Throughout history when one group has sought to target for destruction a minority within an otherwise civilized society, the method used to accomplish such is always the same: vilify them until they are considered first a public nuisance and, ultimately, a public enemy so as to justify their persecution, their prosecution, and... if fully successful... their eventual slaughter. Whether we speak of the Crusades, in which the Muslims were vilified, or the Jews prior to the Holocaust, or the far more recent genocidal slaughters and atrocities of Rwanda and continuing on even today in parts of Africa and elsewhere in the world, the methodology never changes.
And the same where the "vampire" was concerned. As I have pointed out quite often, the first-ever usage of the term "vampire" (as the Slavic "Upir") was in a 1047 CE handwritten reference by an Eatern Orthodox Christian priest... who used the term specifically to refer to... himself. As should be glaringly apparent, the actual meaning and understanding of the term "vampire" (Upir') originally meant something quite different and certainly not at all objectionable in the 11th Century. Yet by the 18th Century, 700 years later, the term had been demonized to the point that the "vampire" was pretty much the complete anti-thesis of its actual meaning. In 1047 CE, a "vampire" was a mortal, crucifix-wearing, God-serving Christian priest... yet 700 years later the "vampire" is, instead, an immortal, crucifix-fearing, Satan-serving, blood-sucking, evil revenant.
Quite the change, huh?
As I have also pointed out repeatedly, the bloodsucking/blooddrinking "trait" of the "vampire" did not even appear until after post-Renaissance period Slavic peasants began digging up corpses believing them to be "vampires" and ignorantly concluding that the decomposition fluid (resulting from the liquification of the internal organs) inside the corpses was, in fact, blood. They illogically concluded therefrom that the corpses must be rising from the dead and drinking blood... even though prior to this conclusion not a single vampire "victim" had ever reported their "attacker" as drinking their blood.
Thus, the blood-drinking trait was invented out of ignorance and illogic, thus further horrifying and scaring the populaces of the time... which is, of course, the purpose of vilification, after all. And the results are also recorded in history as whole villages believed to be populated by "vampire" families... men, women and children, were subsequented driven from their homes and many hunted down and slaughtered.
In the same manner were "witches" (another term that originally was a positive one) were likewise vilified, persecuted, prosecuted, and slaughtered.
Getting back to the "vampire" of history, the obvious question needs to be asked: If the "vampire" of history was not actually "attacking" people to drink their blood and, thus, causing peasants to dig up corpses in the first place, then for what were peasants originally hunting them? For what, exactly, were these supposed "vampires" originally being accused? Should anyone be curious, you will find the answer at my profile together with the actual historical proofs documenting it all.
- Upir'
