Mac Cuill, Son of the Hazel and the decline of Empire

If you know me, I'm getting into my folklore and mythology of the British Isles. The term "British Isles" is not as controversial as I think it should be and agree it's quite inaccurate, I've been very open that it should be the Insular Northern European Islands, but i will also admit that it doesn't exactly roll off the tongue. The problem here is it does limit the area around Britain as somehow part of the large landmass that is England, Wales, Scotland and Cornwall(1).

So I bought a book with some of the Celtic myths and stories of the lands we often forget. There's a bit of Ireland, the posterboy everyone thinks of when they think of the Celts, a dash of wonderful Welsh, a spattering of sgionnel Scottish, and a corner of Cornwall.

But there's two lands we have forgotten haven't we? The Isle of Mann (Ellan Vannin) and Brittany (Breizh). Two great celtic worlds in the perifery of the discussion. And it's one of the stories of Ellan Vannin I want to talk about today.

Now, Mac Cuill is a god of the old world. Son of the Dagda, the gods that inhabited Ireland long ago, thousands of years ago, It's mythology, they exaggerate. Anyway, as the world changes and people begin to disbelieve in the gods of the land, their influence begins to wane. They stop being these great individuals of power, but are still beings to respect, many becoming the faerie folk, one called Lugh Lamfada becoming what we call a leprechaun now.

Why does this happen? The movement to Christianity of course. And Mac Cuill hates it.

This god becomes a bitter and resentful character, a being of spite and hate. It's said in the story(2) that his many rebirths, he slowly becomes lower and lower in the social standing because of this hate in his heart, that he finally becomes a thief. An individual that takes what he thinks he is owed and finds great joy in the harm that his actions do to others. He is an evil man.

But he gets caught!

Mac Cuill is thrown into a boat with no oars in iron cuffs with the key chucked into the sea with the instructions only to come back when he is truly repentant. The old god curses humanity, only saying that he is a thief and will never change.

I'm going to stop telling the story now, as I think you should read it yourself, its a great tale as well as the Isle of Mann getting its due. Main take away is complex, but as I worked it through my head, I think I see why it resonated with me. I read it and I couldn't help but see parallels between the decline of the gods and of empires.

I should point out, empire is not and should not be comparable to deification. But what is comparable is how those who had the privilege of being beneficiaries of a system struggle to adapt to the new ways of existing. Gods become small and spiteful, country folk become the past and are seen as threats to the progress of the future. The function of telling the story like that is to show that Christianity is the new thing that is both true and unifying like how the druids were the authority before. Around this time, druids and the spiritual leaders were no longer individuals of influence, slowly losing it to the likes of St Patrick and Columba, so it's a segue into a different worldview.

But why did I say Empire in the title if I'm talking about Christianity? I'm getting there!

Mac Cuill is a great stand in for an old social order that no one really believes in anymore. He is a being of power that is put to the sidelines and can no longer demand the same treatment as before. He is empire, he is Monarchy, he is Patriarchy. And just like when those systems are not valued, those who need them to justify their lifestyles or their worldviews, become resentful. How many times have you heard that traditional values are under threat, or that British values are being lost?

Its so much like Mac Cuill, and people who speak like that talk like Mac Cuill. The entitlement and the vitriol that comes out of the man is so relatable in today's political landscape. An indiviual who wants to regain his status but can't so makes it everyone else's problem. If you benefitted from a system of hierarchy where you were on top, you are going to mourn it. In Britain you can see that everywhere, with the rise of violence and racism against those who settle here from outside the island. Mac Cuill is a stand in for the destructive tendency for the old ways that are no longer applicable to the current world.

We have a worldview here in Britain that I would argue is very similar. And those in power want to hold onto that and not let go even though their damaging the very communities they claim to represent. Look at Reform, don't tell me that there's an image of Empire as this golden period that is both prosperous elegant, even though they would be in harms way equally as those they deem lesser(3).

So Mac Cuill can be seen as the bitter reminence of those who have nostalgia for the olden days. He was cast out into the sea for his crimes, should we do the same to those who commit crimes because of their bitterness?

No.

You see, in the end, Mac Cuill becomes human. He sheds his immortal body to embrace the finality of man. His god-kin mock him for it, but he is happier and loved by those on the Isle of Man afterwards, becoming it's patron saint. So what can we learn from this?

I would say that people can always change for the better, no matter their philosophy(4). This is a story of rehabilitation rather than punishment, and to reach that moment where a person is open to rehabilitation takes time. Our tiny, petty god is drifting around in the seas for years, reflecting on his past and what he had. He reaches a beach and is shown where the rest of the Danu underwater, eating the dead, claiming their lofty titles as gods through murder and fear. He is mortified(5), and finds out it is a dream, and is actually on the beach in cuffs again. He is humbled, repentant and spreads the message of the christian god(6). He sees people as themselves again and not as objects he can claim dominion over.

With this rehabilitation, could we not say that Mac Cuill is a hopeful tale where the damaging attitudes of empire can die so we can embrace a much more holistic and communal way with living with others? I would say so, as this is a character who not only gave up his bitterness, but became the figurehead of the Island of Man as Saint Maughold at the cost of not living forever. Should that not be where we need to go as a people?

The cynical around me would say that this can't happen. Britain is too deeply rooted in its colonial and imperialistic history, but what the story of the Island of the Ocean god teaches me is that people can move like water. It might take time, but it will happen. Hell, the amount of stories that are playing with this thought of challenging the status quo on history and its biases is breathtaking, and from England and Britain no less! We are not as sentimental on this history as we think we are.

But maybe thats hope. Maybe the truth is that we will just be a nation of theives filled with bitterness, with no way out of our own misery except the cold release of mutually assured destruction.

But screw that, that has never been the end of a story. Not a good one at least

(1) Oh yes, I'm one for the Cornish National Recognition.

(2) Story 8, Island of the Ocean God, page 155 of 'The Mammoth book of Celtic Myths and Legends' by Peter Berresford Ellis

(3) Right wing thought is counter productive, who would've thought?

(4) Philosophy here is the way people believe they should live.

(5) I cannot stress how much I am paraphrasing this story, read it please!

(6) This is a time where morality is linked to Christianity. I can't change this fact, it was a different time, though Peter Berresford Ellis has kept a more pagan attitude to the legends.

Are Owls evil?

The Oak must grow. The Deer must graze. The Owl must hunt.

A couple of weeks ago, Elizabeth and I went to a wedding. It was very hot and I was wearing a suit that always makes me look very VERY good but keeps the heat in, so I ended laying on the grass to cool down.

Here, Elizabeth noticed an owl sitting on a bale of hay. I didn't pay much attention to it as I was concentrating on cooling off, but I did glimpse it as it took off. It was massive. For most of the evening after that, when I went outside, I looked out on that field to try and notice it again.

And I did.

But when I saw it, it was later in the evening, around 9pm if I remember. It was still massive, and I was in awe, but I also wasn't alone. There was a boy who I assume lived on the site playing football. He seemed curious why I was looking out on an empty field.

"Are you ok?" he asked.

"I am," I replied, "just looking for the owl."

"The what?" the boy asked.

The question threw me a little, I knew what an owl was when I was his age. I didn't know all of them of course, but I knew they existed.

"The owl, it was on the bale there before it flew off."

"What is it?"

"It's a bird." I answered.

"Like a pheasant?"

"Yeah, like a pheasant, but a pheasant is more prey."

"What's an owl then?"

"A predator."

The boy seemed more comfortable after this, no longer curious but more matter-o-fact. The next words intrigued me.

"So it's evil."

I didn't really know what to say after this, but i needed to say something as I didn't agree with this response.

"Well, no. Owls just eat animals. It's not evil, it just does what's natural."

He then said that they get deers and foxes as well, and seemed to stop caring about the conversation, more interested in the football and tricks he was practicing. So I had to process this mindset on my own.

Because it's not a wrong idea that killing is bad. He lived on a farm with livestock, so things like wolves and foxes are seen as bad and to frame that as evil makes sense. But the wolf doesn't kill for divine(2) reasons, it kills out of neccesity to live. If the sheep didn't die, it would starve and so would the pack. The picture is more complex than the boy could see it, and if it doesn't effect his 7-10 year life(3), why would he care?

In history, we have seen predators and animals that kill by misinterpretation as these evil doers. Natural problems that must be ignored. I've just finished a book called 'the Deorhord' by Hana Videen where she discusses these things. The wolf is evil, as it only brings death to all that man cares for. The whale is evil, as it drowns sailors who think they have found land. It's very interesting, give it a read. I found it really inspiring as it shows how people viewed animals and their personalities in the past, pre-'enlightenment' (4).

Bringing it back these ideas of evil allow for a separation of responsibility. If the predator is evil, then it's okay to kill. Think Grendel or Smaug, they are a negative on the world, and therefore okay to get rid of as they only bring death.

But we are seeing that getting rid of predators because they are 'evil' is also bad. Here is Britain, we have gotten rid of our native wolf, lynx, and beaver(5) populations, causing massive ecological impacts. Red deer, prey, have exploded in numbers and have been a large reason why our forests are not growing as they eat all the saplings, meaning as the trees naturally die there is nothing to replace it. This is the problem with a lot of our temperate rainforests(6) as our old trees cannot be replaced, leading to just a bunch of dead stumps, and these are very important ecological areas!

But is the Red Deer evil? It's killing the environment, but not out of malice, it needs to eat. So why is it that predators are more negative when they control the population?

The answer here is obvious, it's control.

We, Humans, killed most of the more dangerous predators as we wanted to control the earth we use. We see ourselves in this Judeo-christian way as the stewards of the planet, needing to fix the problems we've been given. The thing is, the problems we are meant to fix are ones we've made for ourselves. Nature had a system that was both messy but also fuctional, and it's important to see ourselves as nature, because we are. We elevate the human species as somehow more important in the scheme of things, saying we are closer to god. But even if you don't beleive in a god, people like the atheists of the humanists fall into this category. There's this need to say we are the authority of the earth, but it's a bit of a fallacy in my opinion.

You see, if we climb off the pedestal we've placed under us, you will notice how precarious we are. We get rid of the problems we see, but the problems those problems were keeping in check are now the main problems, so now we have to sort those problems because we own the earth and must control it. The truth is much more humbling, the ecosystem is chaotic but self regulating and any change to it is catastophic, and it's childish to say that we are going to somehow fix all the problems. Hell! That's a whole theory of study in physics! Chaos theory!

So going back to the boy in the field, can we even say that evil exists? Things are so much more complicated than we are willing to even think about. The world of predator and prey doesn't exist in the human world anymore as we've dictated a separation of nature and the man made world. But that is a distinction that is not sustainable. Fences need maintaining, otherwise the two worlds mix. The real problem is that this mixture is true nature, as we are part of it. If we get rid of that distinction, everything will get scarier and unpredictable, but the beauty of the planet will show itself.

I will finish with this. The Oak must grow, the deer must graze, the owl must hunt. They will not ask for permission, they will not think about you and your personal world, they will not live conveniently. They will exist just as we have, and if they are inconvenient, so are we. If their actions are evil, then what are our cities? Our fields? Our cars and roads? The only difference is that we are doing so much more damage because of our need to control the world we see.

But when we disappear as we all must.

The Oak will grow.

The Deer will graze.

The Owl will hunt.

(1) Brilliant day, congrats Su and Dom!

(2) I'm using Divine from the Slavoj Zizek term 'Divine Violence'. The idea that there is violence that is only there for the sake of violence, and his refutation as violence usually comes from other factors. Either to take control or show a greivance. You can see this in the world right now, and divine violence is truly evil as it has no reason to happen except that it is.

(3) no idea how old he was. Not old enough for me to explain the ambiguity of morality in the universe. Let him kick the ball around for the time being.

(4) Just remember that enlightenment thought brought us medicine and scientific breakthroughs, but also justified racism and discrimination of the people who were neccesary for the said 'Enlightenment'.

(5) although not 'evil', they were a good source of waterproof fur. They also flooded areas that people were farming, causing problems.

(6) The rainforests of Britain, Guy Shrubsole. Good book, very important!

"There's nothing to do here!" and other British lies

"This place sucks."

"There's nothing to do"

"It's just full of old people."

These are the arguements I've heard for a lot of places around Britain. All of it flawed and all of it steeped in a history that we've both lost and not learned of, with a light sprinkling of gentrification on top of the oppressive ice cream we call British society.

I've tried for a couple of weeks now to write this, as my brain was literally scrambled(1), but my point always seemed to be more and more incohesive. As if where I wanted to go wasn't actually in this blog post than I first anticipated.

So where am I going here? Basically, there is this idea that a lot of places in Britain(2) are without any real entertainment. We could say this is the truth, but what are the underlaying truths of this truth? And if it is the truth, is the primary truth able to be dissected into smaller truths that we could piece together into a massive British jigsaw of British truths?

Yes, because we are a great tapestry of community and oppression that we haven't even recognised in our time.

Beginning at the start, 'There's nothing to do here!' as a quote implies several factors of lack; Economic, Political and Social as a start.

Economic TNTDH(3) implies that there are no prospects for jobs. People in an area are left to fend for themselves for the job search, or must travel or drive to places of employment. If you can't do that, you will be left behind.

Political TNTDH implies that you have no real say in your area. Your politician doesn't live in your area and rarely holds surgeries, or your village is part of a bigger area that takes priority, like it swallows up other less populated settlements.

Social TNTDH implies that there is nothing to do to meet up and form communities. The pub has closed and the social hall has been sold on to a developer to make more houses.

With these in mind, I think we can paint a picture that been three hundred years in the making, starting with the enclosure acts and leading up to what we now know as gentrification.

So let's start with today. A lot of places that would have been a hub for the community have been lost. Pubs were more than just a place to drink alcohol, they can be called third places, a neutral space where everyone in the area could come and socialise. And the loss of these specific third places, which can be a community hall, cafes, barbershops, even a gym occasionally. Churchs and parks are also examples. Anyway, these places allow for groups to meet and socialise, but when the cost of a pint of a coffee is outside of your budget it now becomes a place of exile. You are poor, therefore not welcome.

This might not be true, my favourite local(4) is more of a social space. They are a place to talk rather than drink, they just happen to cheaper as well. The point still stands though, people feel like outsiders because of price in their own towns will be full of TNTDH, fuelling discontent. This leads to more antisocial behaviour as people become resentful of where they are. I've been on trains where people litter all over it because 'They don't own it, so it's not their problem', isn't this the same mindset that makes people litter in their town? As they have no say, cannot use the services in their area, and there is no community to call their own.

This makes people leave for a city as there is more options and opportunities, leading to a death of a place. This death then allows the developers in to 'gentrify' the place, kicking out the last few residents to cater for the newcomers. These newcomers will commute and have very little interest in the area unless it plays into their interests. Goodbye Red Lion fro the 1500's, hello cereal bar cafe(5). This then kills the last part of the town, until these newcomers have little newcomers that soon find that to actually entertain and form their own connections they will have to look outside of their residence. This gentrifiation leads to a settlement as community to settlement to residence, how fucking sad.

This leads me back to my favourite gripe in the social sundae of Britain, the legacy of that fact called enclosure. We're jumping right back in time here but it's similar. Lords and landlords closed off the land to the common people, alienating them from the fields and valleys that were open to them before. Soon, the locals have no choice but to work for the lord for income. When the landlord wants them off the land, the work drys up and rent isn't paid. They then kicked these locals, sometimes many generations down the line, out of their houses to make way for sheep or a massive green expanse of grass. For me this is always the start of the flavour of British alienation to the land that has purveyed the world through our empire.

Both these examples, Enclosure and Gentrification, fuel TNTDH that creates dead areas. But both need people to exist, showing how shortsighted and self destructive they are. People are not numbers, they are the reason we do things. TNTDH is corporate takeover of our public and private lives, telling us we cannot go places because of ownership or the other way that you must own something to fit in, like a crappy brown bag. TNTDH as an attitude is control over the population to value what they value, and to deny that is a strong decision to make.

I think this is my point that I'm going to leave with this. I hate TNTDH. It's a nihilistic, conformist way of playing to the powers that have created this hell scape we call a lonely society. we have to actively kill this attitude to find a new way to live.

Trespass, visit your friends, have meals in parks and socialise in open view of the powers that be. Permission will never be granted as they don't want you here. A house is more profitable if no one lives in it, so the dream is for a country that has no one in it, as they can't do that a population that stays inside and makes no fuss will suffice. Britain has many things to do, but you have to look for them.

Explore! Go to a town you've never been before! Eat food you've never tried! Learn a skill that only benefits you! But never fall for TNTDH, as that is a bad arguement and only plays into the pockets of those who wish you to buy buy buy their stuff. Never fall for that lie, it will kill you and everyone you love.

(1) Had an epileptic seizure, it was not very fun.

(2) Where I will be staying, as I don't know anywhere else.

(3) There's nothing to do here, abbreviated.

(4) Peasants Revolt, Brentwood

(5) Real place in Bethnal Green i beleive.