Question cocerning the native term for god(s) and imported Christianity

[Chun Jimmy Huang]

I am not a US citizen and don't know the nationalistic history of 
the US enough to comment. So here I'd just like to respond to two 
issues Phil has alluded to: (1) the concept of ownership and (2) 
gender - both related to the issue of imported world-sense along 
with the imported religion.

(1) In traditional Siraya society there was no concept of 
ranking-of-people, leadership, and hence servitude or slavery. But 
to introduce Christianity the missionary Gravius had to tell the 
biblical stories that evoked these concepts. As a result, in his 
translation of St. Mattew we find the word for child "alak" (and 
sometimes boys "raraway" - but not girls!) used to mean slaves or 
servants. And he used the phrase "to let sit" figuratively to mean 
"to serve [the lord]."


(2) While "alid" in old Siraya language was just a generic term 
for gods/ heavenly spirits and Siraya folks in fact worshiped more 
than one god, today the Christian as well as the non-Christian 
Sirayans all recognize one higher god. Note that in the context of 
Taiwan the imported concept of "dominance in singularity" may have 
had multiple inputs - besides Christianity, there is Chinese 
Confucianism, which may actually be more influential in Taiwan 
(and both emphasize singular male dominance!).

So anyway for the Sirayan folks today who still more or less (b/c 
it's much Sinicized) maintain the traditional religion, when 
speaking of "the Alid" they in fact call upon a powerful female 
deity. As they also call for "Alid-Mother." (Traditionally, the 
Siraya society was matri-focal and religion was mostly a female 
domain and the benevolent deities were all female.)

On the other hand, the (Presbyterian) Christian Sirayans today do 
use "meirong (good) Alid" to refer to God/Lord/Father.

Hum... so far what I have observed is that the two religious 
groups in fact respect each other and they interact well. I have 
not witnessed conflicts due to the interpretation of Alid's 
gender. After all, they all acknowledge "Alid."


Chun (Jimmy) Huang/ Paparil
PhD candidate,
Linguistics, University of Florida
Special assistant,
Tainan Ping-pu Siraya Culture Association



On Sun Aug 31 17:07:02 EDT 2008, phil cash cash 
<cashcash at EMAIL.ARIZONA.EDU> wrote:

> Given this historical religious character, the interpretation of 
> "ownership"
> and land was perhaps the one element that had the most 
> devastating impact on
> indigenous cultures becuase those who controlled land were 
> somehow "chosen"
> (that is, owning land allowed one to examine his or her soul) and 
> from this
> came nothing but warfare and destruction for all us natives.


> Phil
> Quoting William J Poser :
> 
>> Phil,
>> 
>> Okay, then I guess I didn't understand your post.
>> The question of Jefferson's religious beliefs is one that I pick 
>> up on
>> because in some circles false claims about Jefferson are used to 
>> advance
>> the argument that the US is a "Christian nation" and to argue 
>> against
>> separation of church and state and so forth. So in some contexts 
>> this
>> is an important issue.
>> 
>> Bill
> 
>