It was interesting for me to start the Santeria reading, because me and my friends had literally just had a conversation about why society is more accepting of women wearing what are deemed ‘masculine’ clothes, than of men wearing what are considered ‘feminine’ clothes. We basically gave up and came to the conclusion that everything is a social construct, but the beginning of this chapter answered so many of the questions me and my friends talked about. As well as opening my eyes to so much more. It never actually occurred to me the amount of structural, hidden inequality that exists in society. The fact that pretty much all mainstream religions are male dominated actually went completely over my head, which is actually ridiculous. I’ve read about Santeria before, but the new way this chapter approached it really kept my interest, and actually makes me really interested in the roles women play in religion now.

A few lines that stood out in particular this week were found in the Santeria reading, pages 2-3. “Much philosophical thinking assumes what is known as the ‘normative male perspective’… This deep-seated preference for characteristics that have been culturally constructed as male over those that have been constructed as female as well as over other cultural gender constructions has led to a general acceptance of women who want to act like men but a continued abhorrence of men who take on any characteristic that has been culturally defined as ‘female’.”

It was curious to think about how slanted the idea is that female adoption of ‘male’ characteristics versus male adoption of ‘female’ characteristics is. The very idea of ‘male’ or ‘female’ characteristics is an interesting one, as we as a society have dedicated gender to personality traits or general attributes, and then cast judgement on who is allowed to portray such things. Rarely do I truly consider the level of import that society has placed upon such ideas, to the extent that it has long since reached into our literature and other such sources that we read on a daily basis for English classes and such, but when I come across a line like this one it becomes apparent.

One of the most interesting things about Voodoo that I learned from the readings, is that unlike Christianity, Voodoo does not follow the mentality of good versus evil. Instead it goes by the idea that there are actions that are constructive and actions that are destructive. This seems to be a far more pragmatic and nuanced worldview to me. It seems like a system that is less interested in steeping morality with simply traditions and religious practices, but instead simply wishes people to do what is best for their own community. This would also make it much more difficult to use this religion as a political tool. Instead of creating division of good groups and bad, to use to shape relationship that they might have with outside communities in order to force some type of authority or morality over them, it is instead more interested in much more immediate relations and decisions connected to their own well-being.

I found this chapter very interesting because I learned a lot about Voodoo. This chapter made me check my ignorance on the topic. Due to my personal religious background, I was taught that Voodoo and Satanism were synonymous but after reading this chapter, I learned that that is not the case. Also while reading this, I continually thought about the Disney movie The Princess and the Frog. More specifically the voodoo man who had a somewhat major roll in this movie. As I was reading, I tried to compare the movie. I attached a video of the Voodoo man’s song from the movie!

Friends on the Other SIde

The reading for this week actually correlates very closely with a topic in my Personality Psychology class. This is the of humanistic psychology, and its origins which lay in the original foundations of existentialism. This addresses the main questions of why are we here and what is the purpose our existence? The reason why I connect this to this weeks reading on various religions that began in Africa, is because I hold to the belief that many people find their purpose, and identify through religion. However, as psychology argues how we perceive our own reality is the result of our constructs. As was noted in the reading, Santeria and Voodoo are very closely related to each other. Nonetheless,  regardless if these charms and practices are used for good or evil, I think is the result of how one perceives their own reality. One of the biggest issues that I think can arise from studying followings in Voodoo and similar practices today, is we now have more science on our side. As the article connects, behavior of individuals who were claimed to be chosen by certain African Gods, we said to present with the same behaviors as someone with whom today we would claim to have multiple personality disorder. Furthermore, although I am aware that I do not hold the common opinion on this matter, I think it is important to note that priestesses, and those who were chosen to be the “vessels” of other worship gods, often came from a family of it. For me personally, this raises questions in my mind about how much people brought into these practices, or if it may have been a societal pressure.  In addition, I still wonder why the concept of voodoo itself, to many people in New Orleans, is still thought of as a dark practice. Seeing as my mother grew up in this city, as a child my grandmother have certain superstitions and rules we had to follow in order to get what she would refer to as bad juju. Of course, this comes from a woman that lives a haunted house, and gets mad every time we bring up the top of Ojai boards, which she’s never allowed in her house, even when my mother was young..

I thought that the readings this week were really interesting. The only experience I’ve had at all with Santoria is when they mention it in the movie The Hot Chick. I was also really interested to read about voodoo because the only place I’ve seen that is in the beginning of the movie Lilo and Stitch. I was a little bit unsure when the chapter about Santoria was talking about all the numbers. The chapter said, “Shango recognizes the numbers 4 and 6. Numerologists add 4 and 6 to make 10, and then add 1 and 0 to make 1.” I was very confused by this. How does Shango only recognize the numbers 4 and 6? Do other numbers not exist, or are these numbers special for some reason? Why do numerologists add them together to make ten? What is the point of that? Also, couldn’t anyone add 4 and 6 together to make 10? Why mention numerologists? Why do the numerologists add 1 and 0 to make 1? What does that mean? Why those particular numbers? I was just very confused by that section. I thought that it was very interesting to read about the other rituals and ideas of the religion, however.

Called “mysterious Afro-Christian syncretized religions,” in the Fanthorpe reading, Santeria and Voodoo (Vodun) are much different than what people expect. Perhaps people’s misconceptions and misunderstandings lie in the lack of real written histories and material. The traditions are still largely oral, passed from generation to generation. Some people see these traditions, Santeria and Vodun, as witchcraft or satanic, but that assumption is largely false. The two are also seen as synonymous, which would also be wrong to assume. Just because they are both African Diasporic Traditions does not mean their belief systems and structures are even close. I located the Santeria Church website, and they identify the differences between the two faiths, for a further explanation to what the chapters given explained.

While Christianity has the idea of “good versus evil dualism,” Santeria does not. Instead, the “universe is subject to opposing forces such as expansion and contraction (which are not of themselves good or evil)…everything in the universe has positive attributes (Ire) and negative attributes (Ibi).” When I read this, I thought it made more sense than what I’ve largely been taught or read through Christianity. It’s easy enough to say in Christianity that God is good and the Devil is bad, and you either are saved or a sinner. There is no room for gray areas. Though as we’ve seen, it’s much harder to put this into action. But with this Santerian idea, that the universe, and subsequently humanity, are on this spectrum of positive or negative, giving or taking, it allows for the inevitability of some people to be human. It’s about creating “right character,” and living a right life. This is a very Christianized idea, the idea of living a Christ-like life, but Santeria seems to give it a more community-oriented, human-oriented spin, likely connecting to the African roots of it.

Both of the chapters also discussed the idea of religion and studying religion in general. The Fanthorpe chapter described religion as “an attempt to understand and explain the universe and the vast forces within it, to control or influence those forces, and to influence human thought and behavior.” I found this an incredible definition, because it includes everything, and it doesn’t necessarily assign divinity. I also thought the idea presented in the chapter from “Where Men are Wives and Mothers Rule,” that religion has a “presumption of maleness until otherwise said,” is something people don’t tend to think about. Abrahamic religions assign male attributes to God, and all important, frequently-discussed figures are males. The role models offered are all essentially male. Santeria’s practice of creating this instead female-normative system is something that I’m sure caused its controversy, but also gained it some powerful, strong women to work and lead within the community.

Haitian Altar

Doctor King’s sermon this week was very affecting in that his words resonated with his audience not only in a social sense, but in a religious sense. I chose to focus on this sermon as I believe that the spoken word, with its many fluctuations in pitch and volume can often be much more effective than words on a page. This is explicitly present in Dr. King’s sermon, as his experience with speeches and sermons given in the context of being a reverend allowed him to provide powerful and moving speeches just as he did in the context of something so personal and moving as religion.Doctor King’s sermon this week was very affecting in that his words resonated with his audience not only in a social sense, but in a religious sense. I chose to focus on this sermon as I believe that the spoken word, with its many fluctuations in pitch and volume can often be much more effective than words on a page. This is explicitly present in Dr. King’s sermon, as his experience with speeches and sermons given in the context of being a reverend allowed him to provide powerful and moving speeches just as he did in the context of something so personal and moving as religion.

The speech “But If Not” is particularly pertinent to this course, and the readings this week in particular, because it is obvious to see how King weaves his religion within the context of the Civil Rights Movement. King begins the speech as a pastor might- focusing first on the experiences of Shadrach, Meschach, and Abednego, and how these biblical figures have inspired the idea of civil disobedience in the name of a higher power. Quickly thereafter, King relates this to the present struggle of the Civil Rights Movement, and the struggle of modern day civil disobedience. Both contexts share sensibilities– paraphrasing the reverend, they eschew one king in the service of The King. In the context of civil rights, it is rejecting the ideology of greater society for what one believes is true and right.

I would compare the emotional impact of this speech to that of Malcolm X, who also gave greatly impassioned speeches- but in a way which was wholly dissimilar to the didactic lessons of King.

In this bad quality but well fitting video,

It sums up the life and mission of Mahalia Jackson. Sometimes you just know you’re destined to do something and Mahalia knew she was destined to sing for God. One quote I loved from this reading is when she states ” How can I sing songs for white people to understand when I’m colored myself?” because at the moment she wanted to sing, but she was told that she would not appeal to their understanding, but that’s when she knew that she did not need to sing for them to understand but sing for them to understand her and the voice of other black people that they shall overcome someday.

It’s interesting how the author makes it clear the National Baptist Convention, despite mostly agreeing with each other, doesn’t want to restrict how other members may feel about civil rights issues or how they want to achieve them. They made a point of adopting a philosophy they won’t use to control how individuals in their Convention act. This section also addresses the issue of racial “togetherness” being mistaken as participating in segregation. Segregation is the forced separation by an oppressor, and this racial togetherness is not that, but many members who (rightfully) hate segregation will call them by the same name. Their same hatred of segregation also leads them to disregard any important achievements under that system. These achievements shouldn’t be forgotten; it’s not their fault that segregation existed, and they still deserve to be recognized for what they fought for.

The reading also addresses that, after a certain point, you cannot rely on your oppressor to help you. If, after years, your oppressors mistreat you and refuse to listen to you, it falls on you to change the system against the will of the oppressors who run that system. The oppressors are not likely to change these laws or restrictions on their own.

The National Baptist Convention also teaches their members about economics and production so that they can support themselves instead of relying on white people to employ them. It argues that ending segregation just to rely on an oppressor to employ you and pay you shouldn’t be the end goal, and it isn’t why people should be protesting. They need to do more for each other instead and begin owning their own means of production in order to truly be equal.