NAFPS Forum
Odds and Ends => Etcetera => Topic started by: Thyme4Mind on March 26, 2015, 02:26:23 am
-
Hey there everybody!
I stumbled across this forum a little while ago and I’m very impressed with the work done here. There are few things that frustrate me more than phoney new-agers who appropriate the culture of others. The focus of the work here is very relevant to my interests, and so after some deliberation I thought it would be beneficial for me to create an account and ask some questions.
So to briefly introduce myself and what I'm all about:
I am a young black male and a few years ago I stumbled across the world of entheogens, or better known as psychedelics. My first experience with psilocybin was absolutely life-changing. I had never considered myself a spiritual person, but after just one experience I was trying to learn as much as I could about these states of altered consciousness and the effect that they have had on religion, spirituality, and culture throughout human history. Soon enough, and I would say inevitably, I became aware of the popularized entheogenic brew known as Yage, or more commonly as Ayahuasca.
After lots of research, I learned much about the cultural significance of Yage in regions of Latin America and the increasing problem of Western appropriation of this medicine. Not only do local communities suffer as a result of the mass influx of tourists traveling to experience Yage under the (paid) supervision of so-called shamans; but due to the online accessibility of the raw materials needed to brew Yage, there is now a widespread trend of ordering "ayahuasca kits" off of the internet and the demand is rapidly exceeding the supply. This has led to deforestation, offset economies, dislocated communities, unsustainable harvesting techniques, and the commodification of a medicine that has been considered sacred by indigenous Latino culture for hundreds and possibly thousands of years.
Needless to say, I avoided partaking in any sort of Yage ceremony for several years before finding myself invited to attend one in the state of Oregon this past summer. The ceremony was not free, and though it was organized by a group of Taitas from Columbia, they were not present for this particular ceremony. I was the only person of color present for the entirety of the experience. I was perturbed, but to be fair the experience surpassed my expectations in a lot of ways.
Entheogens, or psychedelics, have become an incredibly important aspect of my life and life-goals. I have only worked with Ayahuasca that one time I just mentioned, however I am increasingly drawn to it and I would like to continue pursuing a relationship with it in a way that is respectful of the cultures from which it originates.
So this brings me to my main questions for y’all:
I have seen a small handful of conversations on here about Ayahuasca but they all seem to be about the notion of traveling to a Latin American country to drink the brew with a shaman. I am interested in ethnobotany in addition to the subjective experience provided by these plants; meaning that I'm not just interested in taking them, but I am fascinated by the plants themselves and how they grow. There are a number of online vendors who advocate private cultivation of these plants so as to preserve them in their native habitats. I'm wondering what this forum's position is on the use of Ayahuasca and other sacred medicines (eg peyote, san pedro, etc...) for personal growth/self development given that I cultivate them personally. If I were to grow the plants myself, would this be seen as harmful or insensitive? I truly believe in the universal nature of the psychedelic experience for all humans from every wake of life, but I am also deeply aware of the socio-political realities in which we live that make this a complicated issue.
As a side note; there are local plants and fauna which contain the same alkaloids as the plants used in traditional Latino yage brews. Using non-traditional plants to achieve similar results is often called anahuasca (analog of ayahuasca). I can pursue this route, and I would have no ethical qualms about doing so; but unfortunately the species of plants used for traditional ayahuasca brews are hands down the best plants for the job and require much less preparation and work to achieve the desired mixture. So this said, yes I can always use other local plants if need be, but if possible I would like to work with the plants traditionally used by indigenous Latino peoples.
Furthermore, is anyone here aware of any way in which someone like me could connect with legitimate practitioners who are sharing this medicine in an honorable and sustainable way without imposing my own desire to participate? Is there an ethical way to go about this at all? I have been considering the idea of traveling to Latin America to assist with community organizing and environmental/social work, and on the side perhaps I might connect with like-minded individuals who could point me in the right direction. Is this problematic?
Before I end, I want to make a few brief disclaimers. Yes, I am interested in psychedelics as tools to be used as catalysts for profound interpersonal transformation; but I am by no means a New-Ager. Shortly after becoming introduced to psychedelic culture, I was greatly disillusioned by the fact that nearly everyone in the "scene" was white and upper class. The profound insight offered by these medicines seems to have been lost in the West in neon-lit nightclubs and self-serving, over-indulgent, outdoor parties or so called "transformational" festivals. Please know that I have NO part in that. As a person of color I've struggled with this, and I've made it part of my goals to work towards integrating psychedelic medicine into a paradigm where it's utilized by front-line communities that would actually benefit from it; eg communities who have suffered traumas as a result of systemic oppression, who do not have access to, or would not benefit from, traditional Western models of healing. I want to ensure that the cultures who first shared these tools with the world are fairly represented wherever they are being used, and that their customs and beliefs are not taken out of context and packed into a neat little new-age box. Because of their nature to decondition individuals from larger cultural paradigms, I am also interested in using these medicines as tools for decolonization, and Ive been developing and furthering my analysis of neo-colonialism within the context of ayahuasca tourism. (Slightly off topic, here is an interesting article about neo-colonialism and the serious problem of ayahuasca tourism for anyone interested: https://culturaladmixtures.wordpress.com/2015/01/26/amazonian-ayahuasca-tourism-and-millenarian-imperialism-the-story-of-the-ethnobotanical-stewardship-council/ )
I am involved with radical community organizing and anti-racist work as well as environmental work. As a fellow activist and anti-racist please know that I stand with you and the purpose of this forum. Please know that my quest for knowledge is genuine and I ask these questions out of sincerity, not some convoluted desire to convince anyone here that I have a right to these medicines. As an additional disclaimer let me say that I'm not really interested in defending my use of psychedelics either. I understand not everyone here will share the same opinion about them. To many of you, they are just drugs. I understand that perspective, and it’s not my wish to debate the nature of psychedelic drugs and whether or not they can be used in a positive context. I believe that they can, and in light of this I am specifically asking about Yage. As someone who is not from the traditional cultures who birthed Ayahuasca, is it inherently wrong for me to attempt to partake in it in any way at all? If not, what would you see as a viable and respectful way to engage with Ayahuasca and similar medicines?
While I am here I also have one more brief set of questions. While I was researching this forum, I found a large number of websites (mostly operated by white new age healers) which had a lot of negative things to say about NAFPS. Most of it I found to be reactionary and defensive, and nothing short of what I would expect from someone defending their white privilege. This said, I did find repeated claims on several websites that I found a bit concerning and I just wanted to run them by you folks here. Supposedly, according to a variety of people on random websites, former NAFPS websites have shared IP's with well-known racist websites. Is this true? If so, why?
I mean no offense by the above question. I am very aware that groups such as this one, that target white-supremacy in it's lesser known yet more prevalent forms (eg white neo-shamanism), are often targeted and made out to be hate groups. The Black Panthers are a great example. I grew up thinking they were a racist hate group and they were no such thing. The Black Panthers defended black people from racist assault from white-america, and they were non apologetic in their work. Labeling them as a violent hate group was both strategic and reactionary, but nonetheless it worked to dismantle their work. But to be fair, there are a LOT of claims that NAFPS has been shut down many times and is classified by many many people as a hate group in disguise. So, simply for transparency, I’d like to know what this communities response is to these claims--but please don't take it personally.
Thanks so much and my apologies for the long read!
In Solidarity,
-
Since I am one of the Euro/Euro-American members of the board, I will only address part of your post, as I don't feel qualified to discuss the objections ndn persons and nations hold against the recreational use of plants by outsiders. At least not in a project where the majority of activists is ndn.
This said, I did find repeated claims on several websites that I found a bit concerning and I just wanted to run them by you folks here. Supposedly, according to a variety of people on random websites, former NAFPS websites have shared IP's with well-known racist websites. Is this true? If so, why?
I think one answer to this is what you wrote before this question at the beginning of the paragraph:
While I was researching this forum, I found a large number of websites (mostly operated by white new age healers) which had a lot of negative things to say about NAFPS. Most of it I found to be reactionary and defensive, and nothing short of what I would expect from someone defending their white privilege.
Emphasis mine
As far as I know, there are no former NAFPS websites; it was and is http://www.newagefraud.org
The claim we shared the IP with racist websites insinuates these sites were either run by NAFPS or hosted by us. This is – pardon my French – nothing but a load of BS spread by people eager to defend their privilege and wallowing in their feeling of entitledness. Whenever I came across such allegations at Nuage websites, I noticed they prefer to be rather vague by just mentioning „well-known racist websites“, without giving any more details like whom we might have associated with. And of course they can't, because such associations do not exist, did not exist, and never will exist.
I mean no offense by the above question. I am very aware that groups such as this one, that target white-supremacy in it's lesser known yet more prevalent forms (eg white neo-shamanism), are often targeted and made out to be hate groups. The Black Panthers are a great example. I grew up thinking they were a racist hate group and they were no such thing. The Black Panthers defended black people from racist assault from white-america, and they were non apologetic in their work. Labeling them as a violent hate group was both strategic and reactionary, but nonetheless it worked to dismantle their work.
I happen to be old enough to have seen those times, so I'd like to add the BPP was not only a project of self-defence, but also started and maintained lots of social projects in their communities, like food projects, school projects, free medical clinics etc.
But to be fair, there are a LOT of claims that NAFPS has been shut down many times and is classified by many many people as a hate group in disguise.
NAFPS has been shut down far less than the exploiters of ndn peoples and ceremonies will wish for, and those cases far and few between never managed to shut us down for more than a few days at most. These cases were caused by disgruntled Nuagers either seeing themselves considerably hit in the wallet by our research, or by a Nuager being outraged that we dare expose their favoured guru. One example for this is John Lekay who ran a Nuage online mag and came here to have his then latest discoveries in the way of plastic shame-ons sort of conveniently rubberstamped by NAFPS. When this did not quite materialise :cough: and we instead exposed the plastics for what they were, Lekay threw a series of fits using multiple accounts and sock puppets, got blocked from posting, and then turned to our provider claiming without evidence NAFPS had hired a hit team who were beleaguering his house.
We're quite familiar with the allegation we were a hate group, or hate group in disguise. Anyone who's heard of the concept of an alleged 'reverse racism' will know what to think of that. Yup, just imagine, those timber […] and plains […] are getting uppity.... - the world is coming to rack and ruin : sarcasm off :.
Quite incidentially, we happen to be the ones to have received all kinds of threats, including death threats, by interested persons.
There are two threads in this forum which may shed a further light on whom we cooperate with and who uses us as a source of information, and on the other hand who's going out of their way to smear us any way they can:
http://www.newagefraud.org/smf/index.php?topic=1235.0
http://www.newagefraud.org/smf/index.php?topic=1234.0
-
I don't think you will find anyone on here who will ease your conscience regarding what substances you use or why you use them. Personally i think that is your business and no one else's, however i do think it is wise to consider the impact of your actions on others.
-
As a native :-\ i wonder why the outside culture is so out of balance that they want to take from other cultures?
i find it offensive you used the word shaman for our people. I have been with NAFPS for a long time and have heard every kind of
claim against us. As i tell people you don't pay to pray, and if you are using this for prayer i could understand but it sound like
you want it for personal reason
-
Thanks for responses so far
NAFPS has been shut down far less than the exploiters of ndn peoples and ceremonies will wish for, and those cases far and few between never managed to shut us down for more than a few days at most. These cases were caused by disgruntled Nuagers either seeing themselves considerably hit in the wallet by our research, or by a Nuager being outraged that we dare expose their favoured guru. One example for this is John Lekay who ran a Nuage online mag and came here to have his then latest discoveries in the way of plastic shame-ons sort of conveniently rubberstamped by NAFPS. When this did not quite materialise :cough: and we instead exposed the plastics for what they were, Lekay threw a series of fits using multiple accounts and sock puppets, got blocked from posting, and then turned to our provider claiming without evidence NAFPS had hired a hit team who were beleaguering his house.
We're quite familiar with the allegation we were a hate group, or hate group in disguise. Anyone who's heard of the concept of an alleged 'reverse racism' will know what to think of that. Yup, just imagine, those timber […] and plains […] are getting uppity.... - the world is coming to rack and ruin : sarcasm off :.
Quite incidentially, we happen to be the ones to have received all kinds of threats, including death threats, by interested persons.
Thanks for that. I had assumed just as much, and I apologize for having to ask in the first place.
I happen to be old enough to have seen those times, so I'd like to add the BPP was not only a project of self-defence, but also started and maintained lots of social projects in their communities, like food projects, school projects, free medical clinics etc.
Yes, I'm very familiar with the Black Panthers. When I said "defended black people from racist assault" I meant not so much exclusively defense from physical assault as much as I meant the total cultural and political assault. I am very much inspired by their community oriented work.
Thanks for your input :)
I don't think you will find anyone on here who will ease your conscience regarding what substances you use or why you use them. Personally i think that is your business and no one else's, however i do think it is wise to consider the impact of your actions on others.
Fair enough, and very true. I'm very much conflicted over the impact of my actions, and this is why I am here. While I understand the impact of cultural appropriation and the harm it causes, I'm struggling with this. I have not had and do not have any intentions to appropriate sacred symbols or cultural interpretations of these medicines; I consider them tools in as objective a sense of the word, and I do not associate with myself indigenous spirituality. This said, I also understand how I often feel when white people come into black spaces and ask questions such as, "Is it offensive if I do (insert offensive act here)?". Often it can be deeply insulting. In light of this, I deeply apologize if I sort of waltzed in here and offended anyone. I am genuinely seeking clarity, and perhaps my passion has made me more audacious than I should be.
As a native :-\ i wonder why the outside culture is so out of balance that they want to take from other cultures?
i find it offensive you used the word shaman for our people. I have been with NAFPS for a long time and have heard every kind of
claim against us. As i tell people you don't pay to pray, and if you are using this for prayer i could understand but it sound like
you want it for personal reason
I sincerely apologize that I've offended you. I tried very hard not to use the word shaman myself, and (as far as I know) I only used the word in reference to the fact that many new-agers will seek out "shamans" to experience ayahuasca and other ceremonies. Again, my deepest apologies.
If I can respond though, this is exactly why I have come to this community asking about this. I understand that these medicines have strong cultural ties and I have no wish to disrespect that. To re-iterate, I feel that these medicines are tools for self-exploration. They produce an experience that transcends human constructs and cultural paradigms, and I have been earnest in my attempts not to appropriate cultural symbols or interpretations and apply them to my own experiences. I am interested in Yage as a powerful tool. Perhaps it is wrong to try and separate the tool from the culture, and if this is the case then I can understand and I hope I caused no harm by being inquisitive.
Also, like I said in my first post, I have no intention of "paying to pray". I will never again pay for a ceremony, and I am disillusioned with myself for having done so even just once. I am interested in cultivating these medicines myself in a sustainable way. This entails the entire process from seed. My use of entheogens is not for recreation. I use them for prayer, for spiritual growth, and self-improvement.
-------
Thanks again everyone. I feel that so far it is pretty clear how the community feels about this issue and I want you to know that I take your wishes very seriously. Though in this post I have tried to clarify my position slightly, I am NOT trying to come across as defensive nor am I trying to justify my actions. I just want to be as transparent as possible in regards to my intentions in addition to what it is I'm actually asking.
So far I still feel conflicted. I'm getting the general feeling that the use of plant medicines by outsiders is discouraged altogether and if this is the case I completely respect it, and will discontinue my use/pursuit of any entheogen which has cultural ties to native cultures. I'm still unsure, however, as it seems like some of you are saying slightly different things.
I have to run, so I will add more this post later tonight and edit much of what I've written. I just wanted to get my basic thoughts up here to see if it might be helpful at all in understanding where I'm coming from.
Thanks so much for the responses, and I hope I haven't shown any disrespect because of my actions.
-
I understand that these medicines have strong cultural ties and I have no wish to disrespect that. To re-iterate, I feel that these medicines are tools for self-exploration. They produce an experience that transcends human constructs and cultural paradigms, and I have been earnest in my attempts not to appropriate cultural symbols or interpretations and apply them to my own experiences. I am interested in Yage as a powerful tool. Perhaps it is wrong to try and separate the tool from the culture, and if this is the case then I can understand and I hope I caused no harm by being inquisitive.
Also, like I said in my first post, I have no intention of "paying to pray". I will never again pay for a ceremony, and I am disillusioned with myself for having done so even just once. I am interested in cultivating these medicines myself in a sustainable way. This entails the entire process from seed. My use of entheogens is not for recreation. I use them for prayer, for spiritual growth, and self-improvement.
As far as I know, Ayahuasca/Yage in its traditional environment is no tool for self-exploration at all. In a traditional indigenous context, Ayahuasca is used rather as a diagnostic tool to explore which disease the patient suffers from. It is therefore not consumed by patients, but only by medicine persons. So any use of the brew which makes patients or rather clients consume it, differs considerably from indigenous use.
Apart from this, introducing the concept of self-optimising (as in 'spiritual growth' and 'self-improvement') into the equation is a rather 'white' thing. It is not just 'exploring', but exploring with a personal gain, and just another variant of 'gimme, gimme, gimme'. You also mention you are using indigenous medicinal plants for prayer. There is a huge 'but': these religion do not belong to you, and indigenous religions – as one of the few things which can be said on a general basis – do not mission. Period.
In South American countries, there are persons of predominant indigenous descent who have lost ties to the ethnicities their ancestors belonged to, and in many cases they don't even know what ethnicities these were. This is due to Euro colonialism e.g. enslaving indgenous persons to make them work far from their regions of origin etc. So there is a social layer of persons estranged from indigenous customs where the use of indigenous medicinal plants is practiced, albeit often in ways contradicting indigenous use. One example of this is in fact Ayahuasca. In this non-traditional context, Ayahuasca is not seen as a diagnostic tool, but is said to be a remedy against various diseases. Usually, this clientele is supplied by peddlers selling the bottled preparation in local markets.
White Ayahuasca tourism is predominantly based on non-traditional use. There is a large number of so-called retreats in the market looking only for affluent Euro/Euro-American customers (and prices consequently vary considerably between a domestic non-traditional use and fees charged from Euro tourists). Usually, these retreats are right in the middle of nowhere, so that tourists depend on transport offered by the retreat to get back to some small town in the jungle from where they can take a bus to the nearest railway station, from where they can continue to a town with an international airport. This not only indicates what local laws think of providing Euros with drugs, but it will also slightly disencourage customers from protesting too much if they find practices at the retreat somewhat objectionable...
Although such retreats will usually have a person native to the respective country to deal with the tourists and keep them supplied during their stay, many of the retreats are in fact owned by Europeans or Euro-Americans skimming the profits and lining their own pockets.
In retreats frequented by Euro tourists, clients will usually receive the brew every other day which also is not in accordance with traditional indigenous use. Often, retreats advertise the brew will be able to cure even severe diseases like cancer, Parkinson's, AIDS etc. It is not difficult to see that such promises may attract persons in fatal conditions prepared to clinging to straws.
Another aspect is that some plants in medicinal use in indigenous tradition have become endangered by their exploitation by and for a Euro market, and/or are not available for the indigenous population.
Our friends over at Psiram have an article on Ayahuasca in their English wiki where you can read all this in more detail: https://www.psiram.com/en/index.php/Ayahuasca .
-
I've completely re-edited this post.
I just want to thank you all for providing me some insight and perspective, and I want to apologize for taking up space here and for coming to this community in a way that I think was very problematic. I'd like to hold myself accountable and just say that I know how frustrating it is having to explain to someone how they are oppressing you...it's not cool, and so for that I sincerely apologize.
In as few words as possible, you have assured me in what I feel that I already knew and simply failed to fully acknowledge. Without the express consent of indigenous peoples, it makes no sense to appropriate your medicines, strip them of their cultural context, and use them for my own purposes regardless of my intent, spiritual or otherwise. I will not be engaging with Yage or other native medicines (peyote, san pedro, salvia divinorum, etc...) and will instead focus my attention on other entheogens which are both local and are not considered closely guarded sacred practices by colonized and otherwise oppressed communities.
Again, I apologize for any harm I have caused by my insensitive approach.
-
Thanks for apologising, although I think it's not quite necessary: your questions were asked in a respectful way and you were prepared to listen to what indigenous people think of the use of medicinal plants outside of the cultures traditionally using them. And then you did some thinking. Thanks for that.
In fact, educating the public about practices of plastics, about how they might endanger themselves by relying on plastics, about what harm they may do to ndn nations is one of our fields of activity. It's good to see it's not all Nuagers out there who get miffed at us as they feel we want to make them give up their favourite toy, but also people prepared to listen.
-
In reading over Praxis' posts and the responses he received, I'm left feeling that there needs to be some clarification -- well, for me if not for Praxis!
As I understood him, Praxis was saying that he'd experienced something personally useful to him spiritually upon taking Yage/Ayahuasca, and he wanted to know whether he would be disrespectful to any NDNs (and/or specifically those tribal groups that use Yage/Ayahuasca traditionally in their cultures) by personally cultivating and using Yage/Ayahuasca for himself.
I don't understand what would be a problem with that? A plant grows, people of any culture may encounter it and find it useful individually or in a group. Maize was domesticated by NDN peoples, as well as the potato -- but people worldwide now grow and consume both and so far as I know, this is not considered to be culturally offensive to the NDN tribes who originally cultivated them. As well, quite a few medications in the US Pharmacoepia have been derived from plants that were originally used by NDN people, often for the same purposes as the derivatives are used today -- is this all culturally insensitive?
If Praxis is not attempting to replicate a specific NDN ceremony with his usage of Yage/Ayahuasca but instead finds it helpful to his personal spiritual development, where is the insensitivity?
Maybe there should be a thread about this general topic ....
-
I think it's probably appropriate you receive an answer from another Euro. As Praxis pointed out it is something of a pain having to explain to someone that they are discriminating and why....
Well, you do see the difference between plants grown for food and those harvested for use as medicines or during ceremony?
For one, plants domesticated (although in the case of maize e.g., it was far more than simply 'domesticating') will be available in larger amounts. Plants harvested for medicinal use and use during ceremony will only be available in small(er) amounts; some of them also need a particular climate, so they don't grow throughout the Americas or in Europe, but just in more or less restricted areas.
Food plants have been brought back to Europe and have been adapted to climates here, or in the Middle East, Asia etc., and have been grown here since centuries. Therefore, they are available in amounts large enough to allow widespread consumption, even though Euros were stupid enough to ignore the multitude of variants (e.g. maize, potatoes) and imported just a few.
Using derivatives to produce substances for medical use of course is not culturally insensitive. It does not claim much or most of a particular harvest for Euro use. On the other hand, derivatives have been worked at in order to provide a substance which is easier to administer, since the effective agents in plants may differ substantially, e.g. depending on the soil they were grown on etc.
In the case at hands, Ayahuasca traditionally has never been used to further a 'personal spiritual development'. Such use I would see as disrespectful and insensitive. No matter whether this use does or does not imitate indigenous ceremonies. It is also perhaps a good idea to pay attention in which way particular plants actually were and are used by indigenous nations instead of just seeing a possibility to get an exotic high and then gild this with an alleged 'personal growth' one is seeking. Apart from this, such an argument may be the initial half a mile down the road to catastrophe, or up sh*t's creek... If and when people want to get high, then why don't they just go ahead and why can't they admit this freely? Why does it have to be masked as an alleged 'personal growth'? Using drugs with this fake argument is at least part of what keeps pushers in business.
Which leads to another aspect of why this is culturally insensitive: Euros are depleting plants which effects their use by and availability to indigenous nations. That this, as in the case of Ayahuasca, is done to provide some Euros with an illegal high and allow Euro pushers to make enormous profits, adds insult to injury.
-
We already have threads on here about why spiritual tourism and personal use of Ayahuasca, outside of a traditional setting, is extremely upsetting to the people whose medicines and ceremonies are being misappropriated. Changing details of the ceremonies, or not knowing the ceremonies and just experimenting, none of these things make it better.
Please read the main page of our website. Sacred medicines - the plants as well as the spirits and ways that accompany them - are not intended for individual use outside of that specific cultural, family and community setting. The medicines are part of a complete, cultural matrix, which includes checks and balances to keep people from getting lost in ego and illusion. To disrespect the wishes of the Elders who want to keep these medicines for their community, who want to keep the usage safe so it's not made illegal, is profoundly offensive. How can you expect good spiritual results from such disrespect?
Every culture has its frauds and scammers, willing to sell out for the right price. But traditional people from the tribes have been very clear how they feel about this. It's just that they usually don't get heard by mainstream people, and are drowned out by all the exploiters.
Elders in our communities have had people from the Ayahuasca-using tribes sob and beg them, and us, for help in stopping this misappropriation. The appropriation is damaging their culture, offending the spirits and risking their basic cultural survival. All of you who defend tripping on Ayahuasca outside of traditional context, and against the wishes of the people who have been entrusted with these ways, are being selfish. You might as well drop acid in the park. You are harming the people whose ways you steal, and angering the very spirits you would seek help from. It's not going to end well.
-
I don't think my input is really necessary but I just want to echo what others said. In the end my intention doesn't really matter if I am creating harm in the process. The fact of the matter is that it's offensive to use these tools out of context and by doing so I contribute to the continued marginalization of several different cultures. Think of the last time somebody hurt you and they just couldn't see what the big fuss was all about. Think of how frustrating and dis-empowering that felt, that your own feelings meant nothing because someone else simply didn't think you should be "complaining". It doesn't matter what I, as a non NDN person think is right or wrong, it's about being accountable to people who you have privilege over whether that privilege is legitimate or not.
I also think it's important to distinguish between cultural appropriation and cultural diffusion. There's a huge difference there and one implies consent while the other invisibilizes and oppresses entire groups of people.
This might be inappropriate of me...and please let me know if I've stepped over the line here, but I just want to address this:
In the case at hands, Ayahuasca traditionally has never been used to further a 'personal spiritual development'. Such use I would see as disrespectful and insensitive. No matter whether this use does or does not imitate indigenous ceremonies. It is also perhaps a good idea to pay attention in which way particular plants actually were and are used by indigenous nations instead of just seeing a possibility to get an exotic high and then gild this with an alleged 'personal growth' one is seeking. Apart from this, such an argument may be the initial half a mile down the road to catastrophe, or up sh*t's creek... If and when people want to get high, then why don't they just go ahead and why can't they admit this freely? Why does it have to be masked as an alleged 'personal growth'? Using drugs with this fake argument is at least part of what keeps pushers in business.
I understand 100% where you are coming from, and I agree that it is disrespectful and insensitive to use Yage or any such medicine out of it's cultural context. But I don't believe that simply because someone is using these medicines outside of their intended context, however disrespectful and wrong that may be, their intentions can be boiled down to the desire to get high. I am not speaking for everyone, because the sad truth is that yes there are indeed many people who fit this label and they have no regard for culture or healing and are simply looking for new and "exotic" highs. In circles that I associate with we call these people burnouts, and these types of people are almost always shown the error of their ways and their offenses when they abuse these medicines. But the fact of the matter is that I know why I was attracted to ayahuasca. I was drawn to it because I truly believed that it could help me to become a better person. And even though my actions were disrespectful and I'm doing everything I can now to be accountable, that doesn't change the fact that I believe my experience with ayahuasca did help to make me a better person. My experience offered me profound insight into my life and I'm incredibly grateful for it. Does this justify the damage I caused? No. But if I can be honest I think by making broad generalizations like, "non-ndn ayahuasca seekers are just trying to get high and they're just using personal development as an excuse", you make people defensive and reactionary who might otherwise be more inclined to listen to what you have to say. I have seen ayahuasca cure drug and alcohol addictions that have lasted years in just a single session. That was several years ago and the people I speak of are still entirely sober. I've seen Ayahuasca and San Pedro turn people's lives around entirely for the better. These people had no right to these medicines and I'm NOT arguing that, but just because people are using it outside of it's intended cultural context doesn't make their intentions any different. The expression goes, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" so please understand I'm not defending their actions, but most people who I know personally who are attracted to ayahuasca are people with good intentions who are only trying to improve their lives and find meaning in a world that seems stripped of meaning. Should they be looking to ndn cultures for meaning? Hell no! I've also seen people who should ABSOLUTELY NOT be taking these drugs AT ALL, and more often than not they pay a heavy price for their meddling in things they should not be meddling with.
But I know the "psychedelic" line of thought and Ive seen how privilege can infiltrate that. As soon as you suggest that their intentions are "impure" they will regard your entire perspective as moot because in their eyes you don't even know why they are taking ayahuasca in the first place. Many of them might have sought out ayahuasca specifically to overcome an addiction, so for you to suggest that they're simply pursuing an exotic high, they perceive you as reactionary and illogical. I'm not saying their line of thought makes sense but privilege doesnt make sense. And though I get where you're coming from I don't think it's helpful to make broad generalizations like that. I can admit I was in the wrong to co-opt ayahuasca, but that doesn't make me a "druggie". If you start with a reactionary generalization, you'll get one in return. How will someone understand how their actions are offensive when their understanding of the issue is based entirely on emotional generalizations?
I know I'm in your space, I know I wasn't invited. I'm sorry if anything I've said above seemed like an attack or an overly defensive post, I definitely didn't mean for it to be. I want to be the best ally that I can be, and as a person of color I want you to know that while our situations might be different I am right there with you. Just please be aware that we all have different ways of engaging with the world and we all see things differently. I personally believe that using something outside of it's intended context without consent is wrong and there is no excuse for it. But I equally believe that someone who steals a stethoscope from a doctor and uses it on themselves, while misguided in their efforts for self care, they still intend to listen to their heart. The motive is still self care, even if the stethoscope was designed to be used by a doctor. The person stealing it is clearly in the wrong and they risk mis-diagnosing themselves and getting into all sorts of trouble, but that doesn't change what their intention is. It doesn't mean that the only reason they stole the stethoscope was for the thrill of stealing. Sure, I bet there are lots of people out there who steal medical tools for the thrill of it( ::)), but their mis-use catches up with them. Do you see the point I'm trying to illustrate? It's not that I disagree with where you're coming from or I that I'm trying to justify or make light of cultural appropriation, I'm just saying that just because somebody is on the wrong side of the fence that doesn't mean their intentions are corrupt or evil. Lots of people are looking to ayahuasca for reasons it was not intended for, but nonetheless it is changing their lives and more often than not in a positive way. As soon as you tell these people that they're only looking for exotic highs you lose them, and I guess that's all I was trying to say with so many words.
Ive taken up plenty of space, I'm sorry to jump on you like that Ingeborg and I'm sorry for such a long post about something rather semantic and personal. I just felt it was an important distinction and I wanted to point it out.
Thanks again.
-
Praxis, I think your point is well taken as to assumptions about intent -- had you not returned and made it, I was about to on your behalf :)
I'd also like to direct some thought to Praxis' plan to cultivate ayahuasca personally, which then would not deplete the plant from its natural habitat and interfere with traditional NDN use in those places. Would the same objection in terms of effect on the local traditional culture apply?
And I feel that it's important to point out as well that ayahuasca is just one of a number of plants used in important ceremonial ways by NDN cultures on this continent. Cacao is another, and yet it has been widely marketed for quite a long time. Both maize and tobacco have been used ceremonially, and still are in some NDN cultures, and yet they are disseminated worldwide. Cedar can also be cited for its ceremonial use, and yet cedar is used in non-ceremonial ways by many people (furniture being one).
Further, reference was made to the spirits that accompany the plants ... my understanding when growing up was that all plants are a living spirit (as differentiated from having a spirit that "accompanied" it) and an individual should be mindful of that, regardless of the reason for the taking of the plant. Same as for animals. Has anyone thought to ask ayahuasca spirit whether it is amenable to use outside the ceremonial context of the cultures it grows in proximity to? It seems to me that this should be the first order of business out of respect.
Lastly, suppose ayahuasca was discovered to have within its properties the cure for cancer. Irrespective of the fact that the world-at-large *would take it*, permission or not, what would be the indigenous view on sharing it?
-
Hey 4bears,
I think some other folks here might be more qualified to answer your questions, but I'll do my best to share my perspective.
I'd also like to direct some thought to Praxis' plan to cultivate ayahuasca personally, which then would not deplete the plant from its natural habitat and interfere with traditional NDN use in those places. Would the same objection in terms of effect on the local traditional culture apply?
I would never be able to grow these plants myself in the first place if it were not for globalization and the commodification of NDN culture. Even though I can access these plants for free (seed sharing), somewhere down the line somebody made a profit off of these plants by selling cuttings/seeds and they did so against the will of Yage-using people. Even if I never spend a dime on these plants and grow them myself I am continuing that legacy of taking without asking. There are important sacred and cultural meaning attached to the plants themselves, not just the ceremonies, and when I take the plants and use them for my own purposes (especially without asking) I'm essentially saying that I don't care what indigenous people think and I don't respect their beliefs, and that my desire for the plants is more important than their culture and how they feel about it. I don't want to be that person. As soon as my actions create harm, specifically with these plants, any potentially positive motive that I had is no longer relevant. My personal healing should not come at the expense of others.
And I feel that it's important to point out as well that ayahuasca is just one of a number of plants used in important ceremonial ways by NDN cultures on this continent. Cacao is another, and yet it has been widely marketed for quite a long time. Both maize and tobacco have been used ceremonially, and still are in some NDN cultures, and yet they are disseminated worldwide. Cedar can also be cited for its ceremonial use, and yet cedar is used in non-ceremonial ways by many people (furniture being one).
I've wondered this myself on many occasions. Firstly, I think this is a slippery slope and an easy way to justify continued appropriation. Simply because we have successfully appropriated in the past doesn't mean that it wasn't hurtful and that we should continue doing so. Maize, tobacco, cedar, and cacao might be widely used out of context but they are not as "fresh" as ayahuasca. Meaning that the appropriation of Ayahuasca is a relatively new phenomena and it has direct impacts on people RIGHT NOW. It might not be any better or worse, but I have more of an opportunity to halter the appropriation of ayahuasca than I do with say tobacco which has been globalized to a massive extent. The wrongs of the past don't justify the wrongs of the present. Also, who's to say that some ndn folk aren't still upset about the appropriation of cedar or cacao? Just because it happened a long(ish) time ago doesn't make it any less relevant. That's just my take on this, perhaps someone else here with more knowledge could shed some more light.
Further, reference was made to the spirits that accompany the plants ... my understanding when growing up was that all plants are a living spirit (as differentiated from having a spirit that "accompanied" it) and an individual should be mindful of that, regardless of the reason for the taking of the plant. Same as for animals. Has anyone thought to ask ayahuasca spirit whether it is amenable to use outside the ceremonial context of the cultures it grows in proximity to? It seems to me that this should be the first order of business out of respect.
I like this thought, and once again I'll defer to someone else here to respond to this directly. I will just say that certain well known new-agers and academics who promote the use of ayahuasca by westerners often justify appropriation by saying that the spirit of ayahuasca has a will of it's own and its appearance in the west is an attempt at a sort of wake-up call for such a backwards culture. I think this kind of logic is over-simplistic. If we follow this line of logic then who is to distinguish between what is to be shared freely and what is to be kept sacred to a particular culture? This kind of thinking allows for westerners and others to take freely without question, and justify it by saying that its' the will of the plant-spirit. It erases any sense of responsibility or accountability that we might otherwise have. I see this as a problem because then everything becomes up for grabs, and non NDN people have just one more excuse to use to justify their sense of entitlement. Should they desire a plant or medicine that isn't theres they can take it without asking, and when confronted about it "Well it came to me! The plant has a spirit and it wants to be shared to be used for healing the world. etc....." It erases the fact that we took in the first place, without asking either the culture from which we are stealing or the spirits of which we use to justify our claim. Now if Psychotria Viridis and B. Caapi started growing spontaneously in my backyard, then things might be a bit different. Then perhaps I could claim that the Ayahuasca spirit is attempting to spread and share itself for the benefit of mankind. But right now the only way for me to obtain these plants is to physically take them; they have to be imported or sent by someone who at one point had them imported.
Lastly, suppose ayahuasca was discovered to have within its properties the cure for cancer. Irrespective of the fact that the world-at-large *would take it*, permission or not, what would be the indigenous view on sharing it?
Ayahuasca very likely does not cure cancer. It is a remarkable healer in a number of other ways, but I don't believe there is substantial evidence to show that it is a cure-all for many life-threatening physiological illnesses. My opinion is that any effect that can be obtained through drinking ayahuasca can be obtained through the ingestion of any ayahuasca analog. Find local plants with the same active alkaloids, and I promise they are everywhere, and use them if you are drawn to ayahuasca for it's healing properties. Just be conscious and grateful of where this knowledge comes from, and that as non-ndn people we are still using plants and harvesting techniques that don't belong to us. As long as we are on colonized land we need to be very very careful how we explore these things. But that would be the alternative I would suggest, unless folks here find that even the idea of analogs is problematic.
Just my .02 cents! Thanks for your input, 4Bears :) I've been thinking a lot about those very questions, and these are some of the conclusions I've come to personally. I dunno if they're right or not but this is how I've come to understand these finer points. I'm sure other folks have their own thoughts on the matter.
-
4Bears, it's obvious you're exploiting Praxis and the questions s/he asked for your own agenda. This is as dishonest as it is 'mighty white'. You also seem to believe this way you will prompt Praxis into leading this discussion for you to save you some effort and conveniently take you out of the line of fire while putting Praxis into it. This also happens to be a traditional white strategy, BTW.
There have been enough posts stating that some things simply are not ours to take, or rather rip off. Period. So let's not act like the typical, run-of-the-mill honkie who starts whining „gimme, gimme, gimme“ and then throw multiple fits in turn with some unsubstantiated claims thrown in for good measure.
There is no – in ciphers: none, zero, eff-all – evidence justifying to the assumption Ayahuasca may be helpful in any way curing cancer. Nor AIDS, Parkinson's, kidney or liver diseases, diabetes, leukemia, and if you mean to overcome impotence, I'd also rather recommend different medications. These claims are simply sales pitches thought up by wily plastics, snake-oil vendors, and pushers seeking to fleece desperate persons suffering from severe illness and grasping for straws. As is often the case with altmed 'remedies', they aren't a cure-all to be employed to cure all diseases, but rather cure all the financial problems of the vendor. Promoting such false and dangerous claims is nothing but wrong and doing the job of unscrupulous altmed snake-oil vendors and plastics who are not interested in curing people but screwing them.
And please also refrain from trying and making any points on behalf of Praxis who is very well capable of discussing their issues without any white assistance or self-appointed white spokesperson. This is not the place to act out one's 'great white father' fantasies.
-
4Bears, it's obvious you're exploiting Praxis and the questions s/he asked for your own agenda. This is as dishonest as it is 'mighty white'. You also seem to believe this way you will prompt Praxis into leading this discussion for you to save you some effort and conveniently take you out of the line of fire while putting Praxis into it. This also happens to be a traditional white strategy, BTW.
With all due respect, Ingeborg, the above is NOT true -- not one single word of it. It is NOT what I am doing or had/have any intent to do, and your assumptions here are just outrageous to say the least and apparently placed in order to provoke a conflict. In addition, I resent your name-calling (i.e., "mighty white").
In fact, if you will please look back, I commented in my initial post on this subject that perhaps the subject deserved its own thread as I didn't intend to intrude on Praxis' discussion as such. His questions prompted questions of my own, that is all. Apparently someone agreed with me and now it has been moved to its own thread.
There have been enough posts stating that some things simply are not ours to take, or rather rip off. Period. So let's not act like the typical, run-of-the-mill honkie who starts whining „gimme, gimme, gimme“ and then throw multiple fits in turn with some unsubstantiated claims thrown in for good measure.
Where did I do this? I never said that there are not things that are not ours (assuming you mean "white people") to take/rip off. I understand, probably better than you do, that this is the case in particular with NDN people.
There is no – in ciphers: none, zero, eff-all – evidence justifying to the assumption Ayahuasca may be helpful in any way curing cancer. Nor AIDS, Parkinson's, kidney or liver diseases, diabetes, leukemia, and if you mean to overcome impotence, I'd also rather recommend different medications. These claims are simply sales pitches thought up by wily plastics, snake-oil vendors, and pushers seeking to fleece desperate persons suffering from severe illness and grasping for straws. As is often the case with altmed 'remedies', they aren't a cure-all to be employed to cure all diseases, but rather cure all the financial problems of the vendor. Promoting such false and dangerous claims is nothing but wrong and doing the job of unscrupulous altmed snake-oil vendors and plastics who are not interested in curing people but screwing them.
Where did I assume that Ayahuasca has properties for curing cancer, etc.? I didn't say that it did. What I said was "suppose it did"? That means "use your imagination" to envision that possibility and if that were the case, how would it then be viewed by the tribes that currently hold its usage for ceremony and traditional purposes only? As the question is posed as a "for instance", possibly the answer can't be addressed, but I felt it a worthy question to ask because I -- at least -- would like to define as clearly as possible what the present issues are and what the future issues may be.
I am not familiar with Ayahuasca prior to its mention in Praxis' post, I've done a quick Google on it and learned a little but most of the sites seem to be Nu-Age and I don't care about their views on it -- what I *do* know is that medical and other scientific researchers around the world are exploring the forests of Central/South America with hope of finding medicinal plants and other beings that can provide new and better treatments for illnesses. (Perhaps I should add that these treatments would also be available to NDN people ....) I am anticipating that any tribes in those regions might at any time be facing the question I raised using Ayahuasca as an example "what if". Maybe already have and I don't know about it or am not remembering it.
And please also refrain from trying and making any points on behalf of Praxis who is very well capable of discussing their issues without any white assistance or self-appointed white spokesperson. This is not the place to act out one's 'great white father' fantasies.
Oh Ingeborg, why -- you just did that yourself! If Praxis has any problem with anyone making a comment in support of any point of his, he can speak for himself and doesn't need you or anyone else to be his mouthpiece. I don't believe it is I who is in any way attempting to be a "self-appointed white spokesperson" or acting out a "great white father" fantasy here. I thought he raised some good questions and there were some things I agreed with and simply indicated so.
-
This is what happens when NON_NATIVES get involved with things they don't understand.
-
Ingeborg, I appreciate your concern but if I felt like I was being exploited then I would say something. I had no problem answering 4Bears questions. This isn't a forum for white people to prove who is the best ally, or who is a better white person. It is also a traditionally "white thing to do" for white people to take up space and time by being openly hostile towards one another in an attempt to show off how politically correct they are. This isn't a competition and such hostilities detract from an otherwise peaceful exchange. If you felt like 4Bears behaved in a way that you found problematic, send them a PM and explain why. Don't do it in the middle of our conversation and please don't speak for me. It's aggressive and incredibly disruptive.
This is what happens when NON_NATIVES get involved with things they don't understand.
What is? As far as I can see nothing has happened here other than the exchange of words.
If possible I'd like to request that this thread be locked. It's becoming hostile and I don't think it's helpful or necessary, and as far as I can tell nobody has anything valuable to add.
-
well thank you for your judgement ;D
-
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic.
If you are, I wasn't trying to be snarky. If something was done I'd love to rectify it, but otherwise all I see here is a few questions being asked and then answered by the community. I got my answer and I understand it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe anyone was harmed in the process.
I didn't intent to pass judgement and I meant no disrespect, this thread is just clearly no longer relevant and that's all I meant by my above comment. Apologies.
If you're not, please just disregard me--it's still early AM for me :P
EDIT: I'd also just like to apologize to Ingeborg for my defensive post. I understand why it is that you said what you did, and I shouldn't have reacted in the the way that I did.
This said, I still feel that this thread should be locked in light of the fact that the original questions I posed have all been answered and this is a sensitive topic that doesn't really need to keep getting brought up.
-
We don't generally lock threads for becoming contentious; we just ask people to behave respectfully. :)
I also found 4Bears continuing to ask basic questions rather than doing his own heavy lifting kind of annoying, especially as some of the questions seemed to me to be geared at trying to learn more about how to exploit Ayahuasca. He had been asked to read the threads we already have here on spiritual tourism and Ayahuasca, and it doesn't seem he did so. It also tends to cause problems when non-Natives choose screen names, like "4Bears" that could lead new users to mistakenly believe they are speaking to someone who is Native. No one culture owns bears. Or the number 4. But on an Native-owned forum for discussing issues that impact Natives I think it's kind of misleading. While I won't speak for Ingeborg, I assumed that's one of the reasons she brought up his being white.
I think the issue of consumption of Ayahuasca by those outside of the traditional, Indigenous communities was settled as soon as the people from those Indigenous communities said they're not OK with it. It's their call, their cultural property, not any of ours. Of course there are non-traditional people who have sold out and exploited their culture, but this forum is concerned with preserving and protecting traditional ways and respecting the wishes of those who preserve those ways for their people. As we have been asked specifically, by distraught people from those communities, to help stop use of Ayahuasca by outsiders, the issue is clear-cut for our established members and when people ignore that boundary it can get kind of emotional.
-
We don't generally lock threads for becoming contentious; we just ask people to behave respectfully. :)
I also found 4Bears continuing to ask basic questions rather than doing his own heavy lifting kind of annoying, especially as some of the questions seemed to me to be geared at trying to learn more about how to exploit Ayahuasca. He had been asked to read the threads we already have here on spiritual tourism and Ayahuasca, and it doesn't seem he did so.
"...trying to learn more about how to exploit Ayahuasca"??? How in the heck did you possibly pick up that idea? My questions were geared toward clarifying whether or not tribes such as those who use Ayahuasca traditionally, would share a sacred medicine like that if there were a true medical need for it in the world. I think this is a good question, and a potential problem for some tribes down the road, and it doesn't pertain only or specifically to Ayahuasca.
Also, I didn't perceive that I was being asked to go and read the threads about spiritual tourism and Ayahuasca, I thought that suggestion was directed toward Praxis. I will go and find these threads and do the reading, although I've already done some on Nu-Age sites ... sheesh, just run a Google search and there is a lot out there.
... It also tends to cause problems when non-Natives choose screen names, like "4Bears" that could lead new users to mistakenly believe they are speaking to someone who is Native. No one culture owns bears. Or the number 4. But on an Native-owned forum for discussing issues that impact Natives I think it's kind of misleading. While I won't speak for Ingeborg, I assumed that's one of the reasons she brought up his being white.
The name 4Bears or something similar has been in my online usage for 20 years, relates to personal things and I didn't think anything about using it here. It's clear from my profile that I am not NDN. However, I will change the name if I can do that -- I'll check after I complete this post. This subject really ought to be in a Sticky at the top of the New Members page, if it isn't already, and maybe the forum can be set up so that new people signing up can be "vetted" first to make sure they are not NDN and attempting to use some name that might suggest to someone that they are NDN. Good luck with that ... verifications can be the pits, been there and done that.
Oh, and also I'm a "she" not a "he".
... I think the issue of consumption of Ayahuasca by those outside of the traditional, Indigenous communities was settled as soon as the people from those Indigenous communities said they're not OK with it. It's their call, their cultural property, not any of ours. Of course there are non-traditional people who have sold out and exploited their culture, but this forum is concerned with preserving and protecting traditional ways and respecting the wishes of those who preserve those ways for their people. As we have been asked specifically, by distraught people from those communities, to help stop use of Ayahuasca by outsiders, the issue is clear-cut for our established members and when people ignore that boundary it can get kind of emotional.
I am actually behind this 100%. It was not and is not my intention to try to get Ayahuasca (or any other sacred medicine) away from a tribe. At this point in time, it seems that with regard to Ayahuasca, that's going to be locking the barn door after the horse has been stolen, but that doesn't mean it's not worthwhile to try to curb the spread.
Historically, the fact is that not every NDN medicine or food plant was stolen by Euros. Often, due to friendships and alliances, these things were shared by NDNs with Euros and this type of cross-cultural sharing/borrowing has probably gone on when different groups meet, all the way back in time. I think it is a lot tougher trying to nail down this or that plant or other substance or being, from becoming shared, than it is to keep a ceremony solely within a tribal group.
-
Changed my name from 4Bears to RunsWithIndians :) It's true, and hope that works here.
-
cute! The Four Bear family Thanks you, we have Four Bears from Three Affiliated Tribes and from Cheyenne River,
so "what Indians do you run with"?
As Native people we shared many things but that means they don't come with obligations for uses, we think everyone is respectful
and has good hearts but is not the way of the world. We find today so many are on this instance fix, like a drug addict, fix me now,
We want everything and want to claim everything and thing we have rights to everything but that is not true.
We have old laws on how thing are to do be done and all of these old laws, still exist today
-
First of all: thanks for your words, Praxis.
While I won't speak for Ingeborg, I assumed that's one of the reasons she brought up his being white.
That was indeed one of the reasons. The nick „4Bears“ may be mistaken for an indigenous person posting. This also leaves much room for further – errrm: interested posters jumping in with the argument: „See? Even the Natives themselves...“.
Not that, as an aside, the nick of „RunningWithIndians“ doesn't equally leave room for interpretation... Just what about this nick gives me the idea it might have been chosen to spite us? (As in: 'If you take exception at me posing as „4Bears“, I'll show you I can come up with more nicks you probably like even less...')
As far as RunningWith4IndianBears is concerned – congrats. This is the first time someone is whining 'reverse racism' in my direction in this forum. Party-time, folks – all drinks are on me!
I also still haven't quite figured out why a person would take exception at the term 'mighty white' while a word like 'honkies' passes by unnoticed. So it is no surprise that you, RW4IB, also don't see a difference between 'speaking up' and 'speaking for'. Calling people on some BS they present is not 'speaking for'.
To clarify matters: as far as I am concerned, Praxis is very well able to speak for himself, and I don't plan to speak for him or any other non-white person. Still, your posts aimed at letting Praxis know that the ndn people objecting the use of medicine plants perhaps don't quite know what they're on about and certainly do not see the 'whole picture', and to hide behind his back when the flak would be going. Such a strategy is dishonest and dishonourable.
But I agree it may be come in quite convenient to try and discredit white persons pointing to rather – errm: entitled and privileged attitudes as being racist. In fact what I meant to express was that the tactics employed were so easy to see through that even white persons can detect this without even using a white stick, despite us having grown up with lots of privilege and entitledness to blur our view.
When you first joined the boards in March 2011 with some 6 posts written in that month (a seventh in 2013 with nothing in between), you finished the intro with:
Am 100% in support of all this site stands for.
With respect.
You have already been told this site stands for opposing the exploitation of medicine plants by Euros. So what part of „No“ is it you refuse to understand, RW4IB?
You also seem to have dropped the 'respect' some time ago..., at least you don't sign your posts with this any longer.
This lack of respect has also blurred your view for the difference between Euro research of medical plants (*medical*) to find remedies with will then be produced synthetically and the abuse of plants by Euro drug peddlers. But the way in which you present the argument in your „what if“ scenery reveals you don't give a flying one about which way a plant may be used by Euros – the main aspect is that it simply must be free for Euros to use as soon as they want it – period. Everything else, like indigenous nations' views, does not matter as long as Euros are allowed to grab whatever they fancy.
At this point in time, it seems that with regard to Ayahuasca, that's going to be locking the barn door after the horse has been stolen, but that doesn't mean it's not worthwhile to try to curb the spread.
Historically, the fact is that not every NDN medicine or food plant was stolen by Euros. Often, due to friendships and alliances, these things were shared by NDNs with Euros
We heard that 'too late' from many Nuagers before – 'too late' to stop Euros from imitating ndn ceremonies, 'we' already got them. Complete the picture with adding a three-year-old going „Duuuhhh“.
It is also mighty white not to be able to see a difference between having been invited to share a ceremony – and feeling entitled to continue its use from that point in time on. Unfortunately, individual Euros were trusted and invited to participate, only to have them return to Europe and pose as pipe keepers, sweatlodge pourers and whatnot, and of course claiming 'authorisation' by ndn medicine persons. If and when my Muslim neighbours are kind enough to invite me to their Id al-Fitr at the end of the Ramadan month, then I've only been invited to share a meal that evening, probably even as a particularly honoured guest. Nothing in the whole effin' world will justify me if I am brazen and entitled enough to pose as a mullah after this invitation.
And a final remark:
Also, I didn't perceive that I was being asked to go and read the threads about spiritual tourism and Ayahuasca, I thought that suggestion was directed toward Praxis.
Well, how could we ever think that threads and sites we recommend may be read even by :gasp: white posters? We're definitely getting uppity, folks...
How much more entitled can one get? 'Awww, they're only providing links for … and … - no need to go there and read' ?!?!?
-
cute! The Four Bear family Thanks you, we have Four Bears from Three Affiliated Tribes and from Cheyenne River,
so "what Indians do you run with"?
As Native people we shared many things but that means they don't come with obligations for uses, we think everyone is respectful
and has good hearts but is not the way of the world. We find today so many are on this instance fix, like a drug addict, fix me now,
We want everything and want to claim everything and thing we have rights to everything but that is not true.
We have old laws on how thing are to do be done and all of these old laws, still exist today
".... what Indians do you run with?" <------- Apaches I grew up with. We did a lot of running, in game-playing as well as flat out foot races. Even all these many years later, my friends remember me for my love of running, so the name seemed appropriate.
-
Cool! Which Apaches, RWI? I've been around them myself for most of my life. We have relatives at several of their communities.
-
First of all: thanks for your words, Praxis.
That was indeed one of the reasons. The nick „4Bears“ may be mistaken for an indigenous person posting. This also leaves much room for further – errrm: interested posters jumping in with the argument: „See? Even the Natives themselves...“.
Not that, as an aside, the nick of „RunningWithIndians“ doesn't equally leave room for interpretation... Just what about this nick gives me the idea it might have been chosen to spite us? (As in: 'If you take exception at me posing as „4Bears“, I'll show you I can come up with more nicks you probably like even less...')
I've suggested that there be a "sticky" at the top of the New Members area, and/or that there be a requirement on the sign-up that a person identify so that new members can be vetted to prove they are or are not NDN before they are allowed to sign up. You have conveniently ignored that I made these suggestions which would probably eliminate non-NDNs from signing up with questionable user names. The forum easily permits members to view a poster's profile, my profile clearly stated that I am not NDN so obviously there was no intent on my part to deceive anyone.
....As far as RunningWith4IndianBears is concerned – congrats. This is the first time someone is whining 'reverse racism' in my direction in this forum. Party-time, folks – all drinks are on me!
I guess you don't know that a lot of NDN people have difficulties with alcohol consumption. One of my dearest friends since childhood nearly died when her drunk husband stabbed her, and recently she lost her son to the ravages of alcohol. Not to mention, my own daughter is half Rappahannock and was born with FAS ... thankfully does not have the worst effects of it. So ... how very thoughtful of you, Ingeborg.
....I also still haven't quite figured out why a person would take exception at the term 'mighty white' while a word like 'honkies' passes by unnoticed. So it is no surprise that you, RW4IB, also don't see a difference between 'speaking up' and 'speaking for'. Calling people on some BS they present is not 'speaking for'.
I also didn't address your term "great white father". I think it was clear what I was objecting to and saw no need to pick up every term you used. The rest of your remarks here don't make sense to me: You had said that I should refrain from making any points on behalf of Praxis ... I simply pointed out that by saying that to me, you yourself were attempting to make a point on behalf of Praxis. I further said that Praxis himself can say so if anything I said offended him, he doesn't need you to make assumptions on his part.
....To clarify matters: as far as I am concerned, Praxis is very well able to speak for himself, and I don't plan to speak for him or any other non-white person. Still, your posts aimed at letting Praxis know that the ndn people objecting the use of medicine plants perhaps don't quite know what they're on about and certainly do not see the 'whole picture', and to hide behind his back when the flak would be going. Such a strategy is dishonest and dishonourable.
I HAD QUESTIONS. What are you smoking, Ingeborg, that you don't understand what I have already clarified more than once??? Maybe it's those party drinks you are slugging down. Excuse MEEEE for asking some questions in an attempt to better understand and clarify things ON THIS THREAD.
....But I agree it may be come in quite convenient to try and discredit white persons pointing to rather – errm: entitled and privileged attitudes as being racist. In fact what I meant to express was that the tactics employed were so easy to see through that even white persons can detect this without even using a white stick, despite us having grown up with lots of privilege and entitledness to blur our view.
Again, I don't know what you are not understanding. I've always taken this site to be a good place in which to learn what and who are causing problems for NDNs. I would have thought that asking some questions in order to clarify the points about Ayahuasca usage was well within the borders of what this site is about. Apparently you don't think so, so why are you here? Accusing me of employing some "tactics" is just ridiculous -- then again, maybe the white people YOU know do things like that.
....You have already been told this site stands for opposing the exploitation of medicine plants by Euros. So what part of „No“ is it you refuse to understand, RW4IB?
My questions had to do with details, Ingeborg. Maybe the problem is this: I spent nearly 20 years working in law (no, not as a lawyer). When it comes to legalities, meanings need to be broken down and spelled out distinctly as much as possible. That's how I approached this discussion, the intent of my questions has been to get the details clarified. For example, I wondered whether Praxis' thought to possibly grow his own Ayahuasca plants would be an acceptable kind of use -- I understood that using this and other such plants as part of "spiritual tourism" is a No, I wasn't sure about the seeds/growth thing. When that was explained, I understood in which way that would also be exploitation, and I didn't have any further question about that.
But I also wanted to know about how the tribes viewed -- or would view -- use of sacred plants if they turn out to have medicinal properties that could benefit the world at large. This was not -- as you seem to think, Ingeborg -- an attempt to "get around" the proscription against Euro use of sacred plants. It was an attempt to clarify something further in that regard.
I have since found this: "The Yurayaco Declaration of the Union de Medicos Indigenas Yageceros de la Amazonia Colombiana (UMIYAC)". I personally feel that a copy of it should be made available on NAFPS as a reference. In this Declaration is the following statements: "We consider yagé, our medicinal plants and our wisdom to be gifts from God and of great benefit for the health of humanity."
And "We are also willing to travel in order to bring the benefits of our medicine to indigenous communities in Colombia and other parts of America upon request. Conscious of the fact that non-Indians also need our services as doctors, we propose the construction of Indigenous Medicine Clinics so they may have easier access and in conditions better suited to the way in which we work, always closely linked to nature." Clearly, the intent of these tribes is to make their medicine available on beyond their own tribes, but they want to do this in a way that fits their traditions and beliefs. This answers my questions. It also refutes claims on this site that these tribes don't want their medicines to be used by anyone but their own people.
... You also seem to have dropped the 'respect' some time ago..., at least you don't sign your posts with this any longer.
I have not always signed my posts with it in the past, either. Nor do most posters here, so what's your point?
... This lack of respect has also blurred your view for the difference between Euro research of medical plants (*medical*) to find remedies with will then be produced synthetically and the abuse of plants by Euro drug peddlers. But the way in which you present the argument in your „what if“ scenery reveals you don't give a flying one about which way a plant may be used by Euros – the main aspect is that it simply must be free for Euros to use as soon as they want it – period. Everything else, like indigenous nations' views, does not matter as long as Euros are allowed to grab whatever they fancy.
I'm sorry that's your take on it. I'm glad I'm not the kind of person who is automatically suspicious of people who have questions.
...It is also mighty white not to be able to see a difference between having been invited to share a ceremony – and feeling entitled to continue its use from that point in time on. Unfortunately, individual Euros were trusted and invited to participate, only to have them return to Europe and pose as pipe keepers, sweatlodge pourers and whatnot, and of course claiming 'authorisation' by ndn medicine persons. If and when my Muslim neighbours are kind enough to invite me to their Id al-Fitr at the end of the Ramadan month, then I've only been invited to share a meal that evening, probably even as a particularly honoured guest. Nothing in the whole effin' world will justify me if I am brazen and entitled enough to pose as a mullah after this invitation.
I agree with you on these points. They don't define "me".
... Well, how could we ever think that threads and sites we recommend may be read even by :gasp: white posters? We're definitely getting uppity, folks...
How much more entitled can one get? 'Awww, they're only providing links for … and … - no need to go there and read' ?!?!?
I did go and read other threads. Frankly, nothing in those discussions answered my actual questions. But I did find a reference to the above-noted Declaration as I was reading further last night, and that was a gem.
Also, I sought another point of view on the whole matter and talked with a close Apache friend of mine about this. He and his family are well-respected on the reservation, he's worked on behalf of his people his entire adult life and has several times been a spokesperson and resource for the tribe in various ways. Of course, he knows me well, so he knows where I am truly "coming from" with questions. It's a funny thing, he's always expressed appreciation of the fact that I DO ASK questions and don't just jump to conclusions, and that I DO WANT to know the fine details on the subjects he is allowed to discuss. His first reaction when I explained the issue here and the obfuscation I was encountering, was to laugh and say this: "Well, you know, we are Apaches. Historically, if someone had horses and we wanted them, we just took them. If they wanted to keep the horses, they had to fight for it, and I doubt our people were the only tribes who traditionally saw things that way." :)
-
Cool! Which Apaches, RWI? I've been around them myself for most of my life. We have relatives at several of their communities.
White Mountain Apaches, ACW. We might know some people in common -- feel free to PM me :)
-
RunsWithIndians,
While I understand why it is that your actions were perceived a certain way, it seems to me like you've been unnecessarily put on the defensive simply for being inquisitive. As I'm sure you're aware, this is a topic that comes up frequently here and from what I have observed the community is constantly giving the same answers to the same questions; more often than not those asking the questions don't actually want to hear the answers. But if I can be totally honest a lot of the questions you are asking echo my own thoughts.
I think part of the reason this topic has become so exasperated is because when it comes down to it, it's common sense. If people who traditionally use yage say it's not something that others can take out of context, then that's that. The The Yurayaco Declaration of the Union de Medicos Indigenas Yageceros de la Amazonia Colombiana (UMIYAC) does state that authentic Taitas do believe that non indigenous peoples can benefit from Yage, but with their consent and under their direct supervision. I personally don't believe that entails anyone but them actually drinking the brew, for one. Traditionally the Taitas are the ones to ingest ayahuasca and the patient remains 'sober' while they are examined by the healer. In its traditional context you can think of ayahuasca as a sort of stethoscope or microscope in which a doctor/healer is using to examine a patient in a way they normally cannot. Sure, I could use the doctors tools on myself but I would much rather trust the doctor who has an intimate understanding of how the tool works and how to interpret what it is showing us. Most Westerners interested in Ayahuasca just hop online and order the plants or pay for a retreat in Peru/Columbia. This kind of activity is grossly out of context and is not what they mean when they say that Ayahuasca can heal the world. It is essential that they are involved in the process. Regardless of whether or not it might cure cancer (and theres no evidence for this), I don't think they approve of its use without their involvement. From your most recent post it seems like you were able to answer your own question but I thought I would share my own take as well.
So, as someone who is absolutely unapologetic in my psychedelic exploration, this is something that has been weighing heavy on my mind for a long time and it finally feels like I'm starting to have some closure. In many ways I feel kind of liberated by knowing for sure how ndn people feel about this subject; it gave me a clear choice to make. Either I could be conscious and respectful or I could disregard the wishes of ndn people, and that was what it boiled down to. For me, this is only a sort of confirmation for me. I take psychedelics so that I might be a better person, but the work itself is not in the experience but what we choose to do with the experience. The most important lessons are learned after you come back down from earth. If psychedelics tell me that everything is connected and that I should do everything in power to reduce harm and restore relationships, than I cannot ignore when my use of these tools is creating harm. If I truly want to use these medicines for spiritual and interpersonal growth how can I possibly ignore that?
So anyways....I feel that I'm not alone here. I think there's a lot of well-intentioned seekers out there and while some of them (maybe most of them) are stubborn and stuck interacting with the world through the lens of their own privilege, there are people who will listen. Unfortunately, Ayahuasca and San Pedro, Peyote, Salvia Divinorum, and many other sacred indigenous medicines are a rising trend. They get more popular every day. Because of my position as both a psychonaut and as a political organizer/activist, I feel I have a sort of a responsibility to act as an outlet, conduit, or bridge between the two worlds. I believe psychedelics in the hands of people who are politically conscious are powerful tools for transformation....and I will firmly stand by this even though many (most) of you might adamantly disagree. These drugs in the hands of people who view the world through the lens of white-supremacy and privilege create more harm than good, and this is the dominant trend right now.
I've been working on a written piece about these issues and I would like feedback from this community. Im hoping it will essentially be something similar to "Unpacking The Invisible NapSack" about white privilege, or like some of the essays written by white allies that can be found in "Unsettling Ourselves", but this piece will be targeted specifically at the psychedelic/new age scene. There is a popular online psychedelic E-Zine which has a wide audience that I've written for in the past (about issues of race/gender in the culture) and I am also active in the forum with which it is associated with. If this is something that people here would encourage, I'd love to work with y'all. What would people here want me to say, what shouldn't I say? I want to be accountable to ndn people and be very clear that I'm not speaking for them; but as someone with a foot in both worlds I can't help but feel that I have a good opportunity to make sure the community knows where you stand and they hear it loud and clear. What they do with that information is their choice, but they cannot say that they didn't know. If I get the thumbs up here, once I have a first draft I'd be more than happy to share it here and get feedback.
Also, I know I'm kind of jumping all over here; but one of the things I want to talk about in this piece is the idea of Ayahuasca analogs (eg anahuasca). I could see this as a possible alternative to using sacred plants, but part of me feels that this is just skirting around the issue and can still be harmful. NDN people discovered how to make DMT orally active; I would not be aware of this knowledge if it were not for indigenous cultures that are now being exploited for that knowledge. Even if I source out local plants in my region with the required alkaloids, I am taking that technology/knowledge without asking. I am still using it out of context. It might not be the same plants but in my mind that is an issue of semantics....like a legal low blow. The combination of DMT and an MAOI is like intellectual property in it's own right. By ignoring that I feel my actions would be comparable to the scummy lawyer who looks for loopholes in the fine print to defend/persecute someone who they know is guilty/innocent (respectively). What do folks here think of this, if it's ok for me to ask? If I were to have plants growing in my backyard that could be used as an ayahuasca analog, would it be unethical for me to harvest these plants and use them? My gut tells me that yes, this is still wrong; I want to listen to my gut but I would also like to know I'm not acting out my own ideas of what ndn people think is right and wrong.
Perhaps it's not a good time to be asking more questions, but I hope you can understand why I'm asking. I'm not looking for an easy answer that will give me a free pass, but if I end up writing this article about the appropriation of Ayahuasca and other medicines and I offer alternatives, I would like to know that the alternatives I am offering are not just another form of appropriation.
-
Thank you, Praxis, for your understanding.
-
Because of my position as both a psychonaut and as a political organizer/activist, I feel I have a sort of a responsibility to act as an outlet, conduit, or bridge between the two worlds. I believe psychedelics in the hands of people who are politically conscious are powerful tools for transformation....and I will firmly stand by this even though many (most) of you might adamantly disagree. These drugs in the hands of people who view the world through the lens of white-supremacy and privilege create more harm than good, and this is the dominant trend right now.
The gist of where you're coming from, you actually boiled down yourself here... If you had simply stated this in the beginning, this entire thread could have been avoided because all the concessions you made verbally, you're still ignoring and will probably do so on the future. I would bet on it.
-
Praxis,
Are you aware that the indigenous medicines that you named were introduced to the dominant culture by Albert Hofmann and to a certain extent Ernst Jünger (who was not a very nice person)? Hofmann was primarily responsible for bringing something sacred that did not belong to him to for the most part privileged white young people. That is how they arrived in their place of use among the activist community.
Sky
-
Because of my position as both a psychonaut and as a political organizer/activist, I feel I have a sort of a responsibility to act as an outlet, conduit, or bridge between the two worlds. I believe psychedelics in the hands of people who are politically conscious are powerful tools for transformation....and I will firmly stand by this even though many (most) of you might adamantly disagree. These drugs in the hands of people who view the world through the lens of white-supremacy and privilege create more harm than good, and this is the dominant trend right now.
The gist of where you're coming from, you actually boiled down yourself here... If you had simply stated this in the beginning, this entire thread could have been avoided because all the concessions you made verbally, you're still ignoring and will probably do so on the future. I would bet on it.
I stated this right off the bat.
I've made it part of my goals to work towards integrating psychedelic medicine into a paradigm where it's utilized by front-line communities that would actually benefit from it; eg communities who have suffered traumas as a result of systemic oppression, who do not have access to, or would not benefit from, traditional Western models of healing. I want to ensure that the cultures who first shared these tools with the world are fairly represented wherever they are being used, and that their customs and beliefs are not taken out of context and packed into a neat little new-age box. Because of their nature to decondition individuals from larger cultural paradigms, I am also interested in using these medicines as tools for decolonization, and Ive been developing and furthering my analysis of neo-colonialism within the context of ayahuasca tourism
What would you bet on? That I wont use ayahuasca without consent? I don't know on what you base your claim, as I made it very clear from the beginning that I am interested in psychedelics and use them myself. I don't understand why this means that I can't hold my word? Ayahuasca et al are not the only psychedelics in the world, I have many other options and they've been suiting my needs just fine now for many years. I don't think that's about to change. When I say that I will not drink ayahuasca or take any other medicine deemed sacred by ndn people I mean it, and I will hold to that. I obviously can't prove this to you but I don't believe I need to. You can doubt my integrity as much you want but I would hope that my actions on this forum speak differently about my character. Maybe they do, and if that's the case please let me know where I went wrong. But otherwise I seriously resent your accusation and I don't think you would have made it in the first place if you actually went back and read my words. Im not going to pick out each and every quote (I can if you're unconvinced); but I believe I said several other times that I take psychedelics because I see them as powerful tools and that as an anti-racist activist I would like to synthesize my political analysis with what I've learned from psychedelia.
Come on now.... :-\
-
I believe I said several other times that I take psychedelics because I see them as powerful tools and that as an anti-racist activist I would like to synthesize my political analysis with what I've learned from psychedelia.
Come on now.... :-\
Praxis, please research the individuals who introduced and promoted psychedelics to the counter culture. They were white men catering to white people. How can something born from racism, for the most part taken from indigenous peoples without their permission, be a powerful tool? I'd really like your take on that.
-
C'mon now yourself, Praxis... You state clearly that you're a psychonaut (kinda can't be one without actually using said psychoactives) and even though you ARE NOT FROM THE CULTURE YOU'RE APPROPRIATING FROM, you take it upon yourself to decide who uses it outside that culture and why. Your motivation of racists and weirdos having it in their possession and deciding YOU need to prevent this/inform properly/etc is the epitome of the abuse of privilege. You clearly state that even though Natives here and among the ayuhuasca cultures will adamantly disagree, you're still saying it's a transformative "tool" when in fact bridging whatever perceived gap you see between these cultures does nothing but enable those who will misuse these substances. Point blank. Whatever your intentions, that's what happens. It's been repeated on this thread and all throughout this entire forum as well as being discussed in the pre-Internet days of Native cultural appropriation and the misuse/abuse of our sacred rites and substances. I don't care if you use or not. That's on you. What is not accepted here is pretension and ulterior motive, if you had not noticed.
-
Praxis,
Are you aware that the indigenous medicines that you named were introduced to the dominant culture by Albert Hofmann and to a certain extent Ernst Jünger (who was not a very nice person)? Hofmann was primarily responsible for bringing something sacred that did not belong to him to for the most part privileged white young people. That is how they arrived in their place of use among the activist community.
Sky
Albert Hoffman is responsible for being the first person to synthesize LSD. Aldous Huxley is responsible for introducing the psycho-active effects of mescaline (the most predominant alkaloid in peyote, san pedro et al) to Western culture, but it was really Terence Mckenna and a host of other nuage anthropologists responsible for popularizing ayahuasca as well as sacred cacti. Albert Hoffman has written about these plants but he himself did not introduce them to Western consciousness. While I think it's fair to say that he played a part in this process he is certainly not responsible. Guilt by association doesn't apply here.
And secondly I would like to respectfully ask why it matters who introduced those medicines to dominant culture? Whether is was Hoffman or Mckenna or Wasson or Hancock or any on the long list of others....I never said that I was inspired by them or drew ideas from them or had any association with their work. I'm not promoting the use of indigenous medicines, that was the whole point of me starting this thread. I had some questions and the community answered them. And that's great. I wont ever take these medicines and I'm ok with that. I never said I used indigenous medicines extensively, I used ayahuasca once and felt bad about it and thats why I came here. It's not as though I'm giving anything up.
Im not trying to convince people here that psychedelics are good or bad. You're welcome to your own opinion about them but please stop trying to call my character into question because of my personal choices. And I don't appreciate being assumed guilty simply because of association. I like psychedelics, that doesn't make me Terence Mckenna or Albert Hoffman. Sorry if you don't like them but I dunno what else to tell you.
EDIT: You've made another post as I was writing this up.
Praxis, please research the individuals who introduced and promoted psychedelics to the counter culture. They were white men catering to white people. How can something born from racism, for the most part taken from indigenous peoples without their permission, be a powerful tool? I'd really like your take on that.
I think it's important to understand psychedelic history in the West. Psychedelic plants have been used on every continent for varying purposes throughout human history. A lot of nuagers might exploit this fact and take it out of context, but it is pretty well established that the use of hallucinogens is not a novel thing and it's not specific to just ndn people. Let me be clear here: I'm NOT saying that just because European Pagans might have once used mushrooms that gives white people the right to take any plant from any culture that they want for their own uses. The cultural contexts from which they come is incredibly important, and I think that's why we see so many burnouts in psychedelic culture. Dominant society lacks that cultural framework which is desperately needed to integrate the psychedelic experience, and often people are led astray and their use quickly turns into abuse and escapism. This is one of the many reasons that these medicines SHOULD NOT be taken outside of their original cultural context.
So, by the time the Europeans had colonized the Americas they had long since repressed the usage of many medicines including psychedelics. They persecuted ndn people for their choice of sacraments and built a nation based on their own values. Fast forward to the 1940's: Albert Hoffman synthesized LSD several years earlier, and it was not until now that he discovered it's psycho active properties. He is astonished by it and believes it could be a valuable tool for psychotherapists. Sandoz LSD is sent to doctors and psychologists and shows a lot of promise, but ends up widely circulated by the middle class youth. LSD was the first psychedelic to become popular in the West and it had absolutely nothing to do with the appropriation of indigenous culture. The discovery of LSD and the subsequent period of large-scale use and abuse opened an entirely new doorway for the white middle class who never knew such things existed. Anyone who knew how to read, if they were researching altered states of consciousness, would come to learn about peyote and other indigenous medicines that are psychedelic in nature. A lot of people turned on by LSD began to appropriate these indigenous medicines and it had a devastating effect. But psychedelic culture didn't get started through an act of appropriation. Many of it's pioneers furthered that agenda most definitely, but that's not where it got started. LSD is what started the craze and again I don't blame the substance itself as much as I blame the fact that it was used within the context of a white-supremacist society. Anything employed through this lens will have a negative consequence; if you look through red glass everything you see will be tinged red. And likewise no matter what you do, if you are doing it as a white supremacist, it's going to create harm. LSD doesn't have to be used exclusively by white supremacists. Additionally, and to restate myself, there are other psychedelics aside from the ones traditionally used by ndn people. And not just LSD. Psychedelics are everywhere. We don't understand their function but they are just as much a part of nature as carbon, nitrogen, or serotonin.
Furthermore, racist white men introduced coffee and sugar and tea to dominant culture. If we refuse everything that is offered by racist white men what choices are we left with? In my case, I reject what is harmful and I embrace what works. Using peyote is harmful, therefore I wont do it. But just because LSD was invented by a white man who might be guilty of cultural appropriation, I see no harm occurring should I choose to ingest LSD because I find it valuable. Forks were invented by Romans, who did a lot of really horrible things, but I am not going to stop eating with a fork. A fork is a useful tool, even if the people who invented were terrible people.
As a black person in America I find this issue even more difficult to deal with. My people were the rejects of Africa. We were sold into slavery by our own people and brought onto colonized land. I am living in a world ruled by white people, on ndn land, I have no connection to my ancestors, and all I know about them is that their native country sold them into slavery for some cloth and gunpowder. When it comes to culture, I have to take what is given to me. I will do my absolute best not to steal from the traditions of others, but as far as I'm concerned I can't afford to reject something that works for me just because the person offering it might not be a good person. As long as I am creating no harm in the process that is my goal. Let me turn the tables on you a bit. Do you eat with a fork? Do you use anything that was introduced or invented by Europeans? Do you eat sugar, coffee, tea? The people who introduced those things to you enslaved my ancestors, raped them, locked them up in prison, and left the survivors with nothing. But if those things work for you I'm not going to tell you to stop using them, as long as you don't take anything offered by them that rightfully belongs to me. I will do the same for you. I don't think that we can afford to reject everything offered by white people simply because of their implication in oppression....that's what dominant society is....we don't really have a choice because dominant culture has left us with no other options. Conform or be swallowed by it. And this is what we are seeing with ndn culture and it is heartbreaking. This is why I'm drawn to activism, because I don't think it has to be this way and I want to do everything in my power to fight against it. I want my own identity. But for now, I'm piecing it together bit by bit with whatever I can find that works for me. If I am cold and hungry and I have the opportunity to eat warm food I am not going to reject it because the person offering it to me also happens to feed hungry Neo-Nazis. We have to pick and choose our battles and I'm doing that to the best of my ability.
C'mon now yourself, Praxis... You state clearly that you're a psychonaut (kinda can't be one without actually using said psychoactives) and even though you ARE NOT FROM THE CULTURE YOU'RE APPROPRIATING FROM, you take it upon yourself to decide who uses it outside that culture and why. Your motivation of racists and weirdos having it in their possession and deciding YOU need to prevent this/inform properly/etc is the epitome of the abuse of privilege. You clearly state that even though Natives here and among the ayuhuasca cultures will adamantly disagree, you're still saying it's a transformative "tool" when in fact bridging whatever perceived gap you see between these cultures does nothing but enable those who will misuse these substances. Point blank. Whatever your intentions, that's what happens. It's been repeated on this thread and all throughout this entire forum as well as being discussed in the pre-Internet days of Native cultural appropriation and the misuse/abuse of our sacred rites and substances. I don't care if you use or not. That's on you. What is not accepted here is pretension and ulterior motive, if you had not noticed.
Why does interest in psychedelics automatically mean I'm appropriating ndn culture? Why does my personal choice to take psychedelics automatically mean I'm a nuager just as bad as the rest of them? I don't identify with new-age culture and I don't believe that psychedelics and new-age are mutually exclusive. I don't believe that any legitimate ayahuasca using culture would disagree with me saying that ayahuasca is a powerful tool. It is an extremely powerful tool. It is because of the fact that I respect that power that I won't go near it, it is clearly better off being used by traditional peoples who have been using it for thousands of years.
When I say "bridging these cultures" I do not mean psychedelic new age culture and indigenous ndn culture, and maybe that is where the misunderstanding lies? I meant activist culture and academic psychedelic culture. I'm not trying to bridge psychedelic users and ndn culture AT ALL. I would like to write an article that is addressed to folks who are attracted to psychedelics, and I would like to explain my own path thus far and how I've come to understand appropriation and why it is harmful. The whole point of the article would be to say that taking Ayahuasca and other indigenous medicines is wrong and hurtful and ndn people have a pretty clear opinion about their use in ANY context by outsiders. No hidden agenda there. No way for anyone to misconstrue my words as a promotion for appropriation.
Have you read Unsettling Ourselves? (https://unsettlingminnesota.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/unsettling-minnesota-sourcebook1point0.pdf) It's like a manual about how as non ndn settlers we can acknowledge how our colonial mentality creates harm and how we can be better allies. A lot of it is written by white people talking about their own experiences and how they have created harm to ndn people, how they came to realize it, and how they changed their behavior accordingly. I'm attempting to do the same sort of thing but my target audience is different. Instead of white activists I'm writing to white people who take psychedelics. I made it pretty clear that I'm not trying to speak for ndn people and I never would have asked for feedback here if I didn't take that into consideration. If this community feels uncomfortable with it than I won't do it. The only reason the idea entered my mind is because I've seen how effective and widespread essays like Unpacking the Invisible Napsack are (https://www.isr.umich.edu/home/diversity/resources/white-privilege.pdf).
Again....if yall think its a bad idea THEN I WONT DO IT. But why are you so quick to call my character into question? And why now? Nothing about that last post was new information. I believe I was transparent from the get-go and if someone thinks otherwise I would love to hear what I did wrong and what I could do better.
I am not going to go through and edit this, at least not right away, so I'm sure its got some typos and whatnot but hopefully it's clear what I'm trying to say. I really dont want this conversation to turn into my trying to justify my own personal choices. As long as I'm not partaking in things that don't belong to me, why do you care if I take LSD or other drugs? Im not taking from you and I'm not going to question your motives for trying to preserve your own traditions, I only ask for the same respect that I have done my best to show here.
-
Sorry for the double post but just so there's absolutely no misunderstanding or misinterpretation of my words.
When I say:
If I am cold and hungry and I have the opportunity to eat warm food I am not going to reject it because the person offering it to me also happens to feed hungry Neo-Nazis. We have to pick and choose our battles and I'm doing that to the best of my ability.
If I find out that the food being offered to me was stolen from another person or group of people, I will not eat it. But if they made it themselves I don't see why I should refuse a perfectly good meal. The most degenerate, horrible person in the world could be offering it to me but as long as the food seems good and nobody got hurt because of it, I'm gonna eat it.
You might be thinking, "But you just said that interest in LSD led to the appropriation of ndn medicines, so it did create harm!". And my response would be, "The invention of gunpowder ultimately led to guns being used as a tool of warfare, and guns were used to exterminate ndn people on the American continents. But I sure bet you would use a gun to defend your family, and historically we know lots of ndn people bought and traded for guns to defend themselves from the colonizers. Are you saying that it's wrong to use guns for self defense because white people used them to carry out genocide?"
-
Now you're flippantly comparing Native religious substances to coffee, sugar, and tea? What's next? Selling Peyote at convenience stores? I think it's time you take a long.... SOBER.... look at yourself at this point in your life.
-
Now you're flippantly comparing Native religious substances to coffee, sugar, and tea? What's next? Selling Peyote at convenience stores? I think it's time you take a long.... SOBER.... look at yourself at this point in your life.
No I'm not.
Sky suggested that psychedelic culture only exists because of the actions of racist white men. I was saying that 1) that's simply not true. Psychedelic culture arose out of the discovery of LSD and appropriation had nothing to do with it and 2) that if we follow that line of logic then how do we distinguish between anything that white people introduce to dominant culture? My point was that when coffee, sugar, and tea were introduced to western society it was done by white people, for white people--but someone who drinks tea or coffee is not called into question; yet because I admit I take LSD I am being called into question. The people who introduced coffee and tea did so through slave labor, but the two things are not mutually exclusive. The people who introduced psychedelics to western society also appropriated indigenous medicines, but the two things are not mutually exclusive. LSD is not sacred indigenous medicine. I am not using ndn medicine nor am I promoting it.
I was not comparing indigenous spirituality to coffee, sugar, and tea. I was comparing a line of reasoning with another line of reasoning. Again: the substances of which I speak are not ndn medicines. I don't know how many different ways I can say this.
Please stop with the generalizations.
-
How is that not comparing them? "Furthermore, racist white men introduced coffee and sugar and tea to dominant culture. If we refuse everything that is offered by racist white men what choices are we left with?" Your words, son.
-
The fact that someone unqualified has already let the cat out of the proverbial bag does NOT entitle you to do as you please with sacred substances. That is exactly what you're implying you will do despite being educated here as to why you should NOT. It's already been told to you- The concept at hand here is not some academic issue. This is a culture's way of life. It is their heritage. It is for THEM to decide who shares in it, not you or any other self-professed cultural bridge. If the cultures who use this stuff decide to appoint a liason of some sort, they will do so when they please and will choose whom they want. You do NOT appoint yourself in these matters. EVER. Do you need this further clarified?....
-
How is that not comparing them? "Furthermore, racist white men introduced coffee and sugar and tea to dominant culture. If we refuse everything that is offered by racist white men what choices are we left with?" Your words, son.
Please tell me where I'm comparing indigenous spirituality to coffee tea and sugar? From what I can tell from this quote, I'm asking a pretty specific question. How do we distinguish between what to accept from white people and what to reject? That's all that I'm saying in the quote you're taking out of context. Read the rest of it: " In my case, I reject what is harmful and I embrace what works. Using peyote is harmful, therefore I wont do it. But just because LSD was invented by a white man who might be guilty of cultural appropriation, I see no harm occurring should I choose to ingest LSD because I find it valuable"
LSD is not the same thing as peyote. It is not the same thing as ayahuasca.
The analogy with coffee/tea/sugar was to contrast with the point that Sky was trying to express. Sky stated (I should say implied because I don't know if this is what Sky actually meant) that by taking any kind of psychedelic, or by being involved with that culture in any way shape or form, I am somehow at fault because the people responsible for that culture are also responsible for the appropriation of ndn culture. I was saying that the people responsible for providing many things that we enjoy today are also responsible for atrocious acts. This doesnt change the fact that cultural appropriation is wrong. But eating LSD isnt cultural appropriation and I see it about as immoral as it is for someone to drink coffee or use a fork.
All psychedelics =/= sacred medicine.
You might have interpreted my words a certain way, and perhaps that is a fault of my own (nobody is perfect at communicating), but nowhere was I implying that because we consume tea, coffee, and sugar that we (as non ndns) also have a right to consume sacred medicine. I said absolutely no such thing.
The fact that someone unqualified has already let the cat out of the proverbial bag does NOT entitle you to do as you please with sacred substances. That is exactly what you're implying you will do despite being educated here as to why you should NOT. It's already been told to you- The concept at hand here is not some academic issue. This is a culture's way of life. It is their heritage. It is for THEM to decide who shares in it, not you or any other self-professed cultural bridge. If the cultures who use this stuff decide to appoint a liason of some sort, they will do so when they please and will choose whom they want. You do NOT appoint yourself in these matters. EVER. Do you need this further clarified?....
I've said that myself several times in this very thread. Please point me to where I stated that I am entitled to these medicines. Please show me. I would like to know exactly what it is that I said which makes you seem to think that I am I trying to do as I please with sacred substances. Throughout this entire thread my position hasn't changed a single iota. I am NOT appointing myself as a liason. If that were my intention don't you think I would have just done it and not come to this community first asking whether or not such actions were desirable or not? I have read many many articles written by white people about white privilege, white supremacy, and cultural appropriation and they are widely regarded as useful tools for white people to confront their own privilege and power. What I'm trying to do is exactly the same thing. If you would like, I can link you to an ndn website which has several of these articles listed for reference. One of them, written by a white person, is about why it is wrong for white people to wear sacred head-dresses or appropriate sacred symbols/clothing. It is widely circulated. I specifically ASKED FOR PERMISSION to write a similar piece but instead of being about head-dresses it would be about sacred medicines (eg peyote/ayahuasca). I did NOT appoint myself. I don't see how I've behaved inappropriately. It might not be a good idea to write this kind of article and I acknowledge that and it's WHY I AM ASKING as opposed to JUST DOING IT ANYWAYS.
This is getting off-track. If you're still upset I encourage you to send me a PM so we can discuss this privately without flooding the forum. If you would rather work this out in public I will happily respond to your posts, Im just not convinced that this is going anywhere.
-
I don't need to PM you to explain that you compared a religious substance used in a religious ceremony by religious people with staples traded worldwide since before the Americas were even "discovered". If that's not what you mean, then why make that comparison? Do what you want, pal. It's on you. We have no way of knowing what you actually mean anymore after switching stances in the span of days here.
-
Simply because I brought up coffee and tea within the context of a whole conversation about religious substances doesn't mean that I'm comparing the two. You still haven't directly responded to anything I've said. You've only made generalizations and you keep bringing up this one sentence yet don't bother to explain where your interpretation is coming from.
I did not compare a religious substance to staples traded worldwide. I mentioned staples which are traded worldwide, but I was not comparing them to religion at all. I was comparing them to psychedelics, which I have said many times now are not exclusive to ndn culture. Specifically, I was comparing coffee tea and sugar to LSD. You can interpret my words how you want but I believe you're projecting your own prejudice against people who use psychedelics. I am well aware of the fact that a lot of nuagers compare staple trades to religious substances and cite such comparisons as justification for appropriation. Thats not what I did. I compared staple trades to LSD and I attempted to make the point that one who consumes LSD is just as guilty of appropriation as someone who eats sugar. If I made the same analogy but was saying that consuming peyote or ayahuasca was the same as consuming sugar then of course you would absolutely be right. But that's not what I said. I meant what I said and I'm sorry if what I mean isn't properly conveyed through the words I chose to use, but I stand by what I mean.
Your original post directed towards me was accusing me of cultural appropriation. I responded to that and remained open to your thoughts. You responded by citing a single sentence out of everything I wrote to Sky and ignored my response to your accusations of appropriation, and then you said that now I was guilty of being disrespectful by comparing religious substances to tea and coffee. I am still open to your interpretation, but I've responded twice now attempting to explain that the comparison was in regards to LSD and staple trades regardless of how you interpreted my words. I think you're just being reactionary at this point, you seem to have completely abandoned your original point of appropriation and are now just focusing on that one sentence to discredit me as a disrespectful person. Im sorry if the way in which I made my argument was insensitive, perhaps I should have chosen different words. Nonetheless I believe your misinterpreting what I'm trying to say. Furthermore I'm still wondering if you can cite anything that I've said which states that I'm in favor of appropriation. My stance hasn't changed at all since my first post and I believe that if you go back and read my first post I make it pretty clear what my intentions are.
I guess I'm just confused. I come on here and I say that I've been complicit in the appropriation of sacred ndn culture and I would like to make amends. I say all sorts of problematic things and I even said that my original intent was to find a so called "ethical" way work with ayahuasca and that I wanted to bridge the gap between psychedelics as a middle class white thing and something that can help marginalized communities. The forum explains its position on this subject and I get my answer. Unless you're invited or it's shared, there is no "ethical" way. I am happy with this answer. The thread moves along, and a non-ndn person enters the thread and asks more questions about ayahuasca usage by non ndn people. I do my best to answer some of these questions from within the context of my own experiences thus far. Everybody seems happy with this. Then I make another post where I explain how my thoughts on the subject have evolved slightly and I'm questioning if even the idea of analogs is ethical, and I conclude that my gut is telling me it is unethical. In this post I ask about writing an article, addressed to people who have questions similar to 4Bears, in which I try to explain (from a non ndn perspective) why we should avoid appropriating these medicines. Suddenly, things are not okay.
So where did I go wrong here? You started accusing me of things at this point, BEFORE I made the comment about tea and sugar and coffee. So what exactly is wrong with the scenario I laid out above? What am I missing here? Again, you came after me before the tea and sugar thing and yet since that moment you have only focused on the tea/sugar thing. It comes across as though you're ignoring me completely and just discrediting me because for whatever reason something I did upset you. What did I do, what did I say? Perhaps if we start there, at the beginning, I can better understand where you're coming from?
I know it's not your job to tell me why I'm wrong, but I try to be as open as possible and I genuinely think that there's been a miscommunication. I obviously understand if you choose not to engage with me but it would certainly be helpful for me (which again, I know is not a priority for you) to try to wrap my head around this. I'm trying really hard here. :-\
-
The proverbial song that never ends.... Have a nice life, random internet person.
-
The proverbial song that never ends.... Have a nice life, random internet person.
Thanks. Next time I can't give a reason for my actions and I want to cut the conversation off I'll remember this one.
I hope you have a nice life too. I hope you feel like you accomplished something here.
-
Next time I don't bother to read why Natives don't agree with my self-appointing and appropriating, I'll be sure to act just like you and this guy: http://www.newagefraud.org/smf/index.php?topic=1524.15
-
I've read that thread before. I spent quite a good bit of time reading through all the Ayahuasca/psychedelic threads before I registered because I wanted to make sure I didn't ask questions that been answered and I didn't want to replicate any intrusive behavior.
ACW, I want to apologize for my last response and for being defensive. I got frustrated and I should have used better words, but nonetheless I still stand by my position. I really, really don't understand where you think we are disagreeing. I am not appropriating anything. I have absolutely no intent to work with any kind of indigenous medicine whatsoever and nowhere in any of my posts did I say or imply otherwise. Nor did I self-appoint myself for anything. I saw an opportunity as someone who is already engaged with the psychedelic community to bring up the issue of appropriation, but I wanted to check in here first before doing it because I did not want to appoint myself and speak for ndn people. I understood that not everyone would approve and so I laid out the premise of the idea here. I didn't think it would be harmful to at least ask, because these kinds of projects are carried out by white people all of the time and NAFPS even has many of them listed as valuable resources for allies. I can see that you are uncomfortable with this and so obviously it is not something I will go forward with. I've honestly been really confused. All you had to say was that you would prefer if I did not write the article....you don't even have to explain why. Instead, I felt like my character was suddenly called into question and it felt like a personal attack (and it may very well not have been a personal attack, and I acknowledge that).
I hope you can accept my apology for any harm I might have caused, and also for the way in which I chose to engage with you. But I do not feel that I have been appropriative nor have I appointed myself as a liaison of any kind. I am sorry you feel this way. Please know that as long as you're willing I would love to try to figure this out. I don't disregard the fact that perhaps I did do something wrong, but as of right now I don't feel like that's been shown at all.
I really don't know what else to say. I hope you can understand what I'm trying to say and where I'm coming from, but if you don't that's OK. But for the record, I'm not writing an article and I'm not taking ayahuasca and I have no plans to. If you can find anywhere here that I have expressly said otherwise, I'd love to see it. But I've read through my posts and I can't find anything to suggest that I wanted to use these medicines for myself after folks expressed their feelings on the matter.
-
I do not wish to derail the main ideas of this thread, but I think Praxis bringing up tea is somewhat relevant to the discussion of appropriating. So I mention some info below:
In the Eastern world, where tea comes from, the drinking of it was spread largely by monks and masters. Temples in China, Japan, Korea, Tibet, etc have had long standing traditions of sacred tea-ceremonies, or at the least using Tea for meditation, etc. Just one example, my Korean ancestors used to have ceremonies offering tea to the Ancestors, to the Buddha, and even to certain Nature-spirits, etc.
Well, these are real historical sacred traditions I'm talking about. The famous Japanese tea ceremony, although today is more of an elitist thing, is rooted in an ancient Chan/Seon/Zen ceremony. But don't put it past white people to exploit these traditions too. Just check out this site: http://heavenstea.net/
It's some guy ('Po the tea-monk) claiming to take people on 'tea journeys' for lots of money, using the same language as the white neo-shamans. They even have some hippy who comes there to teach about using tea as a 'plant spirit medicine', which is another common term among the white 'shamans' (especially those trained by the Cowans or who appropriate Huichol traditions). None of this mumbo jumbo represents the real tea traditions that were used for teaching self-cultivation, awareness, respect, or harmony. It is just applying new-age thinking where it doesn't belong, in order to turn a profit off of something supposedly 'sacred'. And as silly as this 'tea school' is with its high prices for bogus stuff, it is still very offensive and feeds off of racist stereotypes. And ofcourse the yuppies and new agers love this sort of thing. I stay away from this sort of stuff, as sipping tea with some neo-colonial culture-addicts (usually with very snobby attitudes) is not really my thing. Though the example is relevant here.
But having ancestors who used tea in sacred ceremonies throughout history, I have personally studied (and continue to study) some of the real tea traditions from China, Korea, and Japan (mostly for a meditative purpose, as well as part historical study). 'Way of Tea' or Cha-doh, is a real way of cultivating wisdom, friendship, meditation, etc, but people can still be secular with tea and just enjoy a cup of tea to wake up or whatever, that's fine (afterall, its not a powerful mind-altering entheogen like ayahuasca). But I was not surprised to find that many of the traditional masters are now surrounded by worshipful white who usually seem to to use tea/buddhism/eastern-spirituality/taoism for an image-crafting thing, all the while feeding their egoes and snobbery to no end. It's a whole scene of money, fake humility, elitism, entitlement-attitudes, and other ugliness. Even in the traditionals, its not only humble monks and daoists, there is plenty of traditional 'elitism' also in certain circles. The truly humble teachers of eastern traditions often focus on a 'spiritual' kind of lifestyle rather than advertising themselves as bigtime masters, etc.
What I want to get at is tea was a colonial racist thing from the start for westerners. Whites wanted to stop buying tea from the chinese so they made their own tea-plantations in Colonial India, where the tea-laborers were treated horribly and the natives were treated even worse (slavelike conditions, levelling of ancient forests, women systematically raped, etc). The native Assam tea in India wasnt very good for their tastes, so then they sent Robert Fortune to spy around China and secretly steal seeds, plants, etc from various production areas in China. They crossbred this stuff with the tea at colonial Assam to make a new popular white people's tea.
Not being from the cultures that use Ayahuasca, its not my place to really say who can use it. But my opinion still, is that people outside of that culture cultivating it, claiming it as a spiritual-insight or personal growth, etc, seems rather colonialistic, even dangerous. The modern world and mainstream culture do not have ceremonies or even teachers for safe use of 'entheogens' based on any wisdom-tradition or cultural assumptions, for promoting self-improvement, healing, or whatever. So they are reaching around in the dark. It's all between you and the spirits I guess, because nobody else will be there to help offer relevant insight, help sort through confusions, or promote safety, etc. You can just get lost in your own delusion without realizing it.
...I don't mean to derail this thread, but I do like to share this info to show that tea is not entirely irrelevant to this discussion or what NAFPS works for in general. In addition, when white people appropriate eastern traditions, it is not uncommon for them to start mixing in second-hand info about NDN cultures or from fake Celtic 'shaman' traditions, etc. I've seen it and even tried to educate some of them, but now I rarely bother because new-agers and yuppies are too arrogant to listen about their own colonial assumptions and habits (as are the majority of white race), let alone actually cross-examine them. Just because entheogens exist, does not mean they are tools for self-development. There are naturally-occurring 'psychadelics' here in the PNW where I live, but as far as I know, they were not considered sacred tools by local tribes and traditions. Rather it seems the traditions around here preferred to drum/sing themselves into the state they needed to reach, not needing any kind of mind-altering substances. Maybe they were quite wise about entheogens (as opposed to being ignorant of their existence and supposed usefulness).
If one wishes to explore with entheogens on their own, they are just that, on their own. No wisdom tradition or wise teacher will be there to endorse what you are doing, or to help you through it if difficulty arises. You will have to figure it out all on your own. Hopefully you will still be safe after continuing all of your explorations, and not fall over the 'deep end' as some people do with these things.
One last thought for consideration:
Not taking any 'sides', but I think Praxis' questions and open discussion here are at least a good thing. Among some of my Black-activist friends (especially those who dabble in afrocentrism, or claim to be RastafarI, etc), I have seen alot of new-age behavior spreading lately. Many get rather arrogant and don't want to hear what they are doing is colonialistic, false, or white because they just hold stereotypes about their own Afrikan ancestors the same way some people promote stereotypes about NDNs. This comes from a 'slave-mentality', people who are kind of separated from their roots and end up making the same mistakes and assumptions as the dominant demographic, the supremacist white culture (but with an 'afro-centric' flavor to the new-age, pseudo-science, and the rest of the stupidity). They spread/write/teach/do offensive new-age stuff and think they are reclaiming their Black identity. So the more we can promote understanding and respect across different demographics, cultures, communities, I personally feel the more progress we are making. Even just the concern for respect is a start, a place to begin PRODUCTIVE dialogue. Conversations like those taking place throughout this thread (even if their are disagreements).
Thanks to those who may have read this posting and possibly considered these thoughts as relevant here. Mods can delete if they do not find it relevant, but i wanted to offer these thoughts and info to this thread at least.
-
I just want to clarify the tea thing here. While your recollection of history might be correct, that analogy was exactly what I was trying to avoid when I wrote it.
Sky asked me:
Praxis,
Are you aware that the indigenous medicines that you named were introduced to the dominant culture by Albert Hofmann and to a certain extent Ernst Jünger (who was not a very nice person)? Hofmann was primarily responsible for bringing something sacred that did not belong to him to for the most part privileged white young people. That is how they arrived in their place of use among the activist community.
Sky
and
Praxis, please research the individuals who introduced and promoted psychedelics to the counter culture. They were white men catering to white people. How can something born from racism, for the most part taken from indigenous peoples without their permission, be a powerful tool? I'd really like your take on that.
I responded by explaining that Hoffman is responsible for first synthesizing LSD, and it was the introduction of LSD to Western culture that birthed psychedelic culture. Hoffman wrote about indigenous medicines but I would not say that he is solely responsible for their appropriation and popularization. So my first point was to demonstrate that psychedelia arose out of the discovery of LSD and appropriation had nothing to do with it. Years after the widespread proliferation of LSD, Hoffman went on to participate in the academic appropriation of indigenous medicines, most notably Saliva Divinorum. But these actions have no bearing on the fact that LSD was not appropriated and psychedelic culture arose out of the discovery of LSD.
So, I wanted to elaborate on this point with an analogy. Hoffman, the person "responsible" for psychedelic culture, can be accused of appropriation.
-
(Please ignore my previous post. My internet went kind of wacky and ended up posting while I was in the middle of writing. I would delete it or edit it but I can't do either)
I just want to clarify the tea thing here. While your recollection of history might be correct, that analogy was exactly what I was trying to avoid when I wrote it.
Sky asked me:
Praxis,
Are you aware that the indigenous medicines that you named were introduced to the dominant culture by Albert Hofmann and to a certain extent Ernst Jünger (who was not a very nice person)? Hofmann was primarily responsible for bringing something sacred that did not belong to him to for the most part privileged white young people. That is how they arrived in their place of use among the activist community.
Sky
and
Praxis, please research the individuals who introduced and promoted psychedelics to the counter culture. They were white men catering to white people. How can something born from racism, for the most part taken from indigenous peoples without their permission, be a powerful tool? I'd really like your take on that.
I responded by explaining that Hoffman is responsible for first synthesizing LSD, and it was the introduction of LSD to Western culture that birthed psychedelic culture. Hoffman wrote about indigenous medicines but I would not say that he is solely responsible for their appropriation and popularization. So my first point was to demonstrate that psychedelia arose out of the discovery of LSD and appropriation had nothing to do with it. Years after the widespread proliferation of LSD, Hoffman went on to participate in the academic appropriation of indigenous medicines, most notably Saliva Divinorum. But these actions have no bearing on the fact that LSD was not appropriated and psychedelic culture arose out of the discovery of LSD.
So, I wanted to elaborate on this point with an analogy. Hoffman, the person "responsible" for psychedelic culture, can be accused of appropriation. Psychedelic culture did not arise because of appropriation, but the person responsible for psychedelic culture later went on to engage in appropriation. I was trying to express that I don't believe it is immoral to take LSD and other (non ndn) psychedelics simply because the person responsible for introducing psychedelics to the west also happened to have engaged in objectionable activity. I tried to use coffee, sugar, and tea as an analogy here but NOT because they themselves were appropriated. My point was that these staple goods are commonly consumed throughout the world, but those responsible for introducing these goods are also implicated in questionable acts. I should not have used coffee, tea, and sugar as an analogy. The fact that they have been appropriated I think distracts from my point. I was simply trying to think of simple objects that are harmless in their consumption, yet they were introduced by problematic people. Again to use the example of the fork. The fork was invented by Romans. The Romans did some terrible things. Forks are not terrible things. I do not feel compelled to eat with my hands simply because the people who invented forks did bad things. The fork itself is not a bad thing. Similarly, I do not see LSD and similar substances as a bad thing-I find them useful for a lot of things. Now, as long as I am careful not to use medicines that have been appropriated (eg ayahuasca), what is inherently wrong with my choice to consume psychedelics? Yes....the people responsible for introducing them were guilty of appropriation, but the people who introduced the fork were guilty of genocide, torture, rape, and their own form of appropriation. I could have used any staple good that is used today to demonstrate the point and I should NOT have used coffee sugar and tea because their history as appropriated items gives the impression that I'm trying to compare them to sacred medicine. But I was not. The comparison was to LSD, and I stand by that.
I hope this makes sense and maybe clears some things up? My line of logic might have been flawed, my choice of words might have been hurtful and for that I sincerely apologize. But I was not making the comparison that everybody seems to think, though I can understand why you might have interpreted it that way. I have not edited any of my previous posts so if you doubt me I encourage you to go back and read my words with this in mind.
kahtboosted, I'm not too sure how to respond to your post. But you also seem to think I was trying to emphasize the history of tea as a staple good so I made this post to really try and clarify my position. As for the rest of your post, I am neither Rastafari nor would I consider myself an Afrocentrist. I don't see the relevance in your comparison.
-
kahtboosted, I'm not too sure how to respond to your post. But you also seem to think I was trying to emphasize the history of tea as a staple good so I made this post to really try and clarify my position. As for the rest of your post, I am neither Rastafari nor would I consider myself an Afrocentrist. I don't see the relevance in your comparison.
I did not associate you with afrocentrism, Rastafari, or any other movements, I was simply making a point about my own experience in recent years. The point: Here is a black-aware person, trying to find exploration through 'indigenous' entheogens, still being concerned with whether or not what he is doing is 'offensive' to Indigenous cultures. This is a good place to begin dialogue. It is far more than the larger community is concerned with right now. I have friends/associates coming from both afro-centrism and Rasta background, who I've had to educate them about many fake-ndn traditions being passed off as afrikan culture to them. For one example, I have a friend who got tricked by Afrikan 'shaman' frauds, and also know some people getting fooled by an 'africanized' version of harnerism. They just dont wanna hear that what theyre reading or following is really white fake NDN stuff. If I show them your initial posts and your concerns, perhaps they would listen more that these are simply habits produced by white-think/new-age-think.
I am mostly speaking in the context of appropriation and commodification that occurs with neo-colonial behavior. I see that as largely what the frauds discussed on NAFPS are about, appropriating things and commodifying things. Selling plants and traditions that are supposedly 'spiritual' is part of this. Somebody on here dismissed you bringing up tea because it is supposedly only a 'commodity'. I wanted to show that no, tea is also being used by white new agers for spiritual and new-age culture-vulturing. Profiting off of supposedly 'sacred' traditions. I said it is not the same as appropriating/selling/cultivating Ayahuasca (because its not some mind-altering substance, its a drink), but still in the context of these types of discussion, it is relevant because of spiritual and cultural appropriation. And it's all being driven by the same force: white supremacy (priviledge) and colonialistic white-think, that's what produces most of the new-age appropriation and culture-vulturing.
The information I posted is not a direct response to any of your posts here, it is offering info somewhat relevant to the larger cultural discussion. I was not directly addressing the points you made, nor putting words in your mouth. To be honest, I felt your posts slightly incongruent/confusing throughout the thread, but felt that nonetheless it is good you came here to discuss this (whether or not use of entheogens out of context is disrespectful, etc). For that simple reason alone, I can maybe show this thread to a couple of associates and make a little bit of progress educating them about new-age authors and fake traditions.
If you do not see the relevance or find the info helpful, I'll respect that. Either way, I won't try to clarify further. I do hope you stay safe with your exploration and self-development, and avoid getting caught up with the silly white ayahuasca groups here in the PNW. But if you are looking for someone who will say its ok to cultivate ayahuasca and other 'psychadelic' entheogens out of context, they will be the ones who will support it... not people concerned with protecting the integrity of Indigenous entheogens and traditions.
-
Ah ok I see what you're saying. I think I was confused :P
I also see a sweeping trend of new-age afrocentrism and oftentimes it can be problematic. I think this is a good discussion inofitself, but perhaps better suited as a separate thread? I see the connecting you're making here though. I guess I would just say that appropriation isn't just a white thing. For example the "part-Cherokee" grandma myth seems to be pretty widespread amongst black families; I know I grew up with an eccentric aunt who was convinced she was Native and supposedly even had all the paperwork to "prove it".
I'm not going to touch the comparison with tea, but again I do see the connection you're making and I think it's a good point.
Thanks for your input and for the concern. I definitely wont be messing with any ayahuasca groups anywhere, so no worries there. :)
If you don't mind, would it be alright if I asked what you found confusing and/or incongruent about my posts?
-
"It's a trap!" -Adm Ackbar (RET)
-
Well I didn't wanna nitpick too much further about the points you were trying to make because we could go on and on forever. But I think it is mostly clear that entheogens like Ayahuasca are a 'cultural property' to the tribes/cultures it comes from. I'm pretty sure Ayahuasca is actually two different ingredients mixed together, so it's like a cultural recipe. The use and supposed benefit of this mixture are also defined by that culture (and its particular assumptions or understanding). So no matter how I look at it, I think it is robbing those cultures to use it. It's not just appropriating a sacred plant, it's even appropriating an entire process and recipe, of blending things to make a mixture deemed sacred by the culture who invented this mixture.
I have not read about each different entheogens, but I think the way that 'psychadelics' and entheogens are defined by anthropologists, new-agers, etc (the 'white-think world') has been to lump them all together as supposedly sacred or healing tools, etc. But I have doubts that they will hold a great benefit for people not brought up in the cultures which use these substances and define them as healing. Only new-agers, anthropologists and white-thinkers try to define spirituality or ethnobotany in 'universal' ways. The very idea of certain substances being beneficial for certain things is not always something which can be taken out of context, because the very idea of it being useful is culturally defined. So I do not assume these substances will hold a benefit for people of just any culture. It is problematic to assume these things are 'psychadelic medicines' which can be utilized within modern healing modalities.
If one is going to appeal to modern modalities for taking entheogens out of context, they will need extensive modern research with double-blind studies showing that there is even a valid form of 'psychadelic medicine' good for treating specific problems. One would need to draw the justification from the modern paradigms, not assuming these things are 'medicine' just because some culture (who has nothing to do with modern modalities or 'frontline' approaches) claims it is helpful for something. If the modern therapy drew a justification from Indigenous cultures for using 'psychadelics' it is blatant appropriation. This is not congruent with supposedly being concerned for how cultures feel about their sacred traditions being stolen and taken out of context. Traditional cultures do not need to back up their own traditions with modern studies because they have not appropriated mainstream modalities or claimed that they justify their own medicines. The basis of modalities which treat modern society is science, and before making claims there should be evidence of effectiveness, not appropriating claims.
It seems to me the last thing we need in this ignorant supremacist modern society is people spreading around more 'psychadelics' and calling it 'medicine'. But if a few individuals claim to be having positive experiences with them, I'm not going to be the 'spiritual police' and call them a liar. I just hope they don't promote others doing as they are doing.
-
Well I didn't wanna nitpick too much further about the points you were trying to make because we could go on and on forever. But I think it is mostly clear that entheogens like Ayahuasca are a 'cultural property' to the tribes/cultures it comes from. I'm pretty sure Ayahuasca is actually two different ingredients mixed together, so it's like a cultural recipe. The use and supposed benefit of this mixture are also defined by that culture (and its particular assumptions or understanding). So no matter how I look at it, I think it is robbing those cultures to use it. It's not just appropriating a sacred plant, it's even appropriating an entire process and recipe, of blending things to make a mixture deemed sacred by the culture who invented this mixture.
I agree wholeheartedly. In my post about analogs I mentioned this briefly, that the process of combining DMT and an MAOI is inherently intellectual property in itself.
I have not read about each different entheogens, but I think the way that 'psychadelics' and entheogens are defined by anthropologists, new-agers, etc (the 'white-think world') has been to lump them all together as supposedly sacred or healing tools, etc. But I have doubts that they will hold a great benefit for people not brought up in the cultures which use these substances and define them as healing. Only new-agers, anthropologists and white-thinkers try to define spirituality or ethnobotany in 'universal' ways. The very idea of certain substances being beneficial for certain things is not always something which can be taken out of context, because the very idea of it being useful is culturally defined. So I do not assume these substances will hold a benefit for people of just any culture. It is problematic to assume these things are 'psychadelic medicines' which can be utilized within modern healing modalities.
If one is going to appeal to modern modalities for taking entheogens out of context, they will need extensive modern research with double-blind studies showing that there is even a valid form of 'psychadelic medicine' good for treating specific problems. One would need to draw the justification from the modern paradigms, not assuming these things are 'medicine' just because some culture (who has nothing to do with modern modalities or 'frontline' approaches) claims it is helpful for something. If the modern therapy drew a justification from Indigenous cultures for using 'psychadelics' it is blatant appropriation. This is not congruent with supposedly being concerned for how cultures feel about their sacred traditions being stolen and taken out of context. Traditional cultures do not need to back up their own traditions with modern studies because they have not appropriated mainstream modalities or claimed that they justify their own medicines. The basis of modalities which treat modern society is science, and before making claims there should be evidence of effectiveness, not appropriating claims.
Psychedelics show a lot of promise and there are actually numerous trials which show their efficacy in treating a wide range of psychological disorders both ongoing and from the past. Psychedelic research is a legitimate field of study and it started, primarily, with the discovery of LSD. LSD was used as an experimental tool for couples therapy and substance addiction with an unprecedented success rate before it was made illegal to manufacture or possess. Psychedelic research has been illegal since the late 60's which has made it extremely hard to try and prove that these substances are in fact useful tools for a wide variety of applications. Only recently has that door been opened (slightly) again. There are ongoing trials and double-blind tests for LSD and psilocybin. Both show promise for treating terminal patients with end of life anxiety, PTSD, substance addiction, and depression. I feel your concern, but frankly the information is out there if you want to find it. I can say from personal experience, and I know this may not count for much, that psychedelics dramatically changed my life and continue to offer me new and useful perspectives and I don't think they deserve the taboo that they are so often associated with. It's unfortunate that psychedelics have been high-jacked by white new agers but I don't think that this detracts from their medical potential in the slightest. Just my opinion.
It seems to me the last thing we need in this ignorant supremacist modern society is people spreading around more 'psychadelics' and calling it 'medicine'. But if a few individuals claim to be having positive experiences with them, I'm not going to be the 'spiritual police' and call them a liar. I just hope they don't promote others doing as they are doing.
I dont disagree with you here at all. I think psychedelics in the wrong hands can cause much more harm than good and often times their use tends to lead to a lot of self-righteous behavior. Interestingly enough, I personally feel like when they are used properly psychedelics can help to facilitate experiences that actually dismantle white supremacy and other oppressive patterns of behavior. I don't think this is the norm because these substances are not usually ingested in this context, but with these kinds of drugs the context is everything; the context is what defines the experience. So for me it's all about context and making sure that our use of psychedelics is in line with our set goals, whether that be the dismantling of white supremacy or coming to know God. We don't have to appropriate indigenous medicines to use psychedelics in a positive way, I really don't think the two are mutually exclusive.
I appreciate your thoughts; these are just some of mine.
I'm going to step back from this thread for a while because it is eating up too much of my time and it doesn't seem very useful or relevant at this point. I'll happily respond to any questions/statements directed towards me but otherwise I'll just keep up with posts to hear others thoughts.
Thanks everybody.
-
I do see where you are coming from, and perhaps one can even argue it would be ignorant to entirely rule-out any possible therapeutic benefits of 'psychadelic'/'entheogen' substances (especially the naturally-occurring ones). Complete rejection of something as being of no value without looking into it, that's a pretty traditional white habit. But I'm still doubtful of anything highly promising in this area, enough to constitute there being a basis for a modern term like 'psychedelic medicine'. I don't know what studies do exist, or how they were conducted, or what research is currently under way, but I'll make a note to possibly learn/research more about it sometime.
I'm sure some people have had positive experiences with 'psychadelics', as I'm not gonna say they are all liars. But it really seems impossible to set up an environment or context to ensure people will have a positive experience (even if the substances were shown to be helpful for certain conditions). We are talking substances that give people a drastically altered sense of reality, experiences that many end up interpreting in spiritual or mystical terms. Some people have 'bad trips' and experience extreme depression, etc, and we can't just say environment/setting can prevent that. That can never be safely applied to a mainstream modality, or a clinical setting without major risks. It could never happen, and should never be attempted by anyone who cares about their patients truly (even if research shows some people improving conditions with these experiences). It would end up being like other dubious pseudo-therapies such as hypnotism, etc which claim to help some people, but in reality also run a high risk of leading people further into delusions.
On the other hand, meditative practices may be promoted for 'self-development' safely, and I've read that many western therapists are beginning to reccommend meditation for things like anxiety, depression, etc. And there is no risk of being stuck in several hours of a scary, altered reality (and possibly terrible experience) from meditative practices, established evidence-based therapeutic modalities, etc.
Psilocybin mushrooms grow like crazy where I live, every fall you can see big patches of them, and even see lots of people crawling around and picking them. I have no need to pick them or ingest them, but I do find it hypocritical that people keep going to jail for picking/possessing them. I could walk a couple blocks away and harvest local poisonous plants (which can easily kill a person), and it would not be illegal to possess it. I'd say people like you who wish to alter your mind-state should at least be allowed to explore psychadelic substances legally, as long as it is not ripping off a culture/tradition. But this society does not offer that freedom, and in fact people are still fighting for even the right to possess medical marijuana, which has already been shown consistently helpful for certain symptoms. The legalization, let alone endorsement of psychadelics, is not going to happen.
Thanks for a very interesting discussion. Despite any disagreements, I enjoyed this thread as food for thought, even if it does at times reach beyond the scope of what NAFPS forum is really about.