The Cauldron: A Pagan Forum

I don't particularly understand how taking apples would be filed under 'destroying nature'. The apple tree developed the apple so that it would be eaten by animals (including people) so that we can literally shit the seeds out elsewhere. There's not really any 'gift' to it.  Making a nice snack for us is not the goal of the tree. The apple tree has ulterior motives.

Taking an apple isn't destroying nature, it's doing nature's bidding. Leave the apple on the tree and you're wasting the tree's time and energy.

This sounds great to me

Maybe one of my thoughts about offerings is also useful for you. I am often a bit irritated when pagans buy products (like apples from a store) or cut down flowers to give them to nature, god or spirits as a gift. I often think about what I would like if I was the nature, god or spirit or whatever, and in this case I would feel like someone who is visiting me just rips out a flower in my own garden as a gift for me. As for bought products, even if they are biodegradable they have caused a lot of negative impact to nature during the production, transport and so on.

So I always try to avoid "natureown" things or products which caused negative impacts and instead give something personal, like time and effort, for example by arranging pebbles to a nice pattern, drawing something in the sand on a beach or with chalk on a stone, singing or making music (careful at the beginning, we don't want to put the spirits to flight ) and so on. And of course every action to preserve nature is a great gift and honoring of the nature and local spirits! This could be standing up for the rowan tree as you already did, or even collecting litter in the forest and so on (although this doesn't sound very witchy-fluffy ).

The neo-pagan concept of land spirits doesn't compare with the spirits of First Nations tribes (in Illinois, anyway). Their interactions with other beings revolved around gaining help in hunting, warfare and medicine mostly, along with the totemic clan system. The rituals involved in these interactions are particular to the religion of the nation in question, and each tribe had it's own set of spirits. Granted, in the small space of Illinois there are a lot of similarities, but there are also no doubt a lot of little differences in what they symbolize and are prayed to for.

Basically, it's not the same thing you're talking about. "Land spirit" shouldn't be used around First Nations' mythology in my opinion. But, let's just say, in a slightly different world, that the two concepts are the same, and that they're also the same as angels and apsarah. Christianity and Hinduism have been here a lot longer than neo-paganism, would you be as willing to adopt the hypothetical land spirits of these other religions into your practice? Or does the suggestion automatically make you jump back and say "oh, no, those belong to those religions, I would never think of using them."?

Interesting, the concept of appeasement. I had considered carefully when I chose to use the term 'honouring'. It didn't occur to me that some spirits might be inhospitable, really. Indifferent, perhaps. Suspicious, certainly. I'll have to think about this a bit more. I've been on this bit of land for twelve years now and have done what I can to increase its fertility, to ensure it stays watered and healthy, to make it lovely. Honouring the spirits here just seems like the next step.

You've given me something to think about, not just in relation to my yard, but in relation to the mountains and forests around me. Thanks.

See, this is what I was kind of wondering about. If I make offerings to spirits of the land, here where I live, what kind of spirits are they? Is it simply the differentiation of concept that would keep me from accidentally making offerings to suddenly confused First Nations beings? Or will they look at me and wonder what I heck I'm doing? Or will it just be the intent I have that accesses different creatures entirely? Or am I missing the idea completely?

I would never want to offend either a spirit of the land or a person of and particular belief system by making offerings where I am not welcome. Which is what I'm trying to figure out here. This was Native land, undeniably. Is an offering on the land where they no longer live appropriate? It's confusing me and I don't want to do something offensive or insensitive  or arrogant or stupid.

In my beliefs there are truly good ones and there are the moody ones, then there are the truly evil ones, the motchie monnitou. I will not mention their individual names and try my best to stay away from where they frequent.

I don't know about where you live, but in Illinois the tribes were semi-nomadic-first because the winters were too severe for permanent settlement, and second, they were agriculturalists, so eventually the soil's nutrients would be used up, forcing them to move. But besides that, all the tribes freely migrated wherever they wanted.

The history of Illinois is one of constant back-and-forthness. When the Othakiwaki, for example, moved into a former Hocak area, this did not mean they started seeing waxopini instead of manetowaki everywhere. In the same way that when Mazdayasnis emigrated from India and Iran they didn't stop seeing yazatas everywhere. The sacred beings of a religion follow the practitioners around.

And you can't accidentally make an offering to a First Nation's spirit. For example, a nampeshi'kw (a species of water spirit) of the Bodewadmi requires a specific medicine bundle rite to be interacted with. Unless you're trying to duplicate a ritual for a spirit (of any religion) you're not going to bump into one. The only way you're going to offend anyone (First Nations or not) is if you borrow their rituals, or try performing your own in their sacred spaces, whether that be a synagogue, Marian grotto, or petroglyphic rock.

This, however, leads us into the neo-pagan-in-America crisis area. Theodisc Geleafa, an Anglo-Saxon based reconstructionist path, has revived the obsolete definition of "wight" as meaning spirits in general, with landwight being cognate to Asatru landvaettir nature spirits. French-speaking Americans I suppose would use a form of "fairy" instead. I think this provides the solution. Yes, it goes back to my simplistic animistic ideas-but what's so bad about that? Why not use "wight" or "fairy" as the spirit of each life-form and location, a little anthropomorphized perhaps, but respected as individuals and communities, with their own needs and rights?