Tuesday, 27 January 2009

I haven't been HAD

I am not a member of HAD, I never have been a member of HAD, and I never will be a member of HAD (Honouring the Ancient Dead).

I applaud their moderate stance on the issue of reburial, their attempts to reach a consensus, and their efforts to get Pagan ritual recognised as a valid way of interacting with the landscape.

But HAD (or at least some of them) would like reburial for most ancient dead in principle, though they know this isn't practically possible. They are not for automatic blanket reburial in all cases, but they are broadly in favour of reburial. Therefore I do not feel represented by HAD (although they were kind enough to host my article about compromise on their website).

I'm not having a go at HAD, they just do not represent my position, and I want to show that there are a large number of Pagans who feel the same way about this as I do.

I attended the Respect conference at Manchester Museum in Nov 2006, heard Emma setting out her views in detail, and I do not feel in any way represented by her views. Nor do I see how an organisation with the aims of HAD can ever represent Pagans who feel that respect for the ancient dead is better served by memory and archaeology.

You can hear my views on reburial in a podcast about the issue of human remains via the History News Network blog, in which I rant extensively about compromise and why it's such a good idea.


Pax said...

Sadly YewTree I the podcast seems to be no longer on the 'net... so I don't get to hear you argue vehemently in favor of moderation and compromise...

am I to hope there was some shouting and wild gesticulations? Perhaps shaking of the fist in the air?

Peace and Humor,

Yewtree said...

Oh, that's a shame, I'll see if I can get a copy.

It was audio, so you can imagine those wild gesticulations, but they didn't really happen :D

Bo said...

Here, here.
I really resent the way the perspective of HAD has been imposed on the pagan community as 'the standard view' by Restall-Orrian fiat.