"G-O-D" is not merely a simple statement of some sort of spiritual neutrality or a term to be used interchangeably with other expressions of collectivized divinity. "G-O-D" is a particularized and exclusive energetic that, as far as I know and intuit, has no resonance with other non-european and non-colonial conceptions and co-creations of divinity or deity. It is often suggested in the explanation of American, African, Asian or other indigenous spirit entities, deities or divinities that we can understand the presence, importance or nature of these indigenous energetics by comparing them to "G-O-D", if only parenthetically. Not only is this seemingly simple reflex misleading and confusing, but it pulls the reader/observer of this comparison into a default dismissal of the tremendously differentiated experiences that exist between the binaries of "G-O-D" and so many other grounded, indigenous and non-colonial conceptions of Spirit and divinity. In addition, the history of how "G-O-D" has been used as a tool, a technology of oppression, confusion, co-optation and distraction cannot be divorced from what or whom (?) "G-O-D" may actually be. It is reckless and possibly even dangerous to assume that there is any kind of equality, equanimity or even parity between the Dagara Mwin, the Zulu Unkulunkulu, the Mayan Quetzalcoatl, the Lakota Wakantanka and the conception of "G-O-D" as we think we know it. Clearly, so many rightly shy away from drawing direct equations between even the indigenous experiences of divinity and Spirit, unitary or multiplicitous as they may be. Given that respectful practice, why would we even entertain that the idea of "G-O-D" is even remotely instructive to understanding Mwin or Wakantanka, let alone be even less remotely instructive to understanding how the adherents or cultural carriers of those indigenous Spirits or divinities walk in the world or conceive their relationships with humanity and Nature.
It is simple and also gravely necessary to say that "G-O-D" has been an integral and functional part of the colonial idea, endeavor and outcome. And as the dangerous presence and practice of colonialism and imperialism are rightly being challenged and fought (as they have always been), it makes the now reflexive use (and abuse) of the word, concept, energetic and mission of "G-O-D" highly problematic and misleading when trying to even simply explain the presence, nature and importance of Spirit, spirits and divinity, particularly in the indigenous context. This same unholy union of "G-O-D" and colonial systemic cultural oppression also makes it extremely tricky, if not impossible to apply "G-O-D" in any liberatory or redemptive attempts. We would be remiss if we did not only identify the energetic and conceptual differentiations between the multiplicitous observations of divinity and Spirit, but also if we do not identify that the colonial, imperialist and oppressive carriage of "G-O-D" and assumption of what "G-O-D" is brings with it a presumptive arrogance and mistaken idea of "G-O-D"'s utility and effect in the world.
It would seem that to try to divorce the concept and use/abuse of "G-O-D" in the world from the dominant behaviors and abuses of its adherents would be just as problematic as trying to explain indigenous spiritual experiences by comparison and juxtaposition to "G-O-D".
Monotheism and other colonial and oppressive systems are correctly under question. Neither their generality nor their universality can be safely or simply assumed. It seems that we feel we owe "G-O-D" the nod of acknowledgement as we try to explain our spiritual experiences in the world almost as we similarly feel we must acknowledge other colonial contexts as being viable in some de facto iteration of Life. If we are not adherents of "G-O-D", why do we feel that reference to "G-O-D" is in any way helpful to understanding any other conception of divinity, especially when we acknowledge that the use/abuse of "G-O-D" is wholly and grossly different in the grand and even recent historical and experiential sense. This deference to some equation of indigenous spiritual ideas and "G-O-D" may come out at times due to the remarkable beauty, traditions of respect and deep expansive cosmovisions of indigenous and oppressed peoples, but that equation of historical and energetic binaries may be at the core of on-going default complicity with the intentions of colonialism, which even the adherents of the reportedly very intensely exclusive "G-O-D" of all goddesses/gods (interestingly enough) have a distinctly difficult time extracting themselves from, if there is even a dominant intention within that gigantic human faction to do so.
At the very least, juxtaposing, equating or attempting to explain any indigenous conception of divinity, deity, spirit, Spirit or spirituality with "G-O-D" is just not helpful. At the most, it may be persistently destructive to the continuing presence and cultural function of indigenous spiritual systems, experiences, observations and conceptions and the multiplicity of efforts to revitalize so many of those traditions that were initially and still continually targeted and attacked by the most voluminous and arrogant adherents of "G-O-D" and by "G-O-D" himself/itself.
