Religious Appropriation

Religious appropriation is the taking aspects of different religions in a way that is offensive or harmful to the other religion. Anyone can feel that someone else does a religion or religious aspect "wrong". A common form of appropriation is when a New Ageist or Pagan chooses to research another religion and takes bits and pieces of that religion for their own religion. As they are not raised in the religion they took the aspect from nor live amongst the people where it developed from (which itself may have been formed from appropriation), the people from that original religion may tolerate the other person, find them to be a freak, or find it hurtful that they took it. In extreme cases, it may lead to colonization. An example is New Ageists appropriating from the hundreds of religions around the world. They often take very small elements of cultures and magnify it. For example, the notion that a mammal has a certain characteristic in a culture, which is then twisted and turned into something the New Age can use for another twisted religious element taken from a different religion or religions. It is important to remember that cultures change with time and are very different depending on location. A single town, or village if you will, will have its own understanding of a religion that is considered to be a much bigger religion- that of the people they are grouped with. The grouping may be a country, or something considered to be less than a country like a tribe or a cult. But religious appropriators will take this and add it into their own personal belief system. This isn't necessarily wrong, but it can lead to the person misunderstanding the people they took it from, or causing an entire group of people misunderstanding and mistreating the other people they took it from or the people they imagine have it. Therefore it can cause harm when misused, especially on a larger scale level. It is also usually based on either a bit of ignorance or a desire to make what you see your own personal lesson and a large part of you. Though we can also say that everything we see will affect us, and thus it does.

In this wiki I use subspecies. This is in part for the scientific integrity of the animal, but also to place emphasis on issues such as spirit animals. While I am not bothered by the word "spirit animal" despite my indigenous race, it still bothers me that New Ageists and Pagans and many other people paint animals in an incredibly generic light. Each animal "neighborhood" is just as unique as human ones are, and each one has its own way of being. By listing different subspecies this allows people to split the idea of the animal form into more than just some blob with too much history to it. A European wolf is at its very core incredibly different than most if not all North American wolf types. And yet everyone associates the mythology to it as just "wolf". While a human moving somewhere else will bring their mythology and historical oral and written traditions with it, that doesn't make it accurate. North American wolves are less likely to be sheep killers than European ones. They are not so sly in their behavior, and are far more shy. Like them or hate them, attributing these dynamics to the wrong people is silly. Can you imagine if I told an Inuit from Alaska that he's a dirty towel head that hates women and eats too much goat? That would be incredibly daft. What about if I called a blonde Australian Aboriginal that she's a stupid valley girl that she does too much shopping and eats too much froyo? I mean, she could do a lot of shopping and eat froyo, and she might even decide to pick up a little valley girl in her Australian accent. Maybe she watches a lot of TV. But does that mean she is a Californian? Nah. But if I decided that all blonde Australian Aboriginals were inherently Californian, even despite their blonde gene having been involved differently, doesn't that just mean I have a severe blonde stereotype issue? Yes, it does. And if you think every wolf race should have all of their personal characteristics merged into one, maybe that's just a bit speciesist. Maybe be less speciesist.

So if you can, and I urge you to try, take this for its scientific and cultural value. If you are a Heathenist, follow only the Canis lupus lupus and Canis lupus albus attributes for your gods. If you are a believer in spirit animals, please keep in mind what kind of wolf it is: gray, black, and white really isn't enough. If you're indigenous, hold onto the beliefs your tribe has had and consider the differences that exist in the present and the past, and the past before that. Your understanding of wolves has changed, even with oral traditions in place, presuming that the oral traditions managed to be well-kept and weren't intentionally or accidentally changed. Look deeper into the wolf subspecies that you had so that you can find what once was or what is supposed to be. And if you are just a scientist, please be more public about how different each wolf ethnic group is, and remember that animals have culture. It shifts very readily with the knowledge that humans are watching, not just the trampling of plants and shooting of them and their fellow eco-mates.