I can think of a few countries that have had to deal with this question in various ways, on an individual or society/national level, but I'm curious to see what the general reaction is in such countries.
One is the relatively well known case of JRR Tolkien talking of his reasons for creating Lord of the Rings and the Middle Earth world, or at least about his fantasy writing generally. He said in one letter,
>Also – and here I hope I shall not sound absurd – I was from early days grieved by the poverty of my own beloved country: it had no stories of its own (bound up with its tongue and soil), not of the quality that I sought, and found (as an ingredient) in legends of other lands. There was Greek, and Celtic, and Romance, Germanic, Scandinavian, and Finnish (which greatly affected me); but nothing English, save impoverished chap-book stuff. Of course there was and is all the Arthurian world, but powerful as it is, it is imperfectly naturalized, associated with the soil of Britain but not with English; and does not replace what I felt to be missing. For one thing its 'faerie' is too lavish, and fantastical, incoherent and repetitive. For another and more important thing: it is involved in, and explicitly contains the Christian religion.
For reasons which I will not elaborate, that seems to me fatal. Myth and fairy-story must, as all art, reflect and contain in solution elements of moral and religious truth (or error), but not explicit, not in the known form of the primary 'real' world. (I am speaking, of course, of our present situation, not of ancient pagan, pre-Christian days. And I will not repeat what I tried to say in my essay, which you read.)
(From Tolkien's Letter #131, in an answer here)
It doesn't mean he always believed this in the same way his whole life, it could've changed, but Tolkien thought (at least here) that England was missing something like the grand or at least well remembered great epic traditions that other European countries/cultures had. It's one Englishman's response to feeling native England had no great, pre-Christian mythical tradition.
Another case is the Philippines, where many people believe that a lot of pre-Hispanic/precolonial native cultures, including myths, arts, epic poetry etc. have been lost mainly because of colonialism, 300 years and more of Spanish rule and Catholic conversion, and 50 and more of American rule, plus a lot of disasters and things like the WW2 Japanese occupation and American battles with them in Manila that burned or destroyed a lot of the historical records. As a result there are Filipino responses on the individual/community level (like groups trying to really promote every little thing about precolonial history, or even writing stories in those settings, sometimes passing these off as actual records but which are hoaxes), and on the national/government level (eg. the Order of Kalantiaw, an award/title based on stories of a precolonial Filipino chief which however are the work of a early 1900s myth-writer).
I am interested to know how the process goes of inventing ancient myth in countries that feel like they don't have them or have lost any memory/evidence of them. I know this is often used to political effect, in the worst case by fascist dictators for example, which is one reason why modern recreation/reconstruction of ancient traditions is often so controversial (another reason is that it is seen as inauthentic or fake, being after all only recently made), but from their point of view, what else will those countries do to prove that culturally they are "great" or to be taken seriously? Can countries that only have recently invented, "ancient" native myths, epics, histories, traditions etc., ever become as legitimate as the truly old great myths/histories of countries/cultures that have them?
[deleted] t1_j07kh9h wrote
[removed]