Yes, I think I do.
Yes, all of them.
Yes, all the Yoruba.
Yes, all the Kalinga.
I don't know enough to really substantiate my claim. It is simply something which I have observed, and so far the shoe seems to fit all of them.
I'll give you points for consistency. It's one of the things I like about you, honestly. Shame we're often on the opposite sides of issues, but still...*tips hat*
First tell me why a whole people feels the need to blemish their skin with tattoos, then I will tell you why the whole people have an identity deficiency.
Not all people, or even MOST people, start from a position that this is inherently wrong, or a 'blemish'. My grandfather was a decorated soldier. A Kalinga warrior wears his 'medals' on his skin, permanently. My grandfather would put his medals in the cupboard most of the year (they now hang on my wall), whereas the Kalinga bore a permanent mark commemorating his actions.
Which is right? Neither. Both. To me there is no inherent difference in value.
The tattoo is deliberate and symbolic. A birth mark is a blemish, but speaks not in the least to the value of the person carrying it.
I am an over confident person with my identity, and I have no tattoos. I'm guessing you're a bit over confident as well, and so you have no need for tattoos either.
Aww...I'm not over-confident. I'm
just confident enough.
It is extremely unlikely I'd ever get a tattoo. But as an act of solidarity, I could at least envisage it as possible. 99.5% won't happen.
Please give me an example of a reason for willingly getting a tattoo that you would think that I might not consider an adornment/decoration.
I suspect our definitions of adornment are going to differ. I offered Kalinga warriors as an example of this, whereby a tattoo is roughly equivalent to a medal in our society. But you may very well see medals as adornment as well.
In some societies, tattoos are used to indicate marital status. This would include at least parts of New Zealand and Papua New Guinea that I've had direct exposure to. Like we would use a wedding ring.
This is what I read that caught my attention:
“When I left my village I was ashamed of my tattoos. My daughter married a American solider, so when my husband died I moved to New York with them. It was there I realised that tattoos were often associated with criminals. I felt embarrassed and tried to cover them up. But later people would ask me about more and more about my culture, and they wanted to see my tattoos. I felt proud to be a Kalinga women.”
It caught my attention too, but we may interpret it differently.
She didn't have the tattoos applied for reasons of pride, nor lack of self confidence. Rather, they were applied as part of her culture's norm. When she moved to a different culture, she felt that these tattoos were judged by a different measure. Rather than being seen as normal, or a mark of her womanhood, she believed they were associated with criminality. Later, she realised that some/many people were NOT judging her negatively, and she was able to speak about the meaning of the tattoo's. She felt pride at this.
It seems that in all these examples, the tattoo increases the persons feelings of self worth. Why does a person desire greater feelings of self worth if they are not lacking that to begin with?
Apart from anything else, you are conflating the increased feeling of belonging/self worth that these can bring and the reason people get them in the first place. I don't believe the Kalinga woman got the tattoos because she was lacking in self worth. I believe she got them because it was the cultural norm in her society, and a way to mark her as a woman (rather than a girl). A rite of passage. All societies have these markers, although they vary greatly. I gave my wife a ring on our wedding day, and both thought about it, and can defend the symbolism of this. However, I am self-reflective enough to know why I chose this symbol over some others.
If my wife and I had chosen to etch our rings on our fingers, couldn't it simply be a way of permanently denoting the bond, rather than a ring which can easily be taken off?
I am not really sure what God had in mind when he made the covenant with Abraham that involved the circumcision of ALL of Abraham's male descendants. Perhaps it was like a mark or a tattoo, something to set that group apart from all other groups. I really don't know the answer. I don't really understand that covenant that God had made with Abraham.
Obviously it's difficult for me to consider this in spiritual terms. I tend to think more along historical lines. But I think the guess you've made about setting the group apart is probably close to the mark.
Assume for a second you don't believe in the Abrahamaic God. Or that instead of circumcision, that God demanded a tattoo as a permanent mark of commitment.
Do you not then see a reason beyond mere decoration for a tattoo?
And I see piercings as being pretty much the same as tattoos.
All piercings? Ear rings on women?
Not doubting you, just clarifying.