Part of the issue?

The trend in my topical posts thus far, as well as a fair bit of what I see put forward by other Celtic reconstructionists, runs toward the negative and reactive more than the positive or proactive. We have several essays floating around about topics like "why Wicca isn't Celtic" or discussing what we do more in the context of what we don't do. Which, again, tends to run "how CR is not Wicca."

On the flip side, when someone comes along and says, "This is how I do CR," how much time do we spend flaying it for what we see as inconsistencies instead of at least starting with a few kudos for doing it at all? I'm as guilty as the next person of following this approach, mind you. This is as much about my way of doing as it is anyone else's.

I am not too sure how to deal with it. Most of us are going to face continued repetition of the usual modern material presented as ancient lore. New variations will pop up, such as the "ancient Celtic ritual of Merlin calling up the bear" that I attended at a pagan convention for reasons unrelated to wanting to bond with Mother Bear. And that kind of nonsense needs to be called for what it is.

But if we can't ameliorate our criticisms with compliments when they're called for, it's small wonder I've seen people state that they called themselves CR until they pulled the broom out of their ass. Now, some people will resent being told they can't get away with calling modern material ancient no matter how much sugar you add to the medicine. I just hope that I, along with others, will continue to work on treating the well-meaning but wrong as if they are educatable instead of inscrutably dumb.