just whom we are going to actively enguage with. Such a situation is much more difficult in a small community of a few hundred, or even less, where we have to often deal with others in the community on a regular basis because there are no others to deal with. Now, some may infer that such a process is good for us, and yes, in some respects it is, for we have the choice to deal with people whom are closest to ourselves in outlook and philosophy in our society. However, if we can avoid people whom may not be our 'cup of tea' all the time, then we end up no longer being challenged in our thoughts and philosophies, and so stagnate and enter into 'group think'. We have in an electronic mailing list a microcosm of that in action. I have chosen to join a list, to interact with others whom share a certain worldview, even with sometimes minor, other times major variances, but none-the-less a basic commonality of thought can be found. I am expecting that people from other belief systems, or without interest in Asatru probably won't be found on an Asatru list, so I have chosen a forum where interaction on that level is unlikely, and I won't be challenged in my core beliefs in the gods and goddesses of our Folkway, but may be challenged in other areas, specifically dealing with the minutae of the Folkway. Now, I personally prefer this situation, as it's on my terms and I can choose what level my interaction will take by what postings I'll respond to and what subjects I may choose to make my own postings upon. What we have here is an example of a balanced outcome, in that whilst I am not having to deal with millions of people all at once (imagine the posting frequency then... arrrrgh!), or dealing with a very few people whom all hold the very same ideas and ideas (posting frequency, near enough to zero). And there-in lies the key. Finding a method of balancing the conflicting demands.

Diversity, as an ideal, needs to be applied equally. However, it must also be balanced with certain basic precepts, Laws if you will. For example, applying diversity to the notion that people should be allowed to engage in murder as they wish is counter to the continued existance of the community and the long term survival of humanity. Hence we draw the line at being diverse enough to accept murderers into our society. They are removed, for the good of all. In essence, we again come to the notion of balance. To allow sufficient diversity to enable a vibrant, and diverse community, but having certain basic behavioural standards to ensure that that diversity can indeed remain. Diversity takes its biggest hit when we have an 'outside enemy'. As soon as that happens, in so many instances we have ended up with the notion of, "you're either with us, or against us". So in that very statement, diversity dies, immediately. How can one have diversity when there is only, us, and them. A duality certainly isn't diverse, it's in fact very narrow. Just ask any fundamentalist Christian, for whom, we are 'The Devil" TM Patent Pending. To them we are the enemy, amongst other enemies of course, but none-the-less, the enemy, and certainly in their eyes we should be converted or at best imprisoned, at worst killed. That is the ultimate result of a narrow worldview. Our Folkway probably was too diverse to begin with, for although our peoples were very homogenous in make-up, we were very accepting, for when we'd migrate somewhere else, we'd happily take on the cultural worldview of the place we'd end up. Germanii happily became Roman, and no doubt fitted in very quickly with other cultures, primarily due to the most likely situation that for them, their ancestors were of primary importance, and the gods and goddesses may indeed have been localised and when one migrated elsewhere, the gods and goddesses of that location held sway. We see this situation in the Vikingr whom went to England, would be baptised, and act as Christians whilst there, then would return home and go back to their Folkways. Of course, Christianity, a proselytising religion as it is, couldn't live with this situation and had to take over, and indeed our own diversity held much of the seed of our own Folkways dilution and subversion. So, we need to once again, find a balance here. If we hold with grandeous ideals of diversity, we would have to accept that Christianity is a valid belief system for our Folk, and if we hold with a narrow worldview, then the Folkway is only for White Folk whom can trace their ancestry back to Northern Europe. Clearly neither is acceptible (even though some espouse these as being THE system), and a balanced position needs to be achieved.

The notion that there is a 'one true Heathenry' is laughable. Frankly, if one was to assert this, we'd end up warring with ourselves, and achieve nothing. This notion has taken place so many times on the various lists I've been on for the past six years. Folkish/Universalist/Tribalist debates, in the past, often huge flame wars, which thankfully, seem to have calmed down (maybe we're all maturing, or just getting older and getting fed up with rehashing the same old arguement for the 378th time). I am yet to meet a Universalist Heathen. Universalist is defined as one whom holds thedoctrine that all men will finally be saved, in opposition to the doctrine of eternal punishment. Now some Universalist Christians have taken this to mean that they HAVE to save EVERYONE. I am yet to find a Heathen whom says that the Germanic Folkway is for EVERYONE. In other words, I think the term Universalist is completely redundant. I think that both scales of levels, have great merit in that they seem to define the most common positions, and most people I have found are firmly in the middle of the ranges. Actually, I am yet to call anyone a Universalist either, because I've never come across one.

I am going to address the specifics of these to give a clear indication of where I sit in regards these ideas...

Must be white - what absolute piffle. White-ness is no indicator of ancestry what-so-ever. Any geneticist will tell you that people can have any number of 'coloured' ancestors and still look 'white'. Such a superficial measuring stick is best left to those with low intelligence. Now, a point that must be addressed is the notion of automatic reactions based on visual stimulii. We need to remember that human beings make assessments based on visual outward indicators all the time. How a person dresses, as well as their skin colour, hair, etc, all affect how we view a person. This is human. It happens no matter what 'race', 'colour', etc you are, no matter how much you choose to debate me that you don't. We do it all the time, unconsciously. Now, how we ascribe the worth of an individual invariably uses this as a barometer, however, to use it as a methodology of ultimate determination is both unfair, as well as being presupposition laden. Certainly, we'll hold ourselves in a certain manner, and operate in a certain way towards an individual on this basis, but often when we take the time to speak to them, we discover that they are human too, and although different, can often be really wonderful people. Likewise, I am sure we have had experiences where people whom dress a particular way, and have a particular colour, which should lend them to being people that we'd automatically like and identify with, only lasts as long as the first five minutes of the conversation.

Must have heathen ancestors (related by blood) - It tends to be useful, but isn't something I'd consider as a definte requirement. The reason that I consider it as useful is that often people of direct blood relation via heathen ancestors will have a greater level of morphic resonance with their ancestral Folkway, rather than those whom do not. Certainly, if this was true, then one would presuppose that with the greater level of social diversity in our modern society, that such morphic resonance would see far more people returning to their ancestral Folkways, and whilst this seems to be happening, it also seems to be happening very slowly, far slower than if there was a specific tie which would re-vivify interest in ones ancestral heritage. For many their ancestral heritage is a curiosity, they'll attend Viking exhibitions or such, maybe become re-enactors and such, but go no further. They have little or no interest in the belief systems of their ancestors except at an anthropological level. Likewise there are many people whom are related by blood to heathen ancestors whom stoicly and resolutely hold to their Christianty with rabid furvor.

Must have heathen ancestors (blood/adoption/marriage) - The above applies, the additional social constructs of marriage and adoption fail to make any material difference to the situation.

Must have cultural affinity with some Germanic (derived) culture - Firstly, I consider that we need to look at the concept of affinity as it isexpressed in the context presented. The definition I am using is relation, connection or alliance in general; similarity in kind or nature. Once again, it's useful, but isn't a full pre-requiesite. The above holds.

Must be called by the gods - Oh, for joy, one of my absolute pet hate terminologies. "Called by the Gods". Okay, I'm going to be 100% straight and to the point here, there is no-one whom is "Called by the Gods", or if there is, I've never spoken to them or met them. When those whom say they were "called by the gods" trott this out, a little digging, in all cases I have come across to date, finds that these people have either been consciously or unconsciously sending out signals themselves, which have been responded to. The fact that our gods and goddesses have responded (if indeed they have - a certain level of verification is needed here) is less about them calling to an individual, as them tuning into an individual.

Must behave like an honourable heathen, etc. - Yes. Simply, yes. If you're going to talk the talk, you MUST walk the walk. People whom enter into Folkway traditions tend to find themselves having to not only speak in the manner of that culture, but more importantly, behaving in a manner which is of that culture, and for more than just a few days. Cultural integration takes a long time, and the longer an individual immerses themselves in a culture and proves themselves to those whom are already within that culture, that person then finds that they are more easily accepted by those already within the culture.

Variant or combination of the above with 'should' in place of 'must'. - This is essentially simply reducing the severity of the term used and providing a little bit of latitude. Shoulds tend to be in organisations or groups, from my experience, whom are less culturally specific in their worldview, with varying levels of 'should' being enforced depending upon the culture within the organisation or group.

The non-heathen positions are, in essence, outside the purview of a Folkway. Such superficial addressing of something as complex as a cultural tradition tends to miss much of the whole point. Certainly people whom occupy positions which exemplify the concepts of:

a) There's a race-war going on, and white folks should take on a religion that supports their racial struggle.
b) All religions are one, all gods are the same etc. etc
c) So many gods, so little time. How can anyone limit themselves to only one set?
d) Gods? They are archetypes, magical tools, constructs I use to support my Personal Evolution;

tend, in my experience, to be working from an existing position and attempting to slot the gods and goddesses into their pre-defined position, rather than taking the gods and goddesses for whom the gods and goddesses are, and developing a relationship with them. Furthermore, concepts such as cultural considerations completely fail to be taken into consideration, as such are completely outside the purview of the socio-political or personal agenda positions taken up by those in these categorisations.

Purity of cultural ways is a difficult thing to address. Even within one single family, the culture changes from generation to generation, based onthe choices of the inviduals within that family. Behaviours which once were considered normal, are challenged, and so the culture changes, whether it is by the implimentation of new behaviours, or the omission of old ones. In a society as multi-cultural as ours is, cultural 'seepage' is not only possible, but highly likely. But we need to be very careful in how we look at the notion of culture and how it moves and changes over time. We have a far greater accessibility of knowledge and information with regards to the changes in culture within our own society due to the copious amount of information now available to us through writing. A recent BBC program provided some very interesting information on the change in culture of the native Britons. There are areas in Britain which show patterns of continual, peaceful, habitation through generations, even with the movement into and out of Britain of the Romans, and then the Anglo Saxons. These areas simply assimilate the newcomers whom bring their own cultural ways with them, but integrate without having to resort to violence. What level of social coercion was applied in such circumstances is certainly up to debate, but we do know that such influxes were peaceable rather than violent and rapid. A culture is only 'pure' when fully isolated from all other contact, and there seem to be very few societies in history whom have been completely free of outside cultural influence at some point in time or another, especially in areas where there is continual movement due to migration, trade and at times, conflict.

We have touched upon the concept of ethnically aligned religion, and disagree with the notion. However, it needs to be understood, clearly, that we are dealing with a cultural heritage situation, rather than a compartmentalised 'religion'. Certain basic standards of behaviour and levels of cultural observance are operated upon within the broad culture which we term the 'secular' world, or the general basic culture within which we all live and operate. Now, it's interesting from the perspective of cultural relevance, that my eldest son, is a very fussy eater, and whilst he is family, he doesn't eat the same foods that I do. Does that mean that he no longer shares my commonwealth of cultural inheritance. Clearly the answer is no. We are tied together by the fact that we are family, Folk. The fact that I can disagree with my mother and father at times, is indicative of our capacity to think for ourselves, rather than a wholesale rejection of their culture. Clearly my parents are my Folkway. It's pretty simple when you get down to it. Folkways, and their derived cultures are familial conditions. List members are not of my Folk, not probably unless we go back a few hundred years at least, and maybe a few thousand. Sure, somewhere along the line we may be related, but how far back along the line do we go? Do we disregard all the generations in between, people with their own cultural experiences, lives, beliefs, etc? Actually, if you ask me, to be truly Folk is to accept your family, regardless of how good, bad, or ugly it is. Certainly, there may be behaviours in there which are abhorrent, and individuals whom are less than worthy, but, they are still family. You still wouldn't be here without them. Okay, it mightn't seem like much, but think of it, without those people you simply wouldn't be here in this time and place. Naturally this doesn't mean you have to like them, or have anything to do with them, but you're still family (and it's amazing what people seem to do for family sometimes).

It has been questioned with regards to where do folk go when they die? Do the Christians truly end up in Heaven, the Heathens end up in Gladsheim, the Celts somewhere else, etc? I am of the belief that we all go to the same 'place'. unbounded by the physicality of the human body, our 'elements' move on in the manner which they have for millenia. Would someone whom dies a Christian, with a strong faith in Jesus, or God, find themselves with God or Jesus, well, probably. Lets face it, if you're going to consider that people are capable of creating entities, then the 'group think' of millions of Christians would create something, if something wasn't already manifest. Sure, it's a magical explanation for such a phenomenon, but rather than magic, we could call it the collective unconscious, or any other sociological construct. We tend to consider that after life in this world, there is life in another world, what form that takes, and the specifics tend to be difficult to ascertain, as so many seem to have different ideas on ths subject. So, where does this take us? The answer is that just as in any community, beliefs which are consistant with a general form tend to take premacy, and those which are different, tend to either fall by the wayside, or are held in small pockets, and may again have their day when social conditions change. Our own Folkway beliefs tend to be of this pattern, with them only recently (in the long term time frame), having returned to being able to be openly expressed and accessed. So, if people take up something by choice, rather than co-ercion, fair enough. If they can allow others the latitude to believe differently, great. The prime objection needs to be to belief systems which attempt to co-opt others into their fold through underhanded means (economic extortion, violence or false advertising). Hence if we are to look at matters, rather than something being a false faith, I would consider a faith to be false by measure of the methods used to bring others within that faith, and the methods used to hold them there. Falsehood generally relies on cultish methods of control to ensure its survival.

Morality and Ethics are functions of culture, as opposed to Religion. Religion is a sub-set of culture. To state that morality and ethics are derived from religion is one of the conceits perpetuated by Monotheistic systems, because for them, the Religion IS the culture. It makes life very simple for when the God, matches the State, which matches the Leaders, the society is only able to operate in one social paradigm, dictated by a singular system. Such singular systems must have conformity to work, and require only one thing to operate effectively, and that is an us vs them structure. Without an outside enemy, singular systems begin to break down, allowing diversity to seep in. Diversity can only survive in a culture where there are low levels of fear, and no outside forces attempting to force a different cultural worldview upon the prevailing worldview. The application of ethics and morality within a diverse society requires careful consideration and balance. The idea of a requirement of respect for others, without reciprocating levels of respect is an uneven playing field. It should be up to everyone to operate within their own modalities, and take situations and experiences as they find them, and adapt as required. I work on the concept of consideration, consideration is required, respect is earned.

HOME | Articles Home | Top Of Page

Page maintained by Schmitt Services

Last Update: Saturday, August 11, 2007