A counter-point to myself
I was talking to a good friend of mine (the same ones who edits these posts) about the socio-linguistics course she is currently taking, and she made a point about the classification of certain languages which made me re-examine some of the posts I’ve written about syncretic religion, or, the manner in which I wrote those posts.
In labeling a religion of language as syncretic, you are labeling it as new and different to the pre-existing languages and religions. This makes sense in that newness implies difference. However, the vast majority of spoken languages and practiced religions extant today can and should be classified as syncretic; as somebody pointed out in a reblog, the emergence of a syncretic culture is the natural result of cross-cultural interaction.
Thus, in the labeling of the animistic forms of Catholicism which developed in the New World as “syncretic,” I am setting them apart from older, but equally syncretic forms of Christianity. While my labeling of such faiths as “syncretic” is a commentary on their newness rather than on their perceived inferiority, I do not deny that there are colonialist underpinnings to such classifications which do come through in some of my posts.
Having understood that I am doing this, I will be sure to proof-read any of my future posts on this subject with a more critical eye.
