![hrnmosv[1]](https://traditionalpolytheist.files.wordpress.com/2019/02/hrnmosv1-1.png?w=625)
A better world would be one where the nation-state, the empire, and the capitalistic system do not exist and are instead replaced with autonomous/indigenous regions that have particular peoples, cultures, dialects, natural environments, and indeed polytheistic cults worthy of preservation without interference from greedy powers. Here, the many have power rather than the few; identities become solid and distinct, all equal in their diversity; production as well as art is local and varied; community celebration and neighborly exchange becomes the new rule; temporary confederations are desired rather than permanent federations. Perhaps many will think such a world is too ideal and too good to be true, but when there is a will, there is a way. Is it “human progress” to reach the moon, but not seek harmony and happiness?
This is interesting, because I was just reading on polytheism before you posted this tonight. So in your view, was establishment of Rome as state a bad development away from tribalism?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Good question. The Roman Empire is often praised as a glorious political and cultural entity that gave birth to Europe, ending (as you say) the division of many peoples as well as civilizing them. I differ from that common narrative, which has been promoted by most historians. Decentralized and small states/chiefdoms are usually regarded as backwards and uncivilized, engaging in warfare constantly. This is a rather biased perspective that doesn’t equally account for the huge inequality (including slavery) and military/cultural imperialism (including genocide) that empires demand for their very existence and continuity. Nor does it take into consideration civilized city-states in ancient times like those of Greece. I believe every people has a right to self-determination and freedom. And since you are Christian, I must let you know that I have no less sympathy and admiration for the Jewish struggle against the Roman Empire than I do for the Germanic. Polytheistic states that were urbanized did sometimes have a tendency towards imperialism (Egypt, Assyria, China, Rome, etc) but this is separate from polytheism itself as a system of belief, being rather a fault of historical and social forces (mostly centered around the problem of population growth). In fact (as I have argued elsewhere on this site), polytheism is inherently pluralistic and pro-indigenism by definition, because it can never advocate for the destruction or slavery of any God, and by extension, of any culture or people. When the cruel Assyrian Empire destroyed Babylon along with its temples, sparing only that of the supreme God Marduk, they only exposed further impiety when their king commissioned a myth where Marduk was put on trial and found guilty by Ashur, his Assyrian counterpart. Similarly, the Romans hypocritically performed “evocatio” before besieging a city in order to attract the local God on their side, as if the native God would choose them above those who worshipped him. In conclusion, imperialism is neither compatible with polytheism nor with happiness or civilization. The map above gives an idea of how the past can inform the future.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I’ve never thought about it in these terms before and will have to give it some thought. I’m not sure I agree with your conclusion, but I’m going to read your some of your other posts first before I can give a fair response. You might have to wait a while though. My other studies prevent me from reading quickly 😦
LikeLiked by 1 person