Excellent questions, though I don't think anyone here has the knowledge/authority to answer them.

But I do think we can look to the people who have been using it traditionally for thousands of years for their opinion on the matter.

I'm in touch with a full blood Shipibo shaman (Shamanism runs in his family, so to speak) that I worked with during my time in Peru last Spring. I could ask him some of these burning questions, if there's interest here. He's a really chill, laid back dude with a surprisingly open mind. He spent the first ~20 years of his life secluded from civilization, but he likes to listen to electronica, talks about wanting to try LSD...

He's a man of few words, but he might have some interesting things to say about the topic(s) of this conversation.

While that's interesting and if you want to ask for his thoughts on this topic you certainly shoud, it's worth remembering that that's all they are...his thoughts.

Cultural/social groups are not homogenous. Spokespeople cannot speak for everyone.

"All due respect, but what separates you from the rest of Western culture"

The same things that separate you from your immediate family, or any individual from a given group.

I as an individual, am not empire. I was, however born within the confines of empire...and I was blind in that.

We might never agree on this, but my stance is strict. We can agree to disagree.

Christains have been using wine in their ceremonies for thousands of years, does that mean they own grapes? Are produce sections and liquor stores an insult to traditional Christian culture?

What about when the Santo Daime overlays christian values on an ayahausca ceremony? Is that an insult to Amazonian people? An insult to Christians? An insult to ayahausca? An insult to grapes?

Wait, so we're forced to be represented by the deeds of our ancestors, but the words of a Shipibo shaman are just those of an individual?

I feel where you're coming from. If I can though, I'd like to offer my perspective on the group/individual analogy.

I just want to say that when it comes to family, will they not always be your biological family even you reject them as such? That blood will always run through your veins, right? I do get your point though. And I guess my response would just be that when you are part of a group that comes with "benefits", you get those benefits regardless of your actions as an individual. When you are part of a group you get the baggage that comes with it; and that could include how you are perceived in public, how others treat you, and what membership gives you access to or lack thereof. Culture is like belonging to a group that we were placed in at birth, and they left a big brand on all of our foreheads. We'll always have the brand even if we try to dissociate from the group. We will still carry all of the baggage that comes with it. But even so, I dont see culture like a group of people that you can come to and go to at will; it is the medium in which our relationships occur, the substrate from which our society grows. In a lot of ways, we are culture.

I respect your opinion and it's obviously OK if we disagree on this point. But if you have any push-back I would still love to hear it, and please know that I can hear you out without adding my own opinion and I'm happy to leave it at that.



I think we're starting to stray off topic, as the OP was originally in regards to using the word "ayahuasca".

I do think these are valid questions, however...but they are not new. People have been talking about this for a long time. If you haven't already, I would suggest doing a search for "reverse-appropriation" and "cultural appropriation vs cultural diffusion". There are pretty concrete definitions for these terms, but of course there's a million and half different takes on each definition. You might have a different take than me, but I highly recommend exploring that discussion.

This is silly...come on now.

These histories of oppression have living legacies in the present.

That is a completely different issue (it's systemic) than a single individual speaking for a group of people.

Or put a different way, histories of oppression are relevant because the systems that inflicted them were the precursors/foundations of the systems that exist today. The issue of individuals representing diverse groups of people has absolutely nothing to do with that.

Well then I'm having a hard time seeing what you are saying, Snozz. Are you suggesting some kind of reparations for cultural damage? Suggesting we stop using Ayahuasca? That we stop calling it that?

I still think the focus should be put on vendors rather than us customers, personally, if we are to address any potential instances of oppression.

Excerpted from my first post in this thread...

DEATH TO CAAPITALISM!!1!11!

Sounds good. Can you give us a specific example of said meaningful action? I would like to help. Maybe when ICEERS resurfaces...?

In the mean time, how guilty should we feel about drinking Ayahuasca? And does that guilt apply if the plants are from Hawaii and Iran? (A tongue-in-cheek, but also serious question)

Vendors exist because there's a market for their goods. Shrink or remove the market and their incentive for existence will shrink or disappear alongside it.

People here have been advocating self-sufficiency for years. Check out Share the Seeds.

Even if that is one day accomplished so that vendors are the exception rather than the rule (unlikely, but we can dream) there are still plenty of other issues surrounding neocolonialism in psychedelic communities. Such work is neverending, but it's part of life, no?

Why do you need me to tell you what to do? Can you not find actions that are meaningful for yourself? Some people believe in direct action. Others take on projects like prisoner support. Some people fight cops in defense of their lands. Actually many people fight cops in defense of their landbase.

For me, challenging dominant culture is much bigger than sustainably sourcing psychedelics. These issues are all interconnected. Industrial capitalism won't stop mauling ecosystems just because we grow iboga and ayahausca plants in ways that are ecologically sustainable and acknowledge the histories of struggle surrounding their traditional contexts. If we want to get to the roots of the issue, then we have to locate those roots and figure out ways to engage with thme that are personally significant.

I can't tell you what will be meaningful to you any more than you can tell me what will be meaningful to me. We are different people with different life experiences. That's OK. In fact, that's great! A diversity of tactics is needed to effectively challenge the systemic issues being discussed.

As far as guilt...this isn't about being good or bad...guilty or of clear conscience. This is about acknowledging the systemic problems that exist and figuring out ways we can leverage ourselves against these problems and take steps to dismantle them. If feeling guilty helps you with that...then I guess feel guilty...if not, then don't.

This is an internet forum not part of some scientific community reviewing people for their papers. While you do raise a point that his words shouldn't be taken as gospel, there is a potential for everyone to acquire a unique vantage point of the situation. Personally I'm very interested in hearing what a shaman has to say on the matter. From what I've learned from a few individuals that regularly work with the shamans of peru many of them see the work they are doing as sacred. They see western society, not necessarily broken, but missing the spiritual aspect of that. For many of them, introducing plant based spirituality to modern man is spreading the wisdom of the jungle throughout the world. Which is a bit of a higher calling is it not? Just my 2c

This has nothing to do with scientific communities or "shamanic authority."

As I said earlier, such perspective might be interesting as this person's perspective, but that's about it, imo. Presenting this as "the indigenous" or "the shamanic" perspective is dicey as it presents homogeneity where there is none.

I don't want anyone else speaking for me, and I don't presume to speak for anyone else. It doesn't seem like a difficult concept to acknowledge we are all individuals with our own life experiences and afford each other the respect of not presuming to be able to speak for each other without that explicit permission. That's literally all I was attempting to say.

What do you guys want me to ask him?

How do you feel about people living outside of South America purchasing ingredients to make Ayahuasca on the internet, making it on their own, and drinking it on their own?

He doesn't speak English, by the way. Only Spanish and Shipibo.

Perhaps it doesn't but your experience with scientific communities bleeds through your posts like an open wound. I would hope everyone registering at this site knows the difference between fact and opinion, I find it odd you feel the need to point this out to individuals. I find the majority of the users on this site are intelligent enough to distinguish the difference between the two, if you really take something that's hearsay as gospel you really shouldn't be part of a psychedelic community to begin with imo.

Ideas though, are very important. Especially concerning perspectives that are far different then our own. The most this idea should theoretically do for you is create more ideas for you to better understand the situation. And I feel that you were completely dismissive of something that could be very interesting. Perhaps even curtailing any possibility of the user asking the shaman these questions in the first place. Maybe my advice for you, kiss one cheek while you slap the other?

I don't know what to tell you...I guess feel free to ascribe w/e meaning you feel necessary to my posts.

My reply was given as I understood RS as approaching this person to give the "shamanic perspective." My point was that's a construct that doesn't exist. The individual's opinion is certainly meritorious as such, but should not be understood as anything more than that. And no, this is not commonly understood, but rather an analysis that is frequently lacking (see: reset.me).

There's really nothing else I have to say on this, so I'll leave it at that.

I'm quite aware that opinions are bound to differ among shamans. I suggested it because I thought one opinion might be better than zero. And later, perhaps there will be more to add to the bucket!