| From: | L Canthros <lobo1@****.COM> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Totems in General |
| Date: | Tue, 27 May 1997 16:51:57 EDT |
writes:
>Just a thought, but IMO totems should be to a species or subspecies.
>There shouldn't be a totem to a specific animal unless it's the only
>one of it's kind. This came to mind after the recent gecko thread.
>I would allow a shaman of Lizard, but not Gecko. You don't see
>Rattle Snake or Anaconda Shamans. The snake totem is just that,
>Snake.
<confused look> But those ARE species! Perhaps you mean 'genus' or
'family' . . . (for instance Bear [ursa] but not polar bear [ursa
something-or other])
As for separate totems for various types of a certain creature, I have no
problem with the idea, so long as the creature acts significantly
different from the general archetype of it's group. For instance, Gecko
is special because of the various behoviors particular to him from other
Lizards. I'll use Cat and Lion as an example, because I can't find enough
on Gecko and there is no official Lizard totem that I know of. Cat is
your basic, run-of-the-mill house cat-type of animal. Cat is fastidious,
secretive, and arrogant. Cat is not a fighter so much as she is a
stalker. Lion is, well, a lion. He is proud, fierce, powerful. His
behaviour is different enough from Cat to warrant a separate totem. Wolf
and Dog both represent different aspects of the canine stereotype, just
Cat and Lion do, or Goose; Nene; Raven; Eagle; Phoenix; and others
represent various representations of the avian archetype. There is not an
archetypal representation of everything, especially when you begin
talking about broad groups.
--
-Canthros ("Totems are for weenies." :)
And ye shall know the truth, and lobo1@****.com
the truth shall set you free. canthros1@***.com
--John 8:32, KJV
http://members.aol.com/canthros1/
