Another Bull’s Eye Response
Jon Upsal has posted a rebuttal to the recent, spuriously researched G&R piece by Ryan Smith. You can enjoy his piece here. Read them both folks, (Jon links to the original piece in his article). Make up your own minds.
Ryan lost me with his misuse of Tacitus. Tacitus was writing for a Roman audience, holding up the Germanic tribes as the embodiment of piety and valor, virtues that he found his contemporary Romans to lack. He wrote “Germania” in part to shame his readers into reclaiming these Roman virtues. Romans, even in the early imperial period, had a horror of kingship. (Early in their history, they had a succession of kings but it went very badly at the end). There’s no way Tacitus would have extolled a nation that had kings. If they did, he’d have had to downplay it, though one could argue that there is no essential difference between ‘king’ and ‘chieftain’ in a tribal setting. Using Tacitus to claim that the Germanic peoples lacked kingship is…disingenuous at best.
Ryan also uses predominantly Icelandic sources, as though Icelandic Heathenry and Asatru are the only denominations of the Northern Traditions. They are not. I won’t belabor that point here — Jon Upsal does a masterful job of deconstructing that part of Ryan’s article. Go. Read. Learn
Posted on April 11, 2016, in community, Heathenry, Uncategorized and tagged Asatru, Community, Gods and Radical, Heathenry, Jon Upsal, politics, Ryan Smith, Tacitus. Bookmark the permalink. 1 Comment.