You can ask me questions here.
- Questions may be asked in English, Norwegian, Swedish, Danish, Northern Sami, French, or German.
- Anonymous submissions are allowed, but your IP address may be logged (in case a question ever needs to e.g. be reported to the police or something).
- The question queue is moderated. Your question will generally not be published before it is answered.
- If you don’t want your question to be published publicly here, it’s possible to use the Contact form instead (but I make no response guarantees there, and you can’t be anonymous).
- Currently, questions may not contain HTML.
- I may choose to not publish or answer questions that:
- promote disinformation or hate;
- advertise particular products or services;
- contain personal or sensitive information;
- are abusive or of a harassing nature;
- or I’m just not legally allowed to answer.
- I will generally try to answer questions within a few days.
Categories: all (26) | art (1) | climate (1) | cosmos (6) | creativity (1) | intelligence (1) | math (2) | media (1) | sami (2) | shamanism (9) | technology (2)
But what you really want to know, is probably how you can find out. There are a few ways, but the most straightforward way to find evidence of it that anyone can do, in principle, is with the technique of hypnotic regression, which might work if you know someone (maybe yourself) who’s hypnotizable and likely has lived more than one life. (To maximize the chances, choose someone who seems especially wise, as it’s likely their wisdom comes from having lived multiple lives. But I suspect you’ll find that the majority of people alive have lived more than once, anyway.) Then, through hypnosis, gradually try to make your subject remember their past, eventually going beyond the time they were born and conceived. They will then usually remember the “light” and bliss of the afterlife (or, more appropriately, the “in between”), and when you ask them to remember what happened before that, they may then remember a past life. Now, although most people won’t typically lie under hypnosis, you should keep in mind that human memory is never 100% reliable (the way it works, memories can get distorted in certain ways; essentially, the brain usually doesn’t record every little detail the way a camera would, and thus may later need to reconstruct details based on what it does remember, and sometimes gets it wrong — and, obviously, this problem may be magnified when asked to remember things that your current body never experienced). Be careful not to suggest things to the subject that may influence how they remember details, so that you don’t accidentally distort their memories. And it’s always a good idea to try to gather concrete details which can be used as evidence, such as names, places, dates, notable objects, and so on. Things that would still be possible to investigate today. Even if you do get results, this kind of thing might never be enough to convince a diehard skeptic, they’re experts at finding ways to discredit any particular story (sometimes themselves using flawed logic, ironically). They tend to demand a level of proof that not even science demands for most scientific discoveries; thousands or millions of pieces of evidence from all over the world mean nothing to them. But, the thing about truth, is that it’s true regardless of whether anyone believes it or not, and this method is at least one relatively straightforward way for you to investigate for yourself whether reincarnation might be real or not. (Or, if that’s too much work, you could also just look for books with such stories or something, if you like. But I suspect that’s always going to be less convincing than having seen it for yourself.) And I suspect your inference is incorrect. For the sake of argument, let’s first assume there’s no afterlife. In that case, what would death be, on a fundamental level? I think it’d be the destruction of the “you”, right? Meaning the thing that thinks, has an identity, autonomously controls your body, looks out of your eyes, and has its own free will. When you die, that free will, that mind, would be gone. This thing has been given various names through the ages, usually some version of “soul”, “essence”, or “ego”. This “soul” thing is important, clearly it can exist even if mind is all that exists. But if there’s only one mind, then it follows that your own mind isn’t a mind, meaning your soul is not autonomous and you have no free will, and this “karma” thing is pointless because you don’t control your own actions anyway. That seems absurd, so I think there can’t just be one mind. Of course, you could instead argue that we are minds that are, or were, somehow part of a greater mind, we just happen to be a little detached from it for whatever reason. This is the more common way to look at it, as it makes a lot more sense. But in this case there’s a lot of minds, not just one, even though there’s this greater mind that’s made up of all us smaller minds, and we’re all part of that greater mind in some sense. More importantly, in this case each of these smaller minds can cease to exist. Even if its component parts (e.g. knowledge, experience) don’t cease to exist, but are just reintegrated into the greater mind, its autonomy and free will would still be gone when reintegrated. In that sense, it would be dead. Now, as far as I can tell, there actually seems to be reincarnation (which is what you’d expect from a world where mind is all that exists), so your physical death does not necessarily imply the immediate death of your soul. But in principle, it’s still possible for your soul to be destroyed after death, and perhaps it might happen to particularly insufferable souls. Also, in hinduism and buddhism, the death of the soul is even considered desirable, because life is suffering. In their view, you’re supposed to live a certain way so that your soul is finally allowed to die, and be reintegrated with the universe. You can agree or disagree with such views (we might know more about enjoying life nowadays), but it’s clear that in many ways, death isn’t necessarily as bad as we typically make it out to be here in the West. Perhaps we shouldn’t be as afraid of it as we are. But the idea that we could never die… well, it depends on how you define “die”, but by the definition I think most would use, I would probably not consider it true. Anyway, it’s not clear what you’re asking. If by “position” you mean beliefs, then of course it was a bit of an obstacle, perhaps still is. If you mean principles, then I was always open to investigating these things (with a healthy dose of skepticism, of course) if I had reason to. I just didn’t have reason. And it might not have done much good if I had tried to investigate it earlier anyway, given that my knowledge was somewhat one-sided (and I knew it). I think I already mostly answered the question of why I “accepted” the call (to the extent I actually have accepted it, anyway): because I wouldn’t mind a life where I get to help other people, and because not doing it would leave me with the mundane, depressing life I had before. If I refused, I would also have denied and suppressed part of me, and thus probably killed my chance at ever feeling whole and finding my happiness. And, once I started to learn the extent of what I’m being called to do, I realized that if I refused, I would probably also let down a great many people, whose fate might be a bit dark if I refused (I’d rather not go into detail here). Thus, if it was real, I would never be able to forgive myself if I refused. And if it wasn’t real, then nothing would stop me from going back to a regular life later, once I had seen enough to be able to draw such a conclusion. So, a rather easy choice in that regard. And from the point of view of my conscience and my heart, there was really no choice at all. Now it’s “later”, and I still can’t draw the conclusion that it isn’t real. On the contrary, it does seem to be real, although I don’t quite understand the underlying mechanisms yet. It’s certainly very different to how ordinary physics works, but there’s of course also an interesting interaction with it, which might be interesting to explore once I’m in a position to do so. So I suppose my curiosity could also be considered a reason to investigate these things, if another one was needed. But my main reason is about the meaning of my life. Trying to help people. Okay, first of all, I’ve always been different, and basically alone, all my life anyway. There’s this thing with my relatively high intelligence, which in addition to the obvious like making you learn faster, understand things faster, and master things faster, it also just makes you think differently altogether. And as we know, different people often don’t play well together. And that’s before looking at all the other things I’ve since learned are unusual about me. Being different has always been a curse, I’ve always been alone, and I’ve always been afraid of going insane. After all, how can I be sure my view of the world is grounded in reality, without having trustworthy people around me who’s able to tell me when I am not? I’ve had to deal with this issue all my life. Fortunately, the scientific method provides a way to do that, if you truly understand it. In particular, the method implies that you should try to always question your hypotheses, your own beliefs. What evidence do you have for what you believe, and more importantly, is there evidence for the opposite? Could you be wrong? Humans have a tendency to never ask themselves the last thing. In psychology this is called “confirmation bias”: people only look for evidence to prove they’re right, they never look for evidence to prove they’re wrong. This is one of the most important reasons for all the insanity in the world, so if you can develop awareness of this tendency, you can become a saner person. Furthermore, by understanding the scientific method, as well as common cognitive errors and statistical phenomena, I no longer needed to rely as much on having trustworthy people around me to have a reasonable shot at seeing the reality around me for what it really is. When this spiritual thing happened, when I received “the call”, it was rather traumatic, as my entire world view changed. I actually wanted to believe I really was just going insane, it would have been easier. But I had no choice but to continue the scientific approach: question your beliefs. “This is evidence that your previous beliefs about spirits not being real is wrong, therefore you need to re-evaluate your beliefs.” (The alternative hypothesis of “I’m just insane” does not explain all parts of the evidence.) So I did, eventually, but I always maintain my scientific, skeptical mindset. Remember that a true skeptic questions, but does not deny. And a true scientist is open to all possibilities, regardless of his own personal beliefs. Finally, there’s the issue of what insanity really is about. We’ve already established that everyone is irrational, at least to some degree or other. Insanity doesn’t have a precise definition, so it can be thought of as a word for when your irrationality reaches a point where the people around you will no longer accept it, perhaps because it’s harming them in some way. And if that’s the case, it’s possible to draw the following conclusion: It doesn’t matter if you’re a little insane, as long it only helps others, and doesn’t bother or harm them. Nobody will care. And what do you really want out of life? Would you prefer a rich life, filled with adventure, with helping other people, and making a difference, even if it’s a life with some risk and uncertainty? Or would you conform to whatever people around you say is “sane”, and have a relatively safe, but otherwise mundane life, where all you can become are whatever other people allow you to? And let me tell you, the latter kind of life made me clinically depressed for most of my life. Thus, choosing the former at least gives me a small shot at one day finding my happiness. Even if it might be a little insane. Hmm, I suppose. Shamans were professionals, the ones appointed by the gods to dedicate their lives in service to their community. Sorcery was more for crooks. You could use sorcery to cast spells on people you didn’t like, or use the threat of such spells to rob people (although ways to defend yourself against this were also passed down through the generations). On the other hand, “wise old women” often also knew a few sorcery tricks for curing various things, but this was typically a bit hush-hush, as far as I know. Also, a spell for instantly stopping bleeding has always been fairly common knowledge among the Sámi. So, clearly, that kind of knowledge was sometimes useful. But the ones you’d call if all else fails, were of course the professionals, the shamans. It’s not my impression that “acceptance of shamanism” has much to do with Sámi consciousness, no. Certainly not for shamanism across the world in general. But even for Sámi shamans, not really. Spiritual-minded Sámi are often Christians who shun shamanism, and to the mainstream Sámi, modern shamanism is just a fringe phenomenon with a few weird and crazy people, not to be taken seriously. And those left who do accept shamanism, were always there, I think. Rather, I would attribute any increased acceptance of shamanism in Western civilization simply to the general progress of human rights and secularization. With greater separation of church and state, combined with ongoing enforcement of the religious freedoms enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Church no longer has the power it once had to crack down on other belief systems. So fewer people now grow up with Christianity, but some still seek answers to spiritual questions, and now nobody has the right to stop them from exploring the supernatural phenomena and magic associated with things like spiritual healing, witchcraft, and shamanism. It’s probably not any more complicated than that. When it comes to what the Sámi people will accept, I don’t think I can really speak for them, especially since I’ve never heard of this Johnsen. But I’d certainly hope the Sámi would resist any efforts to allow their symbols to be appropriated by the Church, if that’s what you mean. They didn’t fight persecution and oppression for hundreds of years for nothing. We do have the power to “realize the hazards” with our planet. That’s not a problem. We’ve been able to realize such hazards for thousands of years, long before “modern” civilization. And we’re certainly able to do it with modern technology. So there’s no escaping the question: How is it that humanity as a whole can be so stupid? And no, I don’t think we can “uncover” rationality somewhere. It simply cannot exist, not even in theory. (People can’t have “full access to the consequences” either, that’s the mathematical and physical impossibility I mentioned before. With science you can predict some consequences, sometimes quite accurately, but you can never predict everything.) Not even God (for any definition of God) is, or can be, rational. It’s logically and spiritually impossible. Even the Christian Bible denies God’s rationality. For example, according to Genesis, God created stuff in seven days because he saw “it was good”, which is an emotional assessment, not a rational one. He also gets irrationally angry from time to time (like in the story of Noah’s ark, where God even admits to making an error because he was upset). But Christians like him anyway, because he’s generally loving and forgiving (i.e. God is a person driven by emotions). Also in other religions and beliefs which worshop some god, people will generally hold that “God is love”, which again, is an emotion. So again, rationality, in the usual sense people use the word, simply does not exist. It’s just a persistent delusion. Oh, the folly of man, thinking we can be rational when not even God is. Note that I do not really consider Johan Kaaven a shaman/noaidi. There’s no evidence of him working in that way (he didn’t need a drum, for example). Shamans (and others) distinguish between different types of magic users by whence their power come, and I believe Johan would fall into the category of “sorcerer”. A shaman, or noaidi, is granted healing powers by the grace of higher spirits/gods. A sorcerer, by contrast, takes power by manipulating Earth-bound spirits, such as spirits of the dead. (Some say that Johan did this by cleverly and fearlessly surviving an encounter with the Wild Hunt, thus making the Wild Hunt spirits obey him. Not sure how much to believe that, though.) Several stories about Johan concern how he had an army of the dead at his command, which he could order to do gruesome things if he wanted. A shaman/noaidi wouldn’t be able to do that, because higher spirits wouldn’t allow their power to be abused in that way. But Earth-bound spirits might. (This also relates, I think, to why nobody in the Kåven lineage became noaidis after Johan: the power he possessed, was tainted. Any new host for them would need to possess great mental strength, wisdom, and willpower in order not to be consumed or destroyed.) Anyway, monotheism. As some shamans have said (maybe I read this in Ailo Gaup’s book, not sure right now): religion is what you get when you combine spirituality with politics. I think religions might come into existence when, for example, a particular spirit decides to interfere with how humans live their lives (some of them like to do that). Also, some spirits just love being worshipped. When humans allow this, monotheistic religions may happen. But true shamans will of course know that all such religions are false; the religion’s “god” might very well exist in some form in the spirit world, but its nature is severely misrepresented, usually in order to push some sociopolitical agenda (e.g. Jesus Christ essentially pushed a socialistic agenda). Which is, of course, part of the reason why it’s always been so important for the Church to destroy all witches, sorcerers, and shamans, and their books and things. Monotheistic religions don’t necessarily create a gender imbalance, since the Creator does not need to have a particular gender (and in many religions, it doesn’t). The problem with that is that genderless deities tend to be abstract and hard to relate to. They’re hard to personify. Thus, it seems almost all gods that people actually worship and pray to have a gender. And, of course, once you assign a gender to the Creator, people can take advantage of that to establish power structures that will favor that gender. The Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) consider their god male, along with their first human, and it has been used to justify systematic oppression of women and their rights and dignity. There’s no spiritual reason women should be restricted like that, it’s just politics from the time the religion was founded. Which, in turn, is partially rooted in men’s fear of the spiritual power that women actually possess. (See the table in my article The Meaning of Life, part 2) And, yeah, why do humans not learn? I don’t think it necessarily has to do with spiritual guidance. We consider ourselves the most intelligent species on Earth, or, well, at least the most innovative. We solve problems on a large scale, we should be smart enough to understand the following without guidance: don’t make your own home an inescapable death trap. Not even if doing so would gain you time, money, energy, or other resources. Just don’t do it. This is simple enough that you shouldn’t need spiritual guidance. A little bit of common sense should be enough. How is this so hard for humanity to understand? Don’t make your own home an inescapable death trap. How can all of mankind combined be too stupid to understand this? Do I have a clue? I’m not sure. Maybe. I’ve spent years, decades, on what is essentially the question: how can humanity be this stupid? I’ve tried exploring the issue from many angles. Scientific, logical, psychological, evolutionary, and so on. It’s one of the reasons I, for example, reached the conclusion that rationality isn’t a thing that exists. So stupidity is enabled, for example, when people believe too much in rationality, particularly their own. (It’s of course possible to be fair, objective, unbiased, and prudent, to some extent (depends on the situation), and you may be able to use logic to reach certain conclusions (which is good if you can), but you can’t really be rational. It’s mathematically, logically, computationally, practically, biologically, and physically impossible.) I’m still looking into it, though, So maybe I’ve started to get a rough idea, I hope, but I’m not clear on every detail yet. And then there’s still the question of what to do about it, which I certainly can’t answer yet, sadly. For that reason, I’m not really in a position to personally judge his work. All I’m in a position to say about him, is that I have to respect his commitment and dedication, and that I’m sure his work has the power to inspire generations to come. While I’m not sure he managed to fully bring the ancient wisdom to Sápmi on his own, I’m sure he did manage to plant many of the seeds that needed to be sown. Perhaps they will turn out to be important for the things that are to come. (And the way things are going with our planet right now, perhaps those things will come uncomfortably soon. Why is it so hard for humanity to learn?) I’m guessing “nordnorsk debatt” is a place where a vocal minority gets to let off steam with relatively little moderation or consequence. In any community that don’t work hard enough to prevent it, the most belligerent members will almost always try to seize dominance and suppress other voices. As a result, the hateful messages are overrepresented, and people with other opinions rarely dare speak; they will face retaliation if they do. A similar problem happened on a larger scale during the last Norwegian parliamentary election, when the hatred against, for example, certain female MDG politicians was so great that many experts declared this phenomenom a serious threat to Norwegian democracy, and called for more regulation of online communities, in order to protect the diverse voices necessary for our civilization to function. It has since been established that the demographic primarily responsible for that kind of online hate, tend to be older white men. So my guess is that it’s all the same thing. The hatred is not really about the Sámi people, or unique to it. It’s really about entitled, predominantly white men and women, who want to believe they’re smarter than they really are, that they deserve more than they get, and most importantly, that others are to blame for their own lives not being perfect. Thus, they blame and hate e.g. immigrants because they’re “others”, and for the same reasons, also blame and hate the Sámi. Some will even blame and hate just about anyone who won’t tell them what they want to hear. And these people will voice their hate whenever and wherever they can (and if they can’t, they’ll cry about “free speech”, of course without understanding what free speech really is). It’s a bit like an addiction, I think. It helps them feel a bit better about themselves, and I’m sure it also gives some sort of kick. This phenomenon is everywhere today. It’s human nature, but amplified by modern social media, particularly those with clueless and selfish management, such as Facebook. It has created a worldwide wave of hate that’s corrupting pretty much every civilization on Earth (including the United States, who’s now tiptoeing on the edge of no longer being a democracy). As I’ve always tried to see the bigger picture, I simply can’t see it as just about the Sámi now. There’s still abundant racism against the Sámi, and they’re regularly harassed. But still, the chances of reconciliation seem it should be high anyway if Norway, and Norwegians in general, take the issues seriously. So I wouldn’t say this committee is either of those things yet. Rather, it’s a matter of whether the Norwegians are going to treat it as make-believe or not. If they do, then that’s what it’ll become, and reconciliation will become harder. If they take it seriously, then it will have the actual power to heal, and make reconciliation easier. This is one of those things where it matters less what something is, and matters more what people do with it.
I read your answer to Allis Mind, where you say; <<Now, as far as I can tell, there actually seems to be reincarnation>> Can I ask you to elaborate a bit on this topic? I personally feel that this is true, but its just a feeling. How do you reason your way to this conclusion (or at least tilt in the direction that reincarnation is true)?
Cheers
Have you heard about Bernando Kastrup? Many videos on you tube. He's an idealist. Mind is all that exists. That would imply that we are all one mind., also we would never die.
You say that it is a curse being alone. Like what you say about yourself, I’ve been different myself through my entire life so far. I have been mitigating my situation with pretending. From early childhood I realized that my ways wasn’t like the others. I pretended my way to peer acceptance. In retrospect I consider that solution suboptimal. Being part of a group where the others have mindsets that is incompatible with your own mindset is taking a toll. But I was the only person who had the capability to adjust.
I’m not that familiar with science, not to the extent you are, at least. I’m though familiar with the the term “confirmation bias” from my profession, and questioning hypothesis is the main task of my work. I guess that’s sort of a scientific approach. Of course, doing it at work doesn’t mean I’m able to utilize it in another setting. Especially not in a setting which could potentially change my life.
I don’t dare questioning my hypothesis on shamanism, or more correctly, my calling. I’m scared to see it confirmed. Up until now I’ve created all sorts of explanations for what I have experienced. Law of large numbers, law of coincidence, law of luck, law of bad luck/Murphy’s law, law of hope, law of pessimism/optimism and so forth.
As of now I can create an illusion of it being a dream. A reality which doesn’t really exist. I’m writing a lot about it, and by writing it out I’m sort of keeping it under control. It’s just like something prosaic in my diaries.
The coin has two sides, though, and the two faced pleasures of living my current, mundane life really is wearing me out. From what you have said, I obviously have a picture of why, but I still have to ask why you chose to accept your calling.
Forgive me for being blunt, but was your then/now position an obstacle to acceptance of it, or did/does it allow venturing into perspectives like, say, shamanism?
Best regards,
Jenny
I’m aware that the Sámi society is influenced by the church. As you have probably already guessed, I’m of Sámi descent myself. My grandmother was and my mother is a native speaker. Knowing them, and others of the Sámi society, the Christian faith is the only way. Of course, my knowledge regarding others is anecdotal, but it’s my impression that Christianity has strong armed the people into shunning what comes not from Scripture.
I don’t flash my connection to shamanism with my family and kinfolks. My mother flat out denies the existence of shamanism. My grandmother did too. Thing is, though, that my mothers brother, my uncle, was a man with powers. For some reason he chose me to succeed him. Maybe because I was like the only one in the family who shared his spiritual views. The downside is that I don’t want to succeed him. One thing is being interested in the subject, quite another story is living it. I am content with studying shamanism, but I’m no shaman and I’m not mentally capable of handling it. How are you maintaining sanity confronted with what the spirits are unloading onto yourself?
Best regards,
Jenny
I grew up in an evangelical setting, and the fear of spirituality outside the boundaries of the reverend or pastor’s preprinted doctrines was frowned upon. Sorcerers was of the devil, and shamanism was just considered mumbo jumbo. To put it simple, does the Sámi society consider sorcerers more like loose cannons not as trustworthy as shamans?
Do you think the establishment of a greater Sámi self consciousness is contributing to the acceptance of shamanism? From what I’ve learned shamanism has gotten a way more significant position compared to a couple of decades ago. To my knowledge the church did draw a line in the sand between the Sámi religion and Christianity for a long period of time. As of late I have read somewhere that the representatives of the church has been expressing a desire to share religious symbols with the Sámi religion. I think the name of one of these representatives is Tore Johnsen. Would this sit well with the Sámi people? Or would it be regarded as the church consuming a religion which is considered a threat to the monotheistic church?
I think one has to realize the hazards before one can think of not turning one’s home into an inescapable death trap. The tearing down the earth process is scattered across the earth and the pieces are hard to put together. Yes, organizations and people are screaming from the top of their lungs about what damages we are inflicting on ourselves, but the powers that be are committed to their own rationality, which doesn’t necessarily take into consideration the well being of our planet. Their first commandment is usually themselves staying in office. Besides, they have to make sure other nations ain’t taking advantage of them.
So yeah, I agree with your sentiment, or at least this is how I interpret your thinking, that rational behavior is connected, and limited, to the place of origin, which, inevitably, leads to questioning the entire existence of a universal rationality of mankind. Therefore I agree with you that rationality may not exist, alternatively we have yet to uncover its existence.
I will also add that there might could be some sort of human rationality present, granted that people had full access to the consequences of the ill doings, and was capable to comprehend it. Unfortunately, in my lifetime I haven’t seen much indicating such capabilities in mankind, which further supports your conclusion.
What’s your take on the monotheistic religions compared to shamanism? On a slightly related note, would you say that those monotheistic religions are creating an imbalance in neglecting the feminine side of society? (I know, it’s a leading question and quite imbalanced as well).
I don’t know why humanity don’t learn. Maybe we have strayed away from spiritual guidance? The balancing act from being conscious of the spirits is maybe lost? Whenever no higher power is making you aware of the bigger picture, you may not take that broader picture into account? Everything becomes arbitrary actions entertaining your immediate pleasure. I believe most people don’t realize that there is a bigger picture. A politician who really sees the big picture will never make it to office if he or she is campaigning for a healthy earth in an eternal perspective. Neither would a corporate CEO survive the wrath of the stockholders displaying visions like that. Politicians of such mindsets are being ostracized on a daily basis for thinking about that out loud. The kids want their candy now.
Bottom line? I don’t have a clue. Do you?
Best regards,
Jenny
Thanks for telling me about Ailo Gaup. I was able to find his old website and had an interesting time reading his texts and the comments from a myriad of people posting there. Unfortunately it came to and end with his disease and then death.
Mr Gaup appeared to be a spiritual soul and a leader, but also a businessman and a most talented communicator. What is your stance on his work?
Best regards,
Jenny
You’re saying that the Sami people are still being harassed, right? I have noticed that there are online communities where people are extremely critical of the Sami people. Even though I have to run what they write through Google Translate, the message appears to be clear, and some of these places comes across as hateful. A site named “Nordnorskdebatt.no” seems to be quite a venom filled pit in that regard. Why is there so much hatred against the Sami people in Norway?
Having that said:
How would you say the science of epigenetic inheritance of the effects of trauma is impacting on the willingness of investigating these matters, granted the presence of a perception that this particular science is valid? On the condition, of course, that there is established at least some consensus that trauma is, in its different extents and variations, inflicted on the indigenous people (not necessarily all) in the era of the missionaries. I’m aware that there’s also been other events, like the attempts to eradicate both culture and language at the hands of the government later on that could be causing trauma.
Which is leading me to “Sannhets- og forsoningskommisjonen”. How would you rate their mandate and the chances of reconciliation? Is it a fair game or is it rather just make believe?
Best regards,
Jenny
← Older Newer →