Post #170829 by hewey on Sun, Jul 10, 2005 3:09 AM

On 2005-07-09 16:13, AlienTiki wrote:
NOT a discussion. just a question as to what you think Tikis Are.

Um, why arent we allowed to discuss this? I beleive the meaningful discussions on TC add a lot of depth for understanding tiki culture, and the nuts (us) that dig it. It is especially useful for newer tiki-philes (I still consider myself to be in this category) to understand and what tiki is, and the different ways in which it is manifested.

As far as the original question, the original island idols were pagan. TC is more focused on the pop culture usage of these figures and "polynesia" in general, as a form of romanticism. This enjoyed its heyday in the 50s, and is now enjoying a revival.

Additionally, perhaps you should post what I beleive is the question you really want to answer, which is "why aren't religous discussions/art/whatever allowed on TC, when the "tiki" figure (or insert other island idol/god) is apparently drawn from a pagan idol which indeed could be viewed as a religion/religous figure?"

This is a fair enough question, and i can understand why you would ask it. It does appear to contradict itself I agree.

The answer to this is that religous and political discussions often result in users in heated discussions due to the sensitive nature of the topic. This is not the aim or purpose of TC. As I said earlier, TC is focused on the pop culture of tiki/polynesia, and discussing it in a constructive manner.

I am trying to give a constructive response to your question, and my personal intrepretation of the underlying questions behind it. If I am way off, I apologise.