The Burning Times: fascinating docu on women's power before Christianity

[sakura]

[[

#at=380 youtube]]

ANd why women are feared to the extent that they are accused of witchcraft and killed for it

How could this be a Christian thing when we've objected to their description of Roman culture/religion too?

'Lucky for me I'm a feminist, not an academic hoping to get academic brownie points.'

PMSL at the idea anyone would hope to get 'academic brownie points' for getting the introduction of Christianity to Europe correct within the nearest thousand years!

You seem to think that because you are very ignorant, it is therefore feminist to be very ignorant. It's not. It's just ignorant. No shame it in, but why on earth not admit it, try to learn a little, and move on?

The people interviewed in the documentary claim to be pagans and are well known as Pagan spokeswomen.

Thank you for posting this Sakura, I watched it and found it very interesting.

Its true it is not discussed much (at all?) in schools, in my experience, and in some ways I am glad of this, because I want girls to grow up strong and confident and without fear. But it is also important to speak about what has happened. What do you think?

Yes, but the film makers clearly don't, or don't see the ethical problem in failing to make that distinction. The interviewees were also the consultants for the film.

LDR you seem very concerned about some aspect of the dates of the spread of christianity (?). I understand it did take quite some time to spread across through Europe. What is your point, what do you think is the correct date?

Dittany, it is clear on this thread that you are ignorant about a lot of history. You had to ask me what was inaccurate about the film in the first place, and you still seem to think it would be possible for a group of people intelligent enough to hold down jobs, to make a 'mistake' of the magnitude of this dating error.

I know no-one can be well informed about everything, but why you think ignorance is something to be proud of, I don't understand. You're acting as if any insistence on basic accuracy is an affront.

I think it was also about scapegoating.
The persecutions happened at a time where superstition, religious faith and beliefs and good and evil were seen as constantly present and real threats.
The use of prayer as a cure, the use of religious bits and bobs to turn away evil and sickness and famine. So when things went wrong, it was easy to look around for a weaker, powerless and available target to attack and blame.
Women without power, or under the protection of someone powerful were a very easy target. In hard times, the persecutions increased and people turned on their neighbours. They wanted to blame 'the other'
Look at when the persecutions began to die out, around the age where rational and logical answers were being sought after by proto-scientists.

Sorry, HH, cross posted.

The date I objected to was 1132, which the film says is when Christianity is 'new' in Trier. I think Trier was Christianized in the second century AD. I totally agree Christianity took a long time to spread over Europe and someone pointed out further up the threat that Iceland, for example, wasn't Christianized until the High Middle Ages. (It's interesting, given the film equates pre-Christian culture with a positive attitude towards women witches, that Iceland is also according to SGM a country where witch trials focused exclusively on men.)

If you make a film about an historical event, it is usual for the people who find out the information that is going to be used in the film to be different to the people interviewed. If that isn't the case then it is made clear that it is a film about the view of some particular historian, religious person or other figure.

The whole film is about paganism. Much of it is not about witch trials at all, but about supernatural practices in Roman Britain, Brazil, Peru and so on.

Starhawk is a consultant on the film. She has asked the pope to apologise to modern day pagans, and specifically said both men and women, for the witch trials. She has not asked for an apology to be made to all women as a group.

How can it be correct overall when it kicks off with a completely incorrect vision of some never-existed-ever matriarchal utopia pre-Christianity? I agree that the witchcrazes (or hunts, whatever) were insane, rampant misogyny but what good is pretending those earlier societies were not also oppressively patriarchal - albeit to a less bloodthirsty extent?

dittany, I'm not a historian either. I don't need to be a historian. People have explained that their small children know some of this stuff. This is not - despite your attempts to paint it that way - us Nasty Misogynist Academics victimizing Poor Little Dittany with our arcane knowledge.

You may be ignorant about this stuff; fine. But the film makers, do you see, should not be. It's dishonest that they pretend to be making a documentary and take no responsibility for getting the facts even vaguely close to right. Apologizing for them by saying they're 'making mistakes' is ludicrous.

(Actually - because I should be fair - it's true I'm not a historian but I do know a shedload of history. Nevertheless, it's pretty funny to suggest you need advanced training in history to know this stuff.)

Dittany, the point is, it's ignorant not to understand why that dating is important. Though, it's been explained enough times and in simple enough language, I'd have thought you'd have got it by now.

What you're saying about this documentary is a bit like saying 'Darn, it's a shame there aren't more books about child abuse, but at least we have Lolita'.