I've been wondering lately a lot about the appropriateness of us here in the Nexus using the term 'Ayahuasca.' (I'm assuming that *most* of us are people living in the developed world, with minimal ancestral connection to the Indigenous cultures that developed Aya).

There is no denying the awe-inspiring power of the combination of oral N,N-DMT + a MAOI, and it is certainly true that the combination of b. caapi and p. virdis is a highly effective one, but I feel like when we use the term 'Ayahuasca,' we are, without realizing it, appropriating a lot more than just the chemical formula, or the recipe for the tea.

For thousands of years, Ayahusca has been bound up in the cultures of the people who developed it, and a tradition of great importance has developed around it. After colonialism and the enslavement and destruction of many of the native ways of life, these sacraments take on even more personal importance for the survivors as they try to maintain an ancestral way of life, and (more importantly, in my mind) a unique value system in the face of capitalist imperialism.

More and more, I'm feeling like it is inappropriate of us to take something like that, and use it in contexts so far removed from the cultures of the people who developed it, and for whom it connects them to their ancestors and culture. We all may have had powerful, revelatory, and life-changing experiences under the influence of our home brews, but no matter how sacred it is to us, it is not sacred in the same way as it is to the Indigenous peoples.

That's not to say you can't make the brew, and use it: far from it, I think the world would be happier if more people (esp. in the USA) did, but I am motioning that we come up with a different term, so that, while we get the oral DMT experience, we also leave something out of respect to those who developed (and suffered so much for) Ayahuasca.

I don't want to come off as scolding, or for anyone to believe that I am suggesting that they are 'bad' or 'wrong' for using the term Aya (I'm a blindingly white, middle-class American, I am in no position to speak for the indigenous peoples of the world), but here on the Nexus, and in the larger psychedelic community, there's a sense that we have some kind of wisdom, perspective, or insight because of our experiences, and I think that we would be hypocritical if we thought of ourselves in that way without at least having this conversation.

Blessings
~ND

My opinion is that it is a matter of semantics, and since the term "ayahuasca" is ideal for communication purposes (to make sure we're all understood by those to whom we speak), we should continue to use the term ayahuasca. I think to avoid doing so would only create confusion. I would have to imagine that there are many people who might come to the Nexus on any given day, in search of information regarding ayahuasca, and we want those people to be able to find it. I would think it odd to create another nick name for it that would only cloud searches and discussions. I can understand where you're coming from, but I don't feel there's a need for a change in terminology. If anything it may also seem like we're claiming it as our own by making another name for it.

The definition that is uphold in the ayahuasca forum: ayahuasca refers to Caapi (vine), even without any admix (light). Anything not holding vine is hence: no ayahuasca.
Possible an ayahuasca analog: anahuasca.

Nath. , very nice that you pay respect for the worthy originals which deserve due respect, but don't pedestal in one swing everything that goes on there under the aya flag. It's still people of human breed on a learning curve, like all of us, "fallen" Meastro's indicating, darts for sale,....

Aya is such a beautiful name, I think I would be disrespecting it by calling it something else.

I think there is a bit of idealization going on here, in reference to indigenous cultures.

Ayahuasca is a Quechua term, as far as I know..and many other peoples in the amazon have adopted the term to some degree...just look at ayahuasca tourism. Plant knowledge passes on tribe to tribe, culture to culture etc...crossing languages and dialects..it's no different for us to adopt the term ayahuasca for the tea than it was for some tribe who learned from some other tribe, like say the Napo Runa...

..and from what I understand.."chacru", and "chagro" both derive from the meaning "admixture" or something similar...please someome correct me if I am wrong..the chagropanga in Napo, who are a jungle tribe and speak a dialect of Quechua..so there has been obvious intercultural exchange of ideas for a long long time, and eclectic adoption of ideas is going to be common practice.

What makes our culture so different? The west(the culture comming out of western europe and spreading) tends to think it is special, for better or worse...

Its actually quite simple for me.
I call it tea and then give the name of the ingridents.
So its Rue-Mimosa-tea, Acacia-tea or Rue-Chali.
If Caapi is present, the name Ayahuasca is correct.
Aya = Vine, No Caapi = no reason to call it Aya.
So i reserve the name Ayahuasca for traditional known recepts.
Something with Caapi but with unusual Admixture (like Acacia for example) i would call "Special" Ayahuasca.

The thing that makes out western culture different is that western culture has dominated and massacred the indigenous people who developed Ayahuasca for hundreds of years, and the subjugation of native people continues to this day.

Blessings
~ND

So then the question is also "Should mestizo people descended from colonial Spaniards use the term? What about tribes that conquered other tribes? What terminology do they use? Is it acceptable to use the terminology from conquerer tribes but not conquered tribes?"

Yes, colonialism and imperialism are important factors to acknowledge, but it's not as though there was no conflict prior to non-indigenous domination. And I'm not equating systems of exploitation and colonialism with intra-tribal warfare, mostly because I don't have enough knowledge to speak on how similar or dissimilar they were. We can see a lasting legacy of colonialism that is more visible in many ways, but those are also the histories of oppression that we are (or at least I am) most familiar with. There's also the clear ecological legacy so perhaps that trumps all...but doesn't really help with the phraseology question.

Of course, we couldn't just outlaw the use of ayahuasca, we would also have to rout out all of the other terms as well, yage, la purga, etc. no?

I guess for me the question is what does it do? My preference would be that people call it whatever term they find most dscriptive/accurate based on their perspective and then take some meaningful action in the world against the actual oppressive forces that underscored the need for the OP in this thread. I know some people think that changing the language equates to more meaningful/tangible changes in the world. Personally, that's not an ideology I ascribe to, as I see a lot of evidence for people changing their language and still acting in completely messed up ways. Call out culture has latched on to language in a way that, imo, creates more issues than it solves.

It's easy to change the words you use, it's easy tell people they are using the "wrong" words, it's not so easy to take action to challenge the systemic oppression that underlies those words.

Just my $.02

I am not represented by my forefathers, whether they were conquerers or not.



...just seems to me more of a guilt trip than a sound argument.

Something along what is said: domination and massacre is not westerners copyright, but a common human condition, not separated by color or region, there we do not differ IMO.
Different is scale at which it becomes visible due difference in potential means. If they had same means .... I wouldn't bet anything on it.
This is something I feel not frolic about, how 1000+ years of aya at their doorstep wasn't able to turn that human tide in local width. I think we must look at very individual level and gains, not in regional measures.

Not really. Most of this is ongoing and deserves engagement. People trying to shirk histories (and presents) of subjugation and exploitation perpetuate the problem by refusing to acknowledge that the problem exists.

That's too easy an answer, but it avoids many issues, like how large of a population the "west" is, and who actually becomes lumped under that category. You loose perspective when you only see popular culture and stop seeing actual individuals

I am not my culture, and refuse the marginalization of those who say I am.

This pretty much sums it up. No one is denying that subjugation, imperialism, oppression, etc. happened or is happening. At least, we're not, here on the Nexus. I think it's fair to say that, as compared with non-Nexians, we Nexians are not subjugating, oppressing, or colonializing indigenous peoples. We just happen to think the medicine they've invented/discovered is a really good idea. And so we make it on our own. No one is stealing. In fact, if anything, we're re-inventing.

I guess this didn't really address the semantics question. But I see it sort of as not a big deal in light of the underlying facts. We're not colonializing anyone. We're imitating their medicine because ees goot for joo.

No way.

The vast majority of plant matter used by people on this site is not homegrown. Again, this sort of sidestepping and attempt at declaring clean hands creates more problems than it solves.

All due respect, but what separates you from the rest of Western culture? In my opinion, you could be the most anti-capitalist hippie on Earth living alone in the woods and you are still part of this culture. I see being a part of dominant culture as not a choice, but a social status based on privilege and power. You don't have to agree with the system for it to benefit you.

I personally don't see what the point would be in calling ayahuasca something different. For one, I think that if we want to talk about appropriation it's more useful to explore our actual engagement with the medicine and not just what we choose to call it. Snozz made a good point about call-out culture; lots of folks spend their time and energy trying to be politically correct and they constantly seem to be correcting the words of others, which can be useful at times...But if we only focus on words then we are ignoring what gives those words power in the first place, and that is where our efforts should be focused IMO.

In some ways I agree a lot with what Redguard said about changing the name being disrespectful. If we want to look at appropriation we should be real about it and examine how we are actually using ayahausca. Just calling it something different while continuing to use it in the same way is, as I see it, kind of a slap in the face to the cultures who first brought aya to the world.

I like this conversation, thanks for bringing it up Nathanial.

I doubt the natives of the amazon ever stop and think about whether or not it's politically correct for a bunch of people on a DMT forum half a world away to use the word ayahausca. #firstworldproblems

Fair point, but that's still not stealing. If a vendor has oppressive practices, that's the vendor's issue, and I'm going to do my best to support the ones that harvest respectfully, sustainably, etc.

But you likely have no clue what the practices of any of these vendors are...so that's not saying too much, imo.

^ Very true. So, should this discussion be about us? Or the vendors?

Might it be a productive conversation to talk about the use of Ayahuasca and its plant constituents in a hypothetical world where all vendors were respectful and sustainable?

Or is there something inherently wrong/disrespectful/oppressive with us modern people drinking medicine indigenous peoples essentially invented/discovered?

If a native amazonian goes out to the jungle and harvests a wild caapi vine and takes it home and drinks it. Is that poaching?

If a tourista on holiday in the amazon goes out and harvests a wild caapi vine and takes it back to the hostel and drinks it. Is that poaching?

If a native amazonian goes out to the jungle and harvests a wild caapi vine and sells it to another native amazonian in the market in Iquitos. Is that poaching?

If a native amazonian goes out to the jungle and harvests a wild caapi vine and sells it to a tourista in the market in Iquitos. Is that poaching?

If a non-native goes out and harvests a wild caapi vine and sells it to a native amazonian in the market in Iquitos. Is that poaching?

If a non-native goes out and harvests a wild caapi vine and sells it to a tourista in the market in Iquitos. Is that poaching?

If a native amazonian goes out to the jungle and harvests a wild caapi vine and sells it online. Is that poaching?

If a non-native goes out and harvests a wild caapi vine and sells it online. Is that poaching?

Where is it dictated who owns this plant? At what point is personal cultivation required to ethically use this medicine?