Something from a friend online.08:32 Mar 13 2015
Times Read: 571
Donors Versus Vampires… The Unending Debate – by Belfazaar Ashantison
Throughout my tenure in the Vampire Community, both online and off, there has been several debates raging in the dark… None, to me as a Sanguine Vampire, are more important than the “Donor versus Vampire” debate… It has been a major struggle to even get Donors recognized in many Houses/Clans/Covens/Orders who are “followers of the olde guard”… (insert sarcastic smile here please)…
The debate stems from the fact that we DO “feed” on our Donors, for lack of a better term. We INGEST an amount of blood from our Sanguine Donors and Life force/Chi/Prana/Essence from our Psychic, Empathic and Pranic Donors… To me, this makes them a VALUABLE asset to the community and, therefore, we SHOULD make a safe place for them within our walls. To others, especially a couple of boisterous few, they see this as an “affront to the vampire community”.
Sorry, boys and girls, I don’t see this as, and never will, an “affront to the vampire community”… Donors, Black Swans (supporters) should not be ostracized from our inner workings because they are not vampiric.
I am so far removed from the “affront” idea that I created the Donor Bill of Rights after hearing about 4 specific cases of Donor abuse in LESS than a three day period. It incensed me enough that I, personally, sought to do something about it. I bounced the idea and the original concepts off of people whom I trusted (and still trust) until I came up with something that could be seen as a working and adequate beginning point to offset the amount of abuse that I had been hearing about. Today, it has shown up in more than a few books, is mentioned in Joseph Laycock’s book and has been translated into several languages for the benefit of the non-English speaking members of our community (I apologize that I am only uni-lingual at the moment)…
As many of you, I have been privy to a specific piece of writing taken from a facebook group… At first, I thought, “Well… Doesn’t that just take the cake” (only not so polite, I might add)… However, after mulling it around in my already pained mentality (migraines make me far less polite than I truly hope to be, so I am taking my sweet time with THIS issue), I found that there were bits and pieces of this INITIAL statement that just infuriated me beyond all belief…First, the “initiator” of this topic had the audacity to compare Donors, whom have minds, bodies and souls (most of which can make up their own minds about issues concerning them) to cattle… My response to this is and always will be, “Yes, however a cow can’t tell you ‘leave me the fuck alone tonight, I have a headache’ now, can they?”.
Donors, by the very nature of the word, give of themselves freely, however, if I were to donate to a person who treated me as if I were beneath them… I would seriously reconsider giving of ANY part of my essence to that person.
The excuse most often given for this mistreatment and, yes, exclusivity means to exclude someone, is “they’re not vampiric, they don’t know what ‘WE’ go through on a daily basis’… Yeah? You’re sure about this, right?
It is not their lot in life to know, they just feed us… BULLSHIT!!!
They may feed us, however, it is because they have a calling to do so. To have a calling to do so means that they have an understanding of exactly what it is we are going through and KNOW that THEY are the only cure for it. Donors KNOW, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that they were made for this reason… Cattle don’t.
Would I invite a cow to a conference? If it had the intellectual capacity and sentient behavior of an actual Donor, yes. I would be willing to sit down with it and hear it’s portion of the discussion. I would welcome the input on how to make things more… congenial… between us… As well as treat them with the dignity and respect that should be afforded ANY sentient being.
Throughout his “message”, the “instigator” of this tirade has basically told everyone in the community that he feels that Donors are good enough to “chomp on”, however, they are not good enough to be considered citizens of the community. Its the same old song that discriminators have been using for hundreds of years… “Our community should be only for us.” A sad testament to the idiocy, bigotry and utter lack of respect harnessed by the “olde guard”. An echo of a time that should have died away from this community more than 20 years ago…
This self same contingent, pushing this grandiose idea of segregation, continually try to force an antiquated document on the whole of the community, all the while spitting bile, piss and vinegar at one of the people who actually set the whole damned thing up… Though that is a issue for another rant… Duplicity at its finest, folks… What it boils down to, folks, is that these certain few people within the community perpetually try to bully and harangue people into following what THEY believe the community should do, should be like and should act like… So that, basically, people have to kiss their ass and accept their authority…
Well… In the words of a very dear friend of mine, “Fuck that shit, man.”
The instigator FURTHER goes on to compare a Donor dealing with vampire affairs is like a “a white man whose only friends are black”… … … Really? REALLY?? You want to try and play a race card in this shite you are twaddling off about? You’ve just proven my point at how much bigotry remains within the community in the series of lines that follows…
ADD TO THIS, the very fact that this person has the audacity to state, and I AM quoting, folks… “But you DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO SAY WHAT GOSE ON IN A VAMPI/YRE DONOR REALATIONSHIP”… … … Really? REALLY??… And I suppose you want your woman barefoot and preggers to boot too, right? Your children should be seen and not heard?? A woman’s place is in the kitchen???
These are ALL factors of discrimination… To state that one HALF of the Vampire/Donor relationship has no rights to speak on how that relationship should go is tantamount to rape, folks. It is abuse of the highest order. It is discrimination of the highest order. It shows the Vampire Community as the lowest common denominator of people…
I personally strive to be above all of that malarkey… I don’t give a rat’s hairy wet ass what John Q Vampire and Jane D Vampire have to say about my treating my Donors as equals, because I am BETTER than the leeches that promote the opposite of this. Yeah. That’s right. Leeches. Sucking the life out of their Donors. Sucking the life out of the community and all in the name of some damned “olde guard” that didn’t give two shits about the people within the community who weren’t a part of their inner circle…
Things I have done and will continue to do…
1) I will continue to fight for a better community by trying my damnedest to live the way I believe.
2) I will continue to treat my Donors as if they are an equal part of my life; carrying for them as if they were a beloved friend, confidant and/or loved one (should one actually make it to being my lover)
3) I will continue to work towards the goals which I have personally set, as well as those that have been set by NOVA as a whole.
4) I will strive NOT to give sway to the negative aspects of the community, the gossip nor the hatemongers so readily apparent within the community (EVERY community has them folks, so don’t try to make of this more than what I am stating) You don’t like it… Unfriend me… I won’t mind and I wish you well on your journey… You do like it… Thanks much for the support…
Authors Edit: Might I add here that this all happened within a group that I was added to WITHOUT my permission… I have since removed myself from said group, removed the person who added me to this group without my permission from my friend list and continuing with the work that I personally intend to work on…
[Editor’s comment: This recent and topical article was reposted on SAVN with permission from the Author. It is a relevant issue, as it is important that members of a growing NEW VC understand why things are the way they are in the global community. The Donor Bill of Rights which is referred to in this article, and also written by Belfazaar Ashantison, is one of the tenets central to the SAVA and its member groups, the SA VC and our culture today. Our deepest respect, thanks and appreciation to Zaar for working to make the VC a safer environment for all its participants.]
COMMENTS
-
xRobin3x
18:32 Mar 27 2015
pagan
[pey-guh n]
Word Origin
noun
1.
(no longer in technical use) one of a people or community observing a polytheistic religion, as the ancient Romans and Greeks.
2.
a member of a religious, spiritual, or cultural community based on the worship of nature or the earth; a neopagan.
Expand
adjective
4.
of, relating to, or characteristic of pagans.
5.
Disparaging and Offensive.
relating to the worship or worshipers of any religion that is neither Christian, Jewish, nor Muslim.
irreligious or hedonistic.
(of a person) uncivilized or unenlightened.
Origin Expand
Middle EnglishLate Latin
1325-13751325-75; Middle English < Medieval Latin, Late Latin pāgānus ‘worshiper of false gods’, orig. ‘civilian’ (i.e., not a soldier of Christ), Latin: ‘peasant’, noun use of pāgānus ‘rural, civilian’, derivative of pāgus ‘village, rural district’ (akin to pangere ‘to fix, make fast’); see -an
Expand
Related forms Expand
paganish, adjective
paganishly, adverb
nonpagan, noun, adjective
nonpaganish, adjective
pseudopagan, adjective
Expand
Synonym Study Expand
Heathen and pagan are primarily historical terms that were applied pejoratively, especially by people who were Christian, Jewish, or Muslim, to peoples who were not members of one of those three monotheistic religious groups. Heathen referred especially to the peoples and cultures of primitive or ancient tribes thought to harbor unenlightened, barbaric idol worshipers: heathen rites; heathen idols.
Pagan, although sometimes applied similarly to those tribes, was more often used to refer specifically to the ancient Greeks and Romans, who worshiped the multiple gods and goddesses said to dwell on Mount Olympus, such as Zeus and Athena (called Jupiter and Minerva by the Romans). The term was applied to their beliefs and culture as well: a pagan ritual; a pagan civilization.
Contemporary paganism, having evolved and expanded in Europe and North America since the 20th century, includes adherents of diverse groups that hold various beliefs, which may focus, for example, on the divinity of nature or of the planet Earth or which may be pantheistic or polytheistic. In modern English, heathen remains an offensive term, used to accuse someone of being unenlightened or irreligious; pagan, however, is increasingly a neutral description of certain existing and emerging religious movements.
Expand
Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2015.
Cite This Source
British Dictionary definitions for pagan Expand
pagan
/ˈpeɪɡən/
noun
1.
a member of a group professing a polytheistic religion or any religion other than Christianity, Judaism, or Islam
2.
a person without any religion; heathen
adjective
3.
of or relating to pagans or their faith or worship
4.
heathen; irreligious
Derived Forms
pagandom, noun
paganish, adjective
paganism, noun
paganist, adjective, noun
paganistic, adjective
paganistically, adverb
Word Origin
C14: from Church Latin pāgānus civilian (hence, not a soldier of Christ), from Latin: countryman, villager, from pāgus village
Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 2012 Digital Edition
© William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins
Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2012
Cite This Source
Word Origin and History for pagan Expand
n.
late 14c., from Late Latin paganus "pagan," in classical Latin "villager, rustic; civilian, non-combatant" noun use of adjective meaning "of the country, of a village," from pagus "country people; province, rural district," originally "district limited by markers," thus related to pangere "to fix, fasten," from PIE root *pag- "to fix" (see pact ). As an adjective from early 15c.
Religious sense is often said to derive from conservative rural adherence to the old gods after the Christianization of Roman towns and cities; but the word in this sense predates that period in Church history, and it is more likely derived from the use of paganus in Roman military jargon for "civilian, incompetent soldier," which Christians (Tertullian, c.202; Augustine) picked up with the military imagery of the early Church (e.g. milites "soldier of Christ," etc.). Applied to modern pantheists and nature-worshippers from 1908.
Loki1313
18:40 Mar 27 2015
Well,
Thank you for that Robin (sheesh)
I guess I deserved that.
XLadyRoseX
19:02 Mar 27 2015
Oh wow sounds like someone who likes to cause drama no matter what i mean common to be basically attack for just making a statement is just plain childish everyone has the right to say something weither other people like it or not
XLadyRoseX
19:02 Mar 27 2015
Oh wow sounds like someone who likes to cause drama no matter what i mean common to be basically attack for just making a statement is just plain childish everyone has the right to say something weither other people like it or not
xRobin3x
21:35 Mar 27 2015
well. sorry it was a bit long lol.... but i honestly thought pagan meant country dwellers lol
Loki1313
19:07 Apr 02 2015
It's all good Robin.
I learneed something new.