NAFPS Forum
Odds and Ends => Etcetera => Topic started by: lerner on June 07, 2010, 12:45:50 am
-
He's doing pay to pray ceremonies of traditions he has no right to teach anyway since the ceremonies he claims to do aren't Cherokee or Choctaw.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. Are you saying he claims the ceremonies are Cherokee/Choctaw? If so, where does he make this claim?
-
He's doing pay to pray ceremonies of traditions he has no right to teach anyway since the ceremonies he claims to do aren't Cherokee or Choctaw.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. Are you saying he claims the ceremonies are Cherokee/Choctaw? If so, where does he make this claim?
No Lerner. He's saying he's doing pay to pray ceremonies that are based on other tribes traditions (not Cherokee/Choctaw) and he has no right to do so since Trueblood is Cherokee/Choctaw and not from those tribes.
Superdog
-
No Lerner. He's saying he's doing pay to pray ceremonies that are based on other tribes traditions (not Cherokee/Choctaw) and he has no right to do so since Trueblood is Cherokee/Choctaw and not from those tribes.
Thanks for clarifying. If I understand correctly, you are making two distinct but related arguments here:
1. One can only legitimately do ceremonies based on the traditions of the people into which one is born.
2. One can not charge money for ceremony.
Is that a correct interpretation?
Another question: Which tribes' traditions are Sequoyah's ceremonies based on?
-
Read the thread Lerner as well as the Intro and Who We Are pages about NAFPS. You'll find all your answers there. No need to reiterate them here.
Superdog
-
Thanks for clarifying. If I understand correctly, you are making two distinct but related arguments here:
1. One can only legitimately do ceremonies based on the traditions of the people into which one is born.
2. One can not charge money for ceremony.
Is that a correct interpretation?
Another question: Which tribes' traditions are Sequoyah's ceremonies based on?
Read the thread Lerner as well as the Intro and Who We Are pages about NAFPS. You'll find all your answers there. No need to reiterate them here.
I take that to mean that your answer to my first two questions is 'Yes'. To clarify the specifics, consider the following hypothetical scenario. Let's say that some Lakota people decide to teach a Mohegan person how to conduct sweat-lodge ceremonies. And let's say that this Mohegan person, after having learned over a number of years and having received permission, starts holding sweat lodge ceremonies in Connecticut, for other non-Lakota people, without charging any money. Would you state categorically that this Mohegan person is doing something wrong, since he/she is non-Lakota?
I'm still not clear on the answer to my third question, but I'll return to it after getting clear on the above.
-
sorry for the repost..this portion of the thread was moved while I was posting so if you see it in the Trueblood thread my apologies....my reply follows, last paragraph edited out as it belongs in the Trueblood thread:
As far as what's appropriate for Lakota ways...you'd have to ask a Lakota. I can't answer for them. If he's not charging then that would indicate that they were taught right and if they teach where these ways come from and don't "initiate" others or teaching seminars etc. to do the same then I personally would not have a problem with it. It's a way of life and if you live that way, then all the better for you...if you're just learning to impress someone or achieve some sort of "degree" status for the sole purpose of opening up a business in any form and use these ways to market yourself...then I would have a problem. But that's only one opinion. It seems like you're searching for someone speak for everyone here and I'm not that person and if you're specifically talking about Lakota people and Mohegan people then I suggest you talk to individuals in their communities and let them tell you what's appropriate or not.
Superdog
-
[Okay, I'm not quite sure how this works. Should I reply here or in the original thread? I only brought up the "Who Can Do Ceremony" questions in the context of addressing the issues that had been raised about Sequoyah, because I felt they were relevant questions. I'd like to stick with the Sequoyah thread, but I don't mind following whatever the protocols are here.]
-
And just to be clear. I did not answer "yes" to your first two questions. I would answer yes to the second one. The first question is more difficult to answer as it is the standards of the community and land where spiritual ways originate that would dictate the answer to that one and answers may conflict from community to community.
Superdog
p.s.
Read your last reply, you can reply in the Trueblood thread if it's on topic. However, be more clear as your questions appear to be "baiting" of some sort.
-
My recent post was moved to a separate thread here:
http://www.newagefraud.org/smf/index.php?topic=2722.0
In that thread, I asked about sticking with the original thread, and Superdog wrote:
you can reply in the Trueblood thread if it's on topic. However, be more clear as your questions appear to be "baiting" of some sort.
To be clear, then, my first post addressed educatedindian's statement about Sequoyah that
He's doing pay to pray ceremonies of traditions he has no right to teach anyway since the ceremonies he claims to do aren't Cherokee or Choctaw.
In response to my post seeking clarification, Superdog wrote:
He's saying he's doing pay to pray ceremonies that are based on other tribes traditions (not Cherokee/Choctaw) and he has no right to do so since Trueblood is Cherokee/Choctaw and not from those tribes.
It seemed to me that, in addition to the issue of money, Superdog's statement implied two things:
- A specific set of circumstances in regard to Sequoyah's background, on the one hand, and his ceremonies, on the other
- A general principle according to which this specific set of circumstances is deemed unethical
My subsequent posts were directed toward clarifying these two interrelated points. In the new thread (see link above), I asked Superdog if his view is that "One can only legitimately do ceremonies based on the traditions of the people into which one is born." In response, he clarified that:
[this] question is more difficult to answer as it is the standards of the community and land where spiritual ways originate that would dictate the answer to that one and answers may conflict from community to community.
Now, I would like to continue the discussion with the goal of clarifying both the ethical principles being applied and the specific circumstances (involving Sequoyah) to which they are being applied.
Given Superdog's clarification that different communities may have different opinions on whether someone from another community can practice their ceremonies, it seems to me that his original statement should be modified. Originally, he said that Sequoyah "has no right" to do "ceremonies that are based on other tribes traditions" because he "is Cherokee/Choctaw and not from those tribes". So in this original statement, it seemed that Superdog was suggesting a categorical rule, but now it seems that we have agreed that it cannot be stated as a categorical rule. Based on Superdog's recent post, it would seem that the question of whether Sequoyah can legitimately practice ceremonies from another community would have to be answered by members of that community (although of course there may be conflicting opinions even within a given community).
As for the specific ceremonies that Sequoyah conducts and where they come from, Superdog wrote:
vision quests and pipe ceremonies are not Cherokee/Choctaw ways
So the question, then, if I understand correctly, would be what sort of permission (if any) Sequoyah received from whoever taught him these ceremonies. But that's a different issue than simply stating that Sequoyah cannot practice them because he is "not from those tribes".
Superdog also wrote:
the interpretations of aliens and the "spirit canoe" are not from any tribes traditions, yet he says they are.
Are you saying that the idea of a "spirit canoe" is not from any tribes' traditions, or just that Sequoyah's interpretation is wrong? If the former, then what about the Coast Salish spirit-canoe, for instance? And if the latter, then what are you saying is Sequoyah's interpretation?
As for aliens, are you saying that Sequoyah says his alien teachings are Indian teachings? If yes, what specifically did he say in that regard? If no, then what's the problem with talking about aliens based on one's own (alleged) experiences?
-
So in this original statement, it seemed that Superdog was suggesting a categorical rule, but now it seems that we have agreed that it cannot be stated as a categorical rule.
Lerner, you're nitpicking. You seem to be looking for loopholes and, by arguing hypotheticals instead of just speaking honestly, you do not encourage people to trust you.
Either you are very unfamiliar with standards and protocols among traditional peoples, or you know some things about it and want to try to find an exception. You are either ignorant about some very basic facts or pretending to be ignorant in order to bait people and waste their time. Just my opinion, but we've seen this sort of behavior a lot. Usually we see it from racist appropriators who want to find someone, anyone, to make them feel exploitation and degradation of ceremonies is A-OK, so they can continue to support exploiters and maybe become exploiters themselves. Again, just my opinion, but you seem to think you're talking to people you can easily manipulate.
Don't waste our time. Say what you need to say. Don't expect us to play headgames with you.
-
Note - Moved yet more posts here from the Sequoyah Trueblood thread http://www.newagefraud.org/smf/index.php?topic=619.0
Lerner, If you want to discuss hypotheticals, keep it here. If you have information or questions specifically about Trueblood, put it there. If you want to ask questions that can be easily answered by simply reading the thread you're posting in, don't. If you wear out our patience you're out of here.
-
Lerner, you're nitpicking.
In a manner of speaking, yes. I'm critically engaging with the fine points of the discussion. Ignoring the fine points of a discussion is a good way to overlook important details.
You seem to be looking for loopholes and, by arguing hypotheticals instead of just speaking honestly, you do not encourage people to trust you.
Every ethical judgment involves applying an abstract principle to a specific situation. Abstract principles are, by their nature, hypothetical. Discussing hypothetical situations can be a good way to work out the fine points of an ethical principle.
You are either ignorant about some very basic facts or pretending to be ignorant in order to bait people and waste their time.
I am engaging in critical discussion about certain ethical principles in the context of a certain situation to which they are being applied. Clarifying basic facts can be an important part of that process.
Don't waste our time. Say what you need to say. Don't expect us to play headgames with you.
If my posts are going to be moved out of the original thread simply because they address hypothetical issues alongside discussion of specific points about Sequoyah's teachings, then perhaps you are right that it's a waste of time. But I'm certainly not trying to waste anyone's time. I'm actually interested in the discussion and in understanding the various points of view and the issues involved.
-
As a Lakota/Dakota person who live on the reservation among my people and follows my traditions and speak for myself. I will answer you question!
Who can do ceremonies?
A traditional answer: One who has been choosen by his people, who has been taught for more than 16 years and live among his people. Ceremonieas is life long training so one can't go and be taught in one year and think you know it all. What happened with these kind of people is they are not properly trained so they make up ceremonies to fill in what they don't know. Then we end up with ceremonies that don't even make sense and mean nothing. Then we have people mixing different tribal ceremonies to the point it means nothing.
Modern Answer: We have allow the AIM movement to bring outside people (native from other tribes) into
our ceremonies because most have lost their ceremonies but that did not give them the right to perform our ceremonies. We have many of our people who now i live in urban areas and they have shared our ceremonies with outsiders but that still did not give them the right.
One can not charge money for ceremony?
One should never charge money for any ceremonies, no money should be past with in the context of ceremonies if money does past the ceremony means nothing so why do it??
Our ceremonies MUST BE DONE IN THE LAKOTA LANGUAGE! Not English, our song must be sung in a certain order,
-
I have to agree with Kathryn, you are nitpicking and your baiting in order to use reverse logic was figured out before you may give me credit for.
I stand by what I said. I personally don't have a stake in this thread. I can only talk about what I see here and some of the stuff I've learned through my life. You seem to be attributing the thoughts of everyone here to me and I've stated to you that I can't speak for everyone. I haven't personally called Trueblood a fraud and I'm not even disputing that he does good for people as some of his supporters have stated clearly that he's done.
But the fact of the matter is I see a mish mash of beliefs from different places being put forward by Trueblood in his own words. If you're going to talk about what one community believes to others, then it would be proper for him to relate truthfully how he learned about them. In regards to learning another tribe's ways, I have a personal opinion based on how I was raised, that says it's ok to participate fully engaged when invited, but never claim that you are somehow an authority based on that little engagement. When you speak about the ways of a community and you don't relate that you are only a visitor there, then you are speaking for the very heart of a people and you better be one of them because it's the community that decides who speaks for them...not one or two individuals and certainly not myself. I also know that you don't truly understand what's going on unless you speak the language. That's a fundamental truth.
When you take bits and pieces of something and attempt to mash them all together and then teach them you run a very dangerous risk of missing something important or not conveying all that needs to be conveyed.
I believe that last statement applies to you Lerner. You are a very literal person so I'm going to speak to you literally. You've come into this conversation with a lot to learn. Read and educate yourself a little. I'm sure you believe Trueblood's a good guy and I'm not gonna argue that with you. He probably has the best of intentions, but the fact of the matter is he's not an authority on any of the stuff he's putting out there and knowing what I know about some of the communities he's representing, I know that they don't even allow their own people to operate as he does.....so why would I believe that he somehow has permission over the standard of those communities.
If there's something you would like to say here about him...then say it. It's ok. It'll get left on the board and people who read it can judge things for themselves, but so far you've carried yourself as someone who's not to be trusted and is searching to turn an individuals words around on him to prove the whole board wrong. In the end, you've hurt your own argument.
Superdog
-
@earthw7
Thanks for answering my question! Your answer makes good sense to me, and I like the traditional/modern distinction. I was once allowed to participate in a sweat lodge ceremony on Pine Ridge reservation, and the leader of the ceremony was very clear about the protocols, traditional language, etc., and during the ceremony he put me in my place as a non-native outsider who was very lucky to be able to participate, and who needed to respect the traditions carefully. It was a valuable experience, and I definitely appreciate what you're saying about it.
I knew an African-American guy who said he had learned the sweat lodge ceremony from some Lakota friends over a period of four years (I think he went there twice a year during those four years), and he said that he was then allowed to conduct the ceremony. But I don't think he did it in Lakota language, so it sounds like what he was doing would probably not be considered right by most Lakota people. (This guy definitely didn't charge money for it, though.)
I don't know the details of how Sequoyah learned the sweat lodge ceremony, but given the example of the African American guy I mentioned, I consider it conceivable, at least, that some Lakota person told him it was okay for him to conduct the ceremony, even if other Lakota people would have disagreed. But like I said, I don't know the details. And I'm not saying that makes it okay. It just seems like something worth taking into account to fill in the picture.
-
@Superdog,
Thanks for your reply. You wrote:
I have to agree with Kathryn, you are nitpicking and your baiting in order to use reverse logic was figured out before you may give me credit for.
Okay, I'm sorry if I came across this way. I was simply voicing my thoughts out loud. The way my mind works is that I think about all the different angles on a situation. And when someone tells me something, I think about it means, and about how all the different parts relate to each other. I engage in intellectual debate as a thinking and learning process, not as a way to score points or "bait". This process of questioning and "nitpicking" is part of how I make sense of the world and try to make sure my ethical principles are consistent. But I understand that it can probably be annoying to others discussing with me. (People used to say that I should be a lawyer, and I wasn't sure whether to take it as a complement or an insult :))
When I raise nitpicking sort of questions like I did at the end of the last thread, it still seems to me that they're relevant questions. There really did used to be Coast Salish spirit-canoe tradition, at least according to some scholarly sources. Does this mean that Sequoyah learned about the spirit-canoe during his trips to British Columbia? I don't know. But I don't see why these details are irrelevant, given that you had claimed that spirit-canoe traditions don't exist in any tribe.
And again, I had the impression that Sequoyah was talking about the alien stuff based on his own purported experience, rather than presenting it as an Indian teaching, but I could be wrong. Either way, again, I don't see why these details are irrelevant.
I appreciate your comments about the importance of the specific community context of a ceremony, language, and so forth. It all makese sense to me, and I take it to heart.
You wrote:
so why would I believe that he somehow has permission over the standard of those communities.
Right, I'm definitely not saying you should believe that. From my perspective, however, I wouldn't rule out the possibility that he received some sort of permission. (I realize that this sort of "innocent until proven guilty" principle can get taken too far, and I actually respect the skeptical approach you guys take. But other criticisms aside, I don't see it as all that unlikely that Sequoyah received some form of permission.)
You wrote:
You seem to be attributing the thoughts of everyone here to me
That's the opposite of my approach. I began by asking a question about something educatedindian had posted. You answered for him. Then I asked you to clarify your stance, and you directed me the website, which seemed to imply that you subscribed to some sort of shared opinion. As far as I'm concerned, every person speaks for him- or herself.
so far you've carried yourself as someone who's not to be trusted and is searching to turn an individuals words around on him to prove the whole board wrong.
Given that this discussion is basically anonymous, I'm not sure that "trust" should play a major role. Realistically, what we have to go by are people's posts, which we can assess on their own merits. If you don't agree with some specific points in my posts, perhaps you can mention them specifically. As for your posts, I highlighted what struck me as an inconsistency between two things you had said. I didn't do this to be mean or disrespectful or literal. I simply pointed it out because it seemed like a point of ambiguity and therefore I thought it merited further clarification.
I look forward to hearing any further thoughts you'd like to share.
Lerner
-
@Superdog,
Thanks for your reply. You wrote:
I have to agree with Kathryn, you are nitpicking and your baiting in order to use reverse logic was figured out before you may give me credit for.
Okay, I'm sorry if I came across this way. I was simply voicing my thoughts out loud. The way my mind works is that I think about all the different angles on a situation. And when someone tells me something, I think about it means, and about how all the different parts relate to each other. I engage in intellectual debate as a thinking and learning process, not as a way to score points or "bait". This process of questioning and "nitpicking" is part of how I make sense of the world and try to make sure my ethical principles are consistent. But I understand that it can probably be annoying to others discussing with me. (People used to say that I should be a lawyer, and I wasn't sure whether to take it as a complement or an insult :))
When I raise nitpicking sort of questions like I did at the end of the last thread, it still seems to me that they're relevant questions. There really did used to be Coast Salish spirit-canoe tradition, at least according to some scholarly sources. Does this mean that Sequoyah learned about the spirit-canoe during his trips to British Columbia? I don't know. But I don't see why these details are irrelevant, given that you had claimed that spirit-canoe traditions don't exist in any tribe.
And again, I had the impression that Sequoyah was talking about the alien stuff based on his own purported experience, rather than presenting it as an Indian teaching, but I could be wrong. Either way, again, I don't see why these details are irrelevant.
I appreciate your comments about the importance of the specific community context of a ceremony, language, and so forth. It all makese sense to me, and I take it to heart.
You wrote:
so why would I believe that he somehow has permission over the standard of those communities.
Right, I'm definitely not saying you should believe that. From my perspective, however, I wouldn't rule out the possibility that he received some sort of permission. (I realize that this sort of "innocent until proven guilty" principle can get taken too far, and I actually respect the skeptical approach you guys take. But other criticisms aside, I don't see it as all that unlikely that Sequoyah received some form of permission.)
You wrote:
You seem to be attributing the thoughts of everyone here to me
That's the opposite of my approach. I began by asking a question about something educatedindian had posted. You answered for him. Then I asked you to clarify your stance, and you directed me the website, which seemed to imply that you subscribed to some sort of shared opinion. As far as I'm concerned, every person speaks for him- or herself.
so far you've carried yourself as someone who's not to be trusted and is searching to turn an individuals words around on him to prove the whole board wrong.
Given that this discussion is basically anonymous, I'm not sure that "trust" should play a major role. Realistically, what we have to go by are people's posts, which we can assess on their own merits. If you don't agree with some specific points in my posts, perhaps you can mention them specifically. As for your posts, I highlighted what struck me as an inconsistency between two things you had said. I didn't do this to be mean or disrespectful or literal. I simply pointed it out because it seemed like a point of ambiguity and therefore I thought it merited further clarification.
I look forward to hearing any further thoughts you'd like to share.
Lerner
It's good to see you engaging in the conversation. Lots more communication comes through this way.
On your main point that Sequoyah probably has received some sort of permission....you're probably right. I wouldn't doubt it. But you might recall the points I made about one or two individuals deciding that it's ok for an outsider to speak for the heart of a community. I just don't believe that to be ok. Indian communities are not homogenous in their thinking. There are some that think it's perfectly ok for him to speak for them, but the general consensus....the standard of the community as a whole, not a few individuals whim...decides how appropriate that is.
When I say you need to read a little, this is one of the things I'm talking about. If you read the board some more you'd see that several of the individuals who contribute here talk about how the worst misconceptions about a communities spirituality are usually spread by individuals in that community. Just because someone who's Lakota and would know enough to teach about ceremonies says you have permission...doesn't mean you necessarily have THAT much permission. From what I know about Lakota communities, someone who is given rights or recognition of any sort are usually put before the whole community that's involved somehow and they are recognized publicly. But I've yet to see any Lakota community members come forth and tell us they witnessed this...no one's even heard a rumor about it...I've yet to even see what community these rights were given in. And it goes further than just that tribe, but regardless of all that....I don't see any respectful people from Lakota communities conducting pipe ceremonies and praying on youtube....Earth or anyone please correct me if I'm wrong.
That's something you may wish to consider some more.
Superdog
-
Hi Superdog,
Thanks for your comments. You wrote:
On your main point that Sequoyah probably has received some sort of permission....you're probably right.
Okay, I guess we're in agreement about that part.
Just because someone who's Lakota and would know enough to teach about ceremonies says you have permission...doesn't mean you necessarily have THAT much permission.
Yes, that's my position as well. As I wrote to Earth earlier,
I consider it conceivable, at least, that some Lakota person told him it was okay for him to conduct the ceremony, even if other Lakota people would have disagreed. But like I said, I don't know the details. And I'm not saying that makes it okay. It just seems like something worth taking into account to fill in the picture.
You wrote:
If you read the board some more you'd see that several of the individuals who contribute here talk about how the worst misconceptions about a communities spirituality are usually spread by individuals in that community.
Agreed. For what it's worth, I've been reading about these issues for a number of years, and I'm aware of the dynamics you refer to, but I welcome and accept your suggestion to read and learn more.
...That's something you may wish to consider some more.
I hear what you're saying. Here's how I look at it: It may well be true that most Lakota leaders would look askance at the process through which Sequoyah received permission to perform the sweat lodge. From his perspective, however, he probably feels that he received some sort of permission, he is able to help people through the ceremony, etc. As for the financial arrangement at that Canadian lodge, it does sound complicated. I don't know if it's still going on now (as I pointed out in the other thread, the website has changed), but anyway, I think it was the case that people's fees were primarily for room and board at the lodge (comparable to fees for regular hiking programs and such at the lodge). Whether or not people were paying for ceremony, in a strict sense, I think is something that would have to be investigated in further detail. For instance, from what I understand, people that participated just in a sweat were not charged anything, although I'm sure donations were accepted, as they were at the ceremony I went to in Pine Ridge. This would also be consistent with what Gitz described. I don't have enough knowledge about the situation to comment on all the other allegations, but I suppose I regard the matter as less settled than others here do.
-
Today, it seems we have people who claim to have this right or done this
but unless you can prove it to the people then it does not matter you are in
the wrong. When we have ceremonies we have witness so if a person asks
if you have the right you can say I had four witness and there names are....
so they we can contact them and concur with. If you do not tell the names
of the person who taught you and your witness we know you are lying.
In My country a person who run the lodge will start out by tell the people
how he got that rights and from whom. If this is not done then I would be
worried and back away from that person.
If a person says he is adopted by a tribe i would back away because adoption
does not gove them the right to do ceremonies. As you say the Black guy came
twice a year for four years he learned nothing and has no rights.
-
Recently Arvol Looking Horse issued a statement regarding who can do ceremonies. You must hanbleceya to seek a vision that leads you to Sundance, could take many tries if ever, to get such a vision, you must complete your Sundance committment (minimum 4 yrs) and then be recognized by the tribe as a spiritual person that has done these things. In order to fullfill these things you must have years of background knowledge to understand what your doing ie language, traditions, stories. etc. So again I say there really arent that many qualified people to do ceremonies.
-
Statement in other thread: http://www.newagefraud.org/smf/index.php?topic=2728.msg23605#msg23605