#so there's this one [REDACTED] ''expert'' doing rounds literally just reading missionaries' accounts of native practices?

[songsofbloodandwater]

Witches, I'm going to need you all to learn to discern the type of source you're getting your information from, and what kind of biases are associated with it. Don't just gobble it up because it's a "historical source" or from some sort of anthropological source either.

Historical sources are great. But if the person you're taking as an authority to learn from, is someone originally from a different country and culture to the one you intend to learn, someone that talks about it in third person all the time, practically reading word for word from a christian missionary's manuscript about pre-christian traditions and beliefs, and a translation at that? because they admit that don't even speak the native language of that tradition or culture...?

They may be very well researched, on english sources at least. But I still wouldn't take them as a proper authority on the matter. They're speaking from what they've read from very biased sources. That's practically hearsay. They're not first hand experiences. Not even second-hand, because it's what an outsider to that culture saw, and very likely misinterpreted, because of their own cultural differences as an outsider, and then may even have altered some more because of their goal as a missionary. An here you come, modern reader, to try to interpret these older texts with your modern eyes, maybe even from a completely different culture to the first two involved aswell, making it a double or triple conundrum of time, culture and sociohistorical context, yet again. That is, without taking into account your own individual biases towards the text you're reading and what you expect to find, or do, for your own personal goals. Multiply all that for the amount of people standing between you, and that original first-hand account. You see the problem?

The least the author can do in such cases (because sometimes, that third-hand account really is all we have access to in the present) is 1) acknowledge how the sources they're using are biased, and 2) beware the reader on how those biases may have affected the material you're reading, to somehow be able to infer what the original would've looked like without that effect. You may want to take it a step further and consider your own sociocultural position, and how it could affect your personal interpretation upon reading it. If the author(s) don't even mention biases...? and even try to pass it all off as "certainty"...? 🚩🚩🚩

Take everything from that author with a mountain of salt. Consider it entertainment, maybe inspiration, anything except treating it as "professional" or "expert work"... as I see some people doing.

And always prioritize first-hand sources. Always. Prioritize. First. Hand. Sources. Talk to a native from that area, learn the language of the culture or tradition you're interested in, really immerse yourself in it, and you'll have an easier time spotting bullshit.