Odds and Ends > Etcetera
Using Sacred Medicines like Ayahuasca: When is it appropriate?
Thyme4Mind:
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:
--- Quote ---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
--- End quote ---
and
--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---
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.
Thyme4Mind:
(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:
--- Quote ---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
--- End quote ---
and
--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---
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:
--- Quote from: Praxis on April 10, 2015, 10:11:18 pm ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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.
Thyme4Mind:
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?
AClockworkWhite:
"It's a trap!" -Adm Ackbar (RET)
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version