For 2024 Pilgrims: €50,- donation = 1 year with no ads on the forum + 90% off any 2024 Guide. More here. (Discount code sent to you by Private Message after your donation) |
---|
Thank you!14) All discussions entering the debate over who is a tourist and who is a real pilgrim will be deleted.
The moderators spend way too much time dealing with people accusing others of not being a real pilgrim... Let's not get into that here on the forum. Each person can (and will) walk to Santiago however they want. We can, each one of us, have our own idea of what a pilgrim is. But getting into this here on the forum, it just creates problems.
See the rest of the forum rules here:
Perfect14) All discussions entering the debate over who is a tourist and who is a real pilgrim will be deleted.
The moderators spend way too much time dealing with people accusing others of not being a real pilgrim... Let's not get into that here on the forum. Each person can (and will) walk to Santiago however they want. We can, each one of us, have our own idea of what a pilgrim is. But getting into this here on the forum, it just creates problems.
See the rest of the forum rules here:
Thank you! Being a newbie here, I was hoping for wisdom and good vibes only.14) All discussions entering the debate over who is a tourist and who is a real pilgrim will be deleted.
The moderators spend way too much time dealing with people accusing others of not being a real pilgrim... Let's not get into that here on the forum. Each person can (and will) walk to Santiago however they want. We can, each one of us, have our own idea of what a pilgrim is. But getting into this here on the forum, it just creates problems.
See the rest of the forum rules here:
Thank You14) All discussions entering the debate over who is a tourist and who is a real pilgrim will be deleted.
The moderators spend way too much time dealing with people accusing others of not being a real pilgrim... Let's not get into that here on the forum. Each person can (and will) walk to Santiago however they want. We can, each one of us, have our own idea of what a pilgrim is. But getting into this here on the forum, it just creates problems.
See the rest of the forum rules here:
yes14) All discussions entering the debate over who is a tourist and who is a real pilgrim will be deleted.
The moderators spend way too much time dealing with people accusing others of not being a real pilgrim... Let's not get into that here on the forum. Each person can (and will) walk to Santiago however they want. We can, each one of us, have our own idea of what a pilgrim is. But getting into this here on the forum, it just creates problems.
See the rest of the forum rules here:
This is the only pilgrimage I know of where people fight about the “true pilgrim” way to get there (though I admit my N is small). My neighbor just went on a pilgrimage to a holy site in her home country of India and there was no walking involved and lots of fancy hotels. But she went for exclusively religious purposes, shaved her head, and partook of many religious rites. She would be truly offended if someone told her she was not a pilgrim because she hadn’t walked to the site.this new rule is to stop "who is/is not a pilgrim" attacks - does it also stop non-personal discussions on "what is/is not a pilgrim"?
I would say Yes. We do not need to get into any of that.I am all for stopping attacks on people, certainly, is common horridness across the internet now .. but just to be clear .. there is a big difference between "who" and "what" ...
this new rule is to stop "who is/is not a pilgrim" attacks - does it also stop non-personal discussions on "what is/is not a pilgrim"?
Thanks
Buen Camino!
This is the only pilgrimage I know of where people fight about the “true pilgrim” way to get there (though I admit my N is small). My neighbor just went on a pilgrimage to a holy site in her home country of India and there was no walking involved and lots of fancy hotels. But she went for exclusively religious purposes, shaved her head, and partook of many religious rites. She would be truly offended if someone told her she was not a pilgrim because she hadn’t walked to the site.
What the fight is really about on this forum, IMHO, is how tough do you have to make it on yourself to feel “authentic?” Those who went years ago may feel a certain sense of superiority for having had no pack transport and no private rooms, or they may have a sense of sadness that much of what made the camino special/unique 25 years ago was the way in which it forced you to be self-reliant, and the way it made you challenge yourself in a very safe environment, and the way in which it fostered a community in a risk-free and very welcoming environment. That experience is still available, but many choose to forego those opportunities and do it differently. That’s none of my business. It may annoy those who cling to the “old ways,” but no one has a lock on authenticity, it seems to me.
I think the statistics have clearly shown that those who walk for religious purposes constitute a very small percentage of the total, and that we have a big category of those who walk for self-discovery, unburdening themselves, community. It has only been in the last decade or so that the camino offered the ”bucket list” option — prepackaged, comfortable hassle-free trips. Many of us don’t want to take that option, but it is pointless to argue about it.
So, to answer @David’s question, I personally don’t see any upside to a discussion of who/what is a true pilgrim, no matter what the context.
See post number 20.and yet, you just did exactly that.
as for the 'fight' - I have never been aware of a fight over what constitutes a 'true pilgrim' in the sense of personal attacks, I must have missed those posts, or the moderators cancelled them (good) - it is clear from the pilgrim's office and cathedral that it is 'intent', not method, and who can know someone else's intent? don't you agree?
and, sorry, but it didn't answer my question. My question was whether 'who' also meant 'what' in this new rule.
However, sometimes people see negative value judgements where none was intended. They may cry out "Shame! You are shaming me!" Then the first person gets upset and defensive.
Somehow we need to stop this destructive cycle of hurt feelings on the forum.
I am all for stopping attacks on people, certainly, is common horridness across the internet now .. but just to be clear .. there is a big difference between "who" and "what" ...
this new rule is to stop "who is/is not a pilgrim" attacks - does it also stop non-personal discussions on "what is/is not a pilgrim"?
Thanks
Buen Camino!
I have to agree with @David here.
This is a forum about pilgrims and pilgrimage. It is only natural that the question "what is a pilgrim?" comes up, especially because there are different definitions.
I find the general discussion about that to be interesting, as long as it is a more philosophical debate that allows different answers to the question. Different people have different views on the topic, and most answers are valid, and that can help to broaden your own view on it.
There is a difference between that and shaming people for "doing it wrong".
I understand that it is difficult for moderators to deal with those discussions and making sure it doesn't end up being personal or people being offended. I also understand that the new rule will make it easier to moderate the forum and keep negativity at bay.
I'll of course stick to the rule, but I still think it's a loss for a forum about pilgrimage to not allow to muse on what is a pilgrim in any way.
I'll of course stick to the rule, but I still think it's a loss for a forum about pilgrimage to not allow to muse on what is a pilgrim in any way.
That is not how I read it. The rule allows musing about what a (real) pilgrim is, as long as no general statements are made about certain groups being touristst.
I (luckily) do not make the rules. But the spirit of the rule seems to me (and rightly so): No generalisations are to be made about the motivations and behaviour of people because they way they arrange their walk, whether they carry their own backpack etc (and whether they are on a bicycle, which country they are from etc.)
Edit: Ivar just answered - there is to be absolutely no mention whatsoever of what a pilgrim is. Fair enough, I shall abide, though it will be difficult on a forum specifically about pilgrims and pilgrimage
It was clarified that no discussion about the topic is allowed at all.
It could mean it allows discussion about the pilgrim concept, as long as we avoid the (imo indeed tiring) terminology of real pilgrims and true pilgrims.
And the rule also allows for a discussion about what a pilgrimage is / what going on a pilgrimage means for someone, as these are different subjects than who is a pilgrim (or not).
Thank you.14) All discussions entering the debate over who is a tourist and who is a real pilgrim will be deleted.
The moderators spend way too much time dealing with people accusing others of not being a real pilgrim... Let's not get into that here on the forum. Each person can (and will) walk to Santiago however they want. We can, each one of us, have our own idea of what a pilgrim is. But getting into this here on the forum, it just creates problems.
See the rest of the forum rules here:
It's not up to me or anyone else if someone considers themselves to be a pilgrim, it lies in the intent of each individual.
He does, and since you have a legal background, I am sure you are familiar with the principles of the Chatham House rules.And from the way Ivar formulated his post in this thread I am not sure if he speaks on behalf of all moderators.
He does, and since you have a legal background, I am sure you are familiar with the principles of the Chatham House rules.
That is not what Ivar said.Ivar just answered - there is to be absolutely no mention whatsoever of what a pilgrim is. Fair enough, I shall abide, though it will be difficult on a forum specifically about pilgrims and pilgrimage.
this new rule is to stop "who is/is not a pilgrim" attacks - does it also stop non-personal discussions on "what is/is not a pilgrim"?
I don´t have a legal background, but as I understand it, new laws have to be tested in court so that a judge or judges can pronounce on how they should be interpreted, and when they do this they pay attention to the original purpose of the law as well as a literal understanding of its wording. In this case, our intention is to try and stop some of the unedifying and often hurtful comments we get where members start to take offence at and respond aggressively to other members´ sometimes tactless and ill-thought out comments. You have asked some pertinent questions here. We will try to address them as soon as possible.Okay, fair enough. I know the Chatham Rules and I also know that people sometimes accidently forget them (and are reminded by others about this). Hence the deletion of a recent post, I guess. But well, nobody understands what I am referring to anyway
I totally understand moderators have different opinions about matters, and the formulation of the rule is probably a result of these discussions and some form of compromise.
Meanwhile I am just not sure if people:
- are allowed to use the word pilgrim,
- should just avoid the words real pilgrim and true pilgrim
- are allowed to reflect on what being a pilgrim or being on pilgrimage means to them,
- are allowed to refect about the meaning of these concepts
- should just avoid the mentioning of the word tourist
- need to worry about being accused of hurting other people's feelings when there is no breaching of rule 1 and no generalisations are made about groups of people
What this rule is hoping to do away with is the sniping from those who can’t resist suggesting that extrinsic features of your Camino, such as pack transport and sleeping in hotels, turn your internal Camino into a tour rather than a pilgrimage
Unfair and untrue. Some albergues and organisations running albergues apply (and this is not recent) a policy of not accepting unaccompanied luggage of any type. This is because it puts an unfair burden on the hospitaleros. They do not categorise people who use pack transport as anything.various camino organisations ban pilgrims from using albergues if they use pack transport and categorise them as tourists
I was referring to the thread from either last month or the one before about the various amigos that control a handful of albergues. it was the one that basically came across that if you didn't walk in the door carrying your pack, you should stay at a hotel instead. The reasoning as I remember was to stop the camino becoming essentially a tourist experience. By there view, a pilgrim carried his own luggage and if a person could afford to forward luggage, then they could afford to get a room in a private albergue or hotel.Unfair and untrue. Some albergues and organisations running albergues apply (and this is not recent) a policy of not accepting unaccompanied luggage of any type. This is because it puts an unfair burden on the hospitaleros. They do not categorise people who use pack transport as anything.
Maybe I misread the thread.
That is not what Ivar said.
You said:
Ivar said yes that’s right.
Removing the debate of true pilgrim vs tourist to the “what” from the “who” accomplishes nothing to end the sniping that we see now.
Clearly, the new rule prevents us from saying – Mary Jane, I don’t think you’re a Pilgrim, because you are using pack transport.
Phrasing that in the “ what” format you propose would do nothing other than change the post into “I don’t think true pilgrims use pack transport.”
I think that a lot of the comments in this thread have thoughtfully pointed to discussions that we want to continue and to encourage. What this rule is hoping to do away with is the sniping from those who can’t resist suggesting that extrinsic features of your Camino, such as pack transport and sleeping in hotels, turn your internal Camino into a tour rather than a pilgrimage.
He replied with a clear "I would say Yes. We do not need to get into any of that."this new rule is to stop "who is/is not a pilgrim" attacks - does it also stop non-personal discussions on "what is/is not a pilgrim"?
Thanks
Buen Camino!
Not exactly. The new rule refers to discussion about what a real pilgrim is. A subtle but important difference. If you want to mention, describe, even discuss what you think the word ´pìlgrim´ means, you are at perfectly at liberty to do so. But as soon as you start suggesting that some people walking the camino are, for whatever reason, not ´real pilgrims´, then you have crossed the line because that is what has caused all the fuss and that is what we want to avoid, as I am sure you do too.Which means absolutely no discussions on what a pilgrim is.
Precisely. If everyone were to accept that anyone and everyone walking along the camino to Santiago is a pilgrim, then we wouldn´t need to spell it out in a rule.@dickbird - then the new rule is incorrectly written as it isn't clear ... it could, for instance, have an explanatory that states that the forum believes that all who go to Camino, for whatever reason and in whatever way, are pilgrims, therefore it is against the rules to judge whether they are pilgrims or not - or something like that.
In fact, were we to all accept that all who go to Camino are entering into an 800 year old pilgrimage and therefore all are pilgrims this problem (of attacks and insults) might just go away.
Sadly I don't think it's as simple as that, @dick bird. The reason this is such a 'thing' is that not everyone along the way is a pilgrim - these days there are relatively few genuine pilgrims who are walking to the Shrine of St James. But there are many of us walking for other reasons, ranging from spiritual to touristic. And if the heated posts here in past threads are any indication, there is distain on both sides of that continuum.Precisely. If everyone were to accept that anyone and everyone walking along the camino to Santiago is a pilgrim, then we wouldn´t need to spell it out in a rule
For me, the bottom line is ´don´t tell other people they aren´t a real pilgrim´.Sadly I don't think it's as simple as that
We are Human, but as a Human we are all different.You are absolutely...
Equal.
I think statements like this demonstrate the very case that the rule is needed.these days there are relatively few genuine pilgrims who are walking to the Shrine of St James.
If I am asking those things of myself, yes. Otherwise, ...If you have to ask who,what or why..are you 100 per cent present in your journey?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?