Hula .. The Sacred Dance

[warmingwarmingwarming]

If anyone has seen genuine, old style Hawaiian Hula you will almost certainly recognize the sacred prayer the dance motions are. Some modern style Hula also is sacred, but much less expressive.

I recently danced with a Spiritual Healer from California, Sylvia, I met at a bar-diner in Hawaii. Sylvia's spirit was loving, and the dance was effortless, and half way through our dance the Spirit moved me to express hand and arm expressions symbolizing rainfall .. a couple of days later a 36 hour period of wonderful, drenching, non-destructive and windless rain began, this in what is normally the dry period on this island. Hills which are normally brown at this time of year turned verdant green.

Degeneracy has invoked other forms of Hula-like dance of course, debauched, 'Hot Hula' the most modern expression of this, but these are inventions for drunken sailors of navies stationed in tropic ports, not Hula. If ever you have opportunity to see real Hula, I urge you to do so. (Tongan Hula seems to have a more lustful and violent history of dance .. but I haven't seen genuine Hula in Tonga, only what was expressed to be Tongan Hula in Hawaii.)

[warmingwarmingwarming]

Not all missionaries banned Polynesian arts, by the way. The Scotts, who loved the swirl and bagpipes, were especially receptive to the sacredness of Polynesian art and prayer .. including the Hula.

[warmingwarmingwarming]

And now it's raining again, here in dry season, on this dry side of this island.

[neufer]

<<The sacred–profane dichotomy is an idea posited by French sociologist Émile Durkheim, who considered it to be the central characteristic of religion: "religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden." In Durkheim's theory, the sacred represented the interests of the group, especially unity, which were embodied in sacred group symbols, or totems. The profane, on the other hand, involved mundane individual concerns. Durkheim explicitly stated that the sacred/profane dichotomy was not equivalent to good/evil. The sacred could be good or evil, and the profane could be either as well.>>

[warmingwarmingwarming]

<<The sacred–profane dichotomy is an idea posited by French sociologist Émile Durkheim, who considered it to be the central characteristic of religion: "religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden." In Durkheim's theory, the sacred represented the interests of the group, especially unity, which were embodied in sacred group symbols, or totems. The profane, on the other hand, involved mundane individual concerns. Durkheim explicitly stated that the sacred/profane dichotomy was not equivalent to good/evil. The sacred could be good or evil, and the profane could be either as well.>>

Yes, humans can and do classify good as evil and evil as good .. however, good has good results .. evil, evil results .. during the early exploration of the Pacific Islands the Europeans are said to have noted two basic types of culture generally on islands separated by large expanses of ocean, one culture lascivious., the other moral, the lascivious were plagued by diseases, the moral blessed with good health. Of course, the Europeans with their material abundance quickly spread immorality to all the islands, and we know the results as decimated populations. The same thing of course happened in the American continents, and it was noted that, for instance, Innuit tribes which did no trade with the Hudson Bay Company and avoided their sense of morality fared well, which those who traded were decimated.

[rstevenson]

That's rather an odd take on history. The various isolated (from Europe) groups that Europeans came into contact with were not decimated by trade, as you seem to be saying. They were decimated -- killed, to be clear -- by viral and bacterial illnesses for which they had no immunity. But perhaps you're just saying their cultures were drastically changed -- metaphorically decimated -- by contact with European cultures. Yes, no argument there.

Rob

[warmingwarmingwarming]

That's rather an odd take on history. The various isolated (from Europe) groups that Europeans came into contact with were not decimated by trade, as you seem to be saying. They were decimated -- killed, to be clear -- by viral and bacterial illnesses for which they had no immunity. But perhaps you're just saying their cultures were drastically changed -- metaphorically decimated -- by contact with European cultures. Yes, no argument there.

Rob

While initial contact in many but not all cases was made for survival of the europeans, with the natives coming to rescue at times of crisis, from Scurvy for instance, continued contact was for the purpose of trade, and in many cases military alliances as the natives and europeans enlisted each other in war against traditional enemy. It was this extended, and intimate contact, that provided the medium for the exchange of bacteria and viruses. Tribes which avoided this intimacy fared much better than tribes which embraced it.

[warmingwarmingwarming]

That's rather an odd take on history. The various isolated (from Europe) groups that Europeans came into contact with were not decimated by trade, as you seem to be saying. They were decimated -- killed, to be clear -- by viral and bacterial illnesses for which they had no immunity. But perhaps you're just saying their cultures were drastically changed -- metaphorically decimated -- by contact with European cultures. Yes, no argument there.

Rob

A hard to track down portion of Canadian history tells how the French settlers (first of the Europeans) in Nova Scotia gave guns to the Mic Macs purposely to exterminate the Newfoundland Beothuks, who were to them their traditional enemies, although they were known to be peaceable people. Of course, when the French wanted to further subdue the Mic Macs all they had to do was withhold further ammunition for the guns.

[rstevenson]

A hard to track down portion of Canadian history tells how the French settlers (first of the Europeans) in Nova Scotia gave guns to the Mic Macs purposely to exterminate the Newfoundland Beothuks, who were to them their traditional enemies, although they were known to be peaceable people. Of course, when the French wanted to further subdue the Mic Macs all they had to do was withhold further ammunition for the guns.

To quote from the Beothuk page on Wikipedia...

Beothuk numbers dwindled rapidly due to a combination of factors, including:
- loss of access to important food sources, from competition with Inuit and Mi'kmaqs as well as European settlers;
- infectious diseases to which they had no immunity, such as smallpox, introduced by European contact;
- endemic tuberculosis (TB), which weakened tribal members; and
- violent encounters with trappers, settlers and other natives.

Rob

[warmingwarmingwarming]

A hard to track down portion of Canadian history tells how the French settlers (first of the Europeans) in Nova Scotia gave guns to the Mic Macs purposely to exterminate the Newfoundland Beothuks, who were to them their traditional enemies, although they were known to be peaceable people. Of course, when the French wanted to further subdue the Mic Macs all they had to do was withhold further ammunition for the guns.

To quote from the Beothuk page on Wikipedia...

Beothuk numbers dwindled rapidly due to a combination of factors, including:
- loss of access to important food sources, from competition with Inuit and Mi'kmaqs as well as European settlers;
- infectious diseases to which they had no immunity, such as smallpox, introduced by European contact;
- endemic tuberculosis (TB), which weakened tribal members; and
- violent encounters with trappers, settlers and other natives.

Rob

Like I said, the particular arming of the Mic Macs against the unarmed Beothuks is hidden history, very difficult to locate, for sake of putting more favourable light on Mic Mac and French history .. you know, the current facade of aboriginal culture is that it was 'earth friendly and generally non-violent,' but when many tribes had good opportunity to eliminate other tribes and natural resources (like beaver) they were greedy opportunists. Greed is common to humanity. Amount of violence done is often limited by law and ability of the other person to defend themselves.