You know, sometimes I KNOW it would be better to just leave something alone, but criminently, my dander gets up and I just can’t. So…ranting by Jax.
I haven’t been to journalism school or anything, but I have a few basic ideas about journalistic standards, and as a writer with an English degree, I have a whole lot of ideas about communication. While we here at The Pagan Princesses may not always be fair and balanced (*wink*), we strive to be accurate and coherent. We also try to be very mindful of our audience and how they will receive the things we say and the images we post. Above all we try not to negligently insult people – not that we never have anything negative to say, but we are cognizant of it and try to present our critiques responsibly.
So when the Village Voice ran an article with the title “America’s Top Heathen†and this as its featured image:

Artist Michael Marsicano depicts us as drunken men in badly researched costumes setting fire to dead animals. Yeah... that's SO me.
…to put it mildly, I was less than impressed with their journalism.
The image depicts Dan Halloran, a City Councilman in NYC and a practicing Heathen. As I’m not from from anywhere near NYC, I’ve never met the guy, but word on the Heathen grapevine intimates he’s not the most beloved Heathen of us all, at least not since he got into politics a couple years ago.
But whether or not Halloran is the oath-breaking scumbag the Village Voice’s article makes him out to be (they are clearly not fans at the VV) is not the point I’m tackling here. The point I’m tackling here is that it was irresponsible of the Village Voice to use Halloran’s religion to tear him down. What’s even crazier is that people who bother to read the article* will find it’s full of quotes from Halloran’s old Theod (church) talking about what a bad example of a Heathen he is. So according to the article, he’s the Heathen equivalent of that guy who walks out of a Christian church and starts yelling at a homeless guy to get a job while all the other congregants slap their brows in shame… and yet the paper chose a title that makes it sounds like the rest of us are behind him and an image that makes Halloran the Heathen look like a creepy Ren-Faire reject who sacrifices goats.
Jason Pitzl-Waters over at The Wild Hunt also wrote about this, and he compared it to an image of Michele Bachman which appeared in Rolling Stone. Jason asked if we were pissed about Halloran’s image if we should also be pissed at this image by Victor Juhasz:
I had to think about that question. Obviously, I’m going to have a more visceral reaction to artwork depicting elements of my faith than I would artwork with elements from other faiths – we all do. But I try very hard to not let personal reaction interfere with fair assessments. And I do believe there is a very vital difference here in what the two artists are doing.
In Halloran’s picture, the artist used basic Heathen accouterments (most of which is inaccurate) for his critique, as opposed to the Bachman piece in which the artist used a particular time in history that everybody already knows was bat-guano-crazy for his critique.** Bachman’s piece says, “Bachman is crazy like the Spanish Inquisition!” And Halloran’s says, “Halloran is crazy like a Heathen!” as if merely being Heathen is enough to make you a nutter. Plus the Bachman piece stands alone. I don’t have to read the Rolling Stone article to know exactly what that artist is saying. But without context (and in the era of the Internet, whatever images you put out there are going to be seen without context) the Halloran piece just looks like a scary guy in a robe sacrificing a goat. Oh, and he’s wearing runes, so he’s a Heathen. The Halloran image would work just as well slapped on some incendiary tract trying to scare people into believing Heathens are Satanists (or some other anti-Pagan, anti-witchcraft, anti-Heathen nonsense). That’s irresponsible journalism.
Heathens don’t sacrifice goats (and it’s horribly lazy on the part of the artist to stereotype all minority faiths as goat-sacrificers). We don’t carry tiki torches, and we usually use horns instead of chalices (chalices are more Celtic Recon). Most of us don’t dress in Medieval garb, but some groups do create special attire for their gothi (say go-thee; a Heathen priest, named for the old Norse word for priest or cheiftan) that often is inspired by traditional Scandinavian garb, much like any other church has robes and stoles and what-have-you worn by their clergy. The artist did little to no research and instead relied on stereotypes and a photo of Halloran*** found on the Internet to create an image that made Halloran’s Heathen-ness appear scary and nonsensical – when there’s nothing scary or nonsensical about what we do or what we believe.
We’re such a small and often misunderstood faith, I get frustrated when I feel misrepresented. What do you think, realm? Irresponsible journalism or worthy image?
* And most people, statistically speaking, won’t read the article, but will be left with only the lovely impression of “America’s Top Heathen†as a creeptastic, goat-sacrificing psycho.
** I suppose if you’re pro burning people at the stake and butchering people with swords in the name of your deity, then the Michelle Bachman piece could offend you, but my tolerance for alternative viewpoints only goes so far. If you think I should be set on fire, we’re not friends. Just sayin’.
*** The Post talks about how Halloran is Theodish, a small denomination of Heathenry that’s organized into tightly knit communities (the article calls them tribes). I don’t practice it so I don’t really understand it, but what the Post is describing about a “first aethling†(aethling is an Anglo-Saxon word often translated as “princeâ€) and whatnot is a Theodish thing and not typical of what most Heathens do. Basically, Theodish groups take Reconstructionism way beyond the rest of us.
+Â Goats in Apenheul Zoo, Netherlands, by Frank Wouters [Goat sez: He drew what? No. Nah-uh. You ain’t sacrificing me! I will knock your butt down the mountain!]
8 comments
Charles says:
Dec 6, 2011
The VV image is in poor taste, and Bachmann is absolutely nutters, but if you’re taking the image out of all context, the second one is as prejudicial as the first. While the Spanish Inquisition and Bachmann are definitely better known than Heathen dress/practices and Halloran, there’s still a lot of people who would just see another crazy Christian ready to burn everything for their God. Bachmann will be even less well known once she loses this election and dyes her hair blonde to get a Fox anchor job.
On the other hand, Bachmann has explicitly cited her faith to justify her politics, her really-not-gay husband, and whatever else spews from her maw, so it is probably better justified, at least in context.
Jax says:
Dec 9, 2011
Dyes her hair blond to get a Fox anchor job. *snort* 🙂
I would like to point out that I never used the word “prejudice†in the article. I’m not accusing anyone of prejudice. What I am accusing him of is lazy journalism that uses inaccurate stereotypes and takes cheap shots instead of focusing on a relevant issue. I’m accusing him of being irresponsible (and tacky), not of being prejudiced.
As far as the pictures go, with that criteria in mind, the use of the Spanish Inquisition makes a big difference. If Halloran had been depicted as a viking sacking some village or something like that, I would’ve snorted at the inevitable (and inaccurate) use of a horned helmet, but I can’t deny that my people pillaged their way up and down the coasts of Europe. That’s a historical fact, not a critique on my faith. We murdered a lot of people, burned down villages, and extorted money. Lots of not okay things. (My entire spiritual heritage, in fact, is often reduced to the word “viking” – the viking faith, the viking people, viking history. But viking is not a location; it’s a Norse word that means “raider.” Very few people who practiced my faith were actually vikings. (I could make a case that referring to things of Scandinavian Heathen heritage as “Viking†is equivalent to referring to things of Medieval Christian heritage as “Inquisitionish†– both use the most violent element of the culture as the defining characteristic.) But I’m getting off topic. Back to the topic at hand.) An image that compared a modern person to a Viking is not ragging on my faith as it exists now because my faith doesn’t do that (anymore). It would be comparing that person’s actions to something really crappy the people of my faith did a long time ago.
Would it thrill me that that depiction brought up, oh, the ONE thing everybody thinks they know about the Norse? That we’re ragingly violent? No. I’d kinda like some other depiction, just, you know, for variety’s sake. But using my faith’s real history isn’t automatically a sign of prejudice against my current faith.
Along similar lines, Christianity really did do the Spanish Inquisition. It isn’t in the spirit of modern Christianity any more than sacking villages is in the spirit of modern Heathenry. But as you pointed out, Michele Bachman has said things and shown ties to people who, while not so fiery or bloody, want to shut down everything that’s not Christian – like the Spanish Inquisition did. Comparing Bachman to the Spanish Inquisition is a not an unreasonable critique to make because it’s about things she’s currently doing. Moreover, it’s a critique of HER, not of her religion. I didn’t read the Rolling Stone article, so I have no context for the image when I say this. Without context, the image communicates “Like the Spanish Inquisition, Bachman thinks God wants her to take down all other faiths.†I don’t think that’s an inaccurate statement.
Halloran, on the other hand, has done a lot to distance himself from his faith since he got elected (it’s one of the things that has really bugged a lot of Heathens about him). So using a picture of him in a Heathen cloak (sacrificing a goat – which is, in popular imagination, a Satanist thing) isn’t even relevant as a political issue. It’s a lazy stab at him using inaccurate details because the artist thought Halloran’s religion was weird or funny or whatever and had fun drawing something that looked eeeeeevil. There is no message other than, “Halloran practices a weird religion!â€
If you add one scrap of context, I just looked up the title of the article for Bachman’s image. It’s called “Michele Bachman’s Holy War,” which makes it even more apparent that the artist is referring to Bachman’s personal agenda – not Christianity in general. Compare that to the title that goes with the Halloran image, “America’s Top Heathen.” The whole point of the VV’s lead in is to drag him down using Heathenry – and to drag all of us down with him, because he’s our “top guy.â€
Granted, this is all theoretically speaking because I’m not advocating censoring journalism, no matter how lazy it is. But I stand by my statement that one was in poor taste and intentionally offensive while the other one was a satirical piece that, whether or not somebody takes offense at, was not necessarily intended to offend anyone but Michele Bachman.
But if you have a rebuttal, I’d be interested to hear it. I have been known to change my mind on occasion. 🙂
T.K. says:
Dec 6, 2011
Of course, it’s irresponsible journalism, go figure.
I’d say you’re already on fire, the internal flam burning hotly.
You go, girl!
Jax says:
Dec 9, 2011
Awwww. Thanks TK!! *smooch*
k! says:
Dec 9, 2011
I agree with Charles, FWIW. I find them equally prejudicial.
Scarlet says:
Jan 1, 2012
The VV image, because of the inaccuracy mostly, gets on my nerves. There’s far too many who know too little on the most important aspects of pagan culture, but still insist on taking it upon themselves to speak or act vehemently with the sparse information that they have.
The second image is clearly a bit dramatic, but accurate based on the period it’s covering and the mentality displayed for the public to take in and process. It looks horrifying in the picture because it’s horrifying in reality- no amount of sugar coating will stop that- unfortunately, however, that’s a lot to digest.
>.> So. My vote goes to irresponsible journalism.
Jax says:
Jan 2, 2012
Hi Scarlet! Thanks for dropping by the site. I love your avatar image – what a beautiful photo. 🙂
Scarlet says:
Jan 2, 2012
Thanks 🙂 It’s not me, nor is it my work, but I think it shows up here because I use it on my wordpress site.
In any case, I’m loving the site!