Remembering the Host, Now With Definition Thingie

[Niamh willow]

I honor the spirits here, not so much the Gods by their names. I'm looking into the tribe that lived here though. I wonder if it would be appropriate to honor those Gods, or if it's something I shouldn't mess with.  

[TeaDidikai]

Fiddlers Green

The Scots are pacted to the land.
The Gods are of the land.
I'm missing the part where the expatriates have an exclusive right to the gods of the land.
Did they make exclusionary pacts?

They made pacts that exclude others not my genetics (for example) but by virtue of the design of the pacts and other contracts.

The exclusivity is based on deeds and title, not by sworn word.

Quote:

Also, aren't the people still living in Scotland maintaining it?

Currently, maybe. I'd have to check and it would require more effort than I (and others) are currently in any position to give.

That said- the style of the oaths extend a certain number of generations apart from the land. Granted- the oaths are honorably discharged after two generations. But that hasn't concluded yet- so they're still in play.

Quote:

I meant more to challenge the ability of people who (for whatever reason) have completely abandoned the land to claim exclusive rights.
I mean whether a culture is closed or not is irrelevent if they aren't in the lands of the Dei Loci at all. Unless of course... see the thread about enslaving spirits for my feelings on people that get exclusive contracts and then bail. stare
A Dei Loci CAN'T pack up and travel with a people, that's one of the defining factors at work.

In most situations I am right there with you. I just happen to be familiar with one very specific exception. Because of this, I entertain the possibility of other exceptions.  

[Fiddlers Green]

TeaDidikai

Currently, maybe. I'd have to check and it would require more effort than I (and others) are currently in any position to give.

I see.
I shall remain open to the possibility then, however...

TeaDidikai

In most situations I am right there with you. I just happen to be familiar with one very specific exception. Because of this, I entertain the possibility of other exceptions.

Ah, well, based on the tiny amount of information I have regarding this specific example... if I had the time and finances, if I moved to Scotland and intended to make my home there, I would put that to the test.
Otherwise, it would be very rude to the local Gods for me to wander over there just to poke them.
However, I am not sure how much I would care how rude it is to a Scot living in New Jersey.
I'm not sure that conveys my point.
I am trying to some how express the fact that I accept such protocols may have been made, but I question their validity, and furthermore, consider them (based on current info) something akin to God slavery.  

[TeaDidikai]

Fiddlers Green

Ah, well, based on the tiny amount of information I have regarding this specific example... if I had the time and finances, if I moved to Scotland and intended to make my home there, I would put that to the test.
Otherwise, it would be very rude to the local Gods for me to wander over there just to poke them.
However, I am not sure how much I would care how rude it is to a Scot living in New Jersey.
I'm not sure that conveys my point.
I am trying to some how express the fact that I accept such protocols may have been made, but I question their validity, and furthermore, consider them (based on current info) something akin to God slavery.

God slavery is an interesting concept- but I couldn't suggest such myself.

To my understanding, it's a function of contract. This specific group of people and this specific deity both are bound by their nature (deity of said place as much as humans of said place) and their word to behave in a certain way in relation to each other.

Should those people no longer be bound to the land by their nature and oaths, the contract is nulled. We're currently looking at seeing that happen in the next hundred years or so- barring unforeseen changes.

Further- the idea of slavery, chattel or otherwise, implies ownership. This isn't really the case- anymore than the oaths I swore on my wedding day made me property of Isakane. Partners- not property.  

[PurpleDragonsGems]

SpaceTerminal Destiny

Dragon_Witch_Woman

SpaceTerminal Destiny

Anyone know of any Iroquois deities that are open or if the traditions of the Iroquois are open?
Because I think that's the closest Native American cultural group to my area.

Actually, the major park of my city is named after I believe the name of the Native tribe that used to live around these parts.

Any particular Iroquois tribe you are intrested in?

You know what, I was assuming Iroquois, just because I know Southern to Central Ontario was supposed to be full of Iroquois tribes. sweatdrop

The only clue about my city's native past is Chinguacousy Park. Chinguacousy is supposed to mean "Land of the Tall Pines" in some native language, except it doesn't say which one. stare

Yeah they tend to lump the North East as Iroquois or Algonquin(sp?), but they its harder to find specific tribes. The only specific tribe I can even think if in that general area are the Abenaki.  

[Fiddlers Green]

TeaDidikai

God slavery is an interesting concept- but I couldn't suggest such myself.

To my understanding, it's a function of contract. This specific group of people and this specific deity both are bound by their nature (deity of said place as much as humans of said place) and their word to behave in a certain way in relation to each other.

Should those people no longer be bound to the land by their nature and oaths, the contract is nulled. We're currently looking at seeing that happen in the next hundred years or so- barring unforeseen changes.

Further- the idea of slavery, chattel or otherwise, implies ownership. This isn't really the case- anymore than the oaths I swore on my wedding day made me property of Isakane. Partners- not property.

When one partner retains the ability to walk away, while the other partner remains bound, I do not consider it a relationship of equals. Hence I do not consider it a true partnership.
Slavery is perhaps too strong a word, indenture mayhaps?
Oh, by the way, the Scottish people you are referring to are the Celtic invaders, not the Picts, correct?

Regardless, I must repeat, I am in a position of ignorance here, and I am more than happy to learn to understand when a party well versed in this specific comes forth, that I might ameliorate this ignorance.
For my own part, I have been unable to find a first hand source that can shed any light on this for me.