Abuse of child 'witches' on rise, aid group says

Post Reply New Topic

I agree with you in toto. But this does not invalidate the argument. In fact, you're supporting it.

A witch (from Old English wicce f. / wicca m.) is a practitioner of witchcraft. If they have misappropriated the term yet again and used it to harm people, then Wiccans everywhere should be outraged. But you can't separate Wiccan and witch. By definition, one is a derivation of the other. If anyting, this supports the logic of including the disclaimer "We acknowledge people's right..."

Having re-read everything, I think we agree with each other but we're just arguing semantics over the definition of witch and which witch is which.

I don't think anybody here has any bad intentions towards any group of people. It's just our nature to over-analyze things

Those abusing the 'child-witches' haven't really misappropriated the term, since they believe the children are actually casting spells (although I think that, since I'm looking at this situation with western eyes, I'm imagining them considering the children to be witches in the western sense, when in fact their idea of witch might be different).

The modern day word, "Wiccan," is narrower than the modern day word, "witch," for we can hold, under the umbrella of "witch," anything from hags, to the wicked witch of the west, to succubus-like spellcasters, to Wiccans. It is perfectly easy to seperate wiccan from witch, I think.

This is why I think that, by saying they won't discourage the belief in witches, Mr Foxcroft isn't considering the sensibilities of a small religion (and I'm not using small here in a pejorative sense).

What I meant was that there's a big difference between those who consider themselves to be witches based on their religion vs. those who don't consider themselves to be witches but are branded against their will by others based on superstition.

@normally: You're right. I realized what you were saying by my post when I recognized that I was hung up on semantics (in this case, the particular word definition). We're in agreement here.

@McTell: Well, the etymology is what it is. That being said, your argument is quite compelling and logical. What I find interesting is that I would view a 'revised definition' as the complete opposite. I see 'witch' as being a far narrower and confining term than 'Wiccan' who have so many different practices and rituals even at the coven level, but that may be due to familiarity and friends in my younger years. I cannot claim a lack of bias here. The proposed 'witch' definition seems narrower because whether they are hags or succubi they are universally spell slingers typically bent on evil. For now, I'm okay with us defining these words as we each do. After all, this isn't really what we're on about here.

Overall, it sucks that this is happening to those poor (in every sense) kids.

I only started crying when I learned that people might respond to me when I get beat up. Otherwise I would just take the beating silently.

A common belief about witchcraft in Africa is that a person can be a witch and curse others without realizing that they are doing so. The belief includes the notion that (whether or not intentional), bad magic is being cast at others (to the detriment of the others). So there is not necessarily a "spell" involved if this means some ritual act or other, but if "spell" is defined as casting magic to effect another (even inadvertently) then even witches who may not know that they are witches are believed cast spells.

Besides, witches being evil is vastly overrated, i reckon all matters of spellcasters can be either good or bad, or even grey. =/