Talk:Plastic shaman/Archive 1

Archive 1

POV

This article is still rather POV, but I don't know enough about the subject to fix it further. I think it's important to focus on the false claims of a cultural tradition and avoid other judgments.--Curtis Clark 04:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Id say it looks pretty good... thanks for your edits, NPOV is hard to do! we'll keep an eye on the article and make sure it stays good. thanks MrPMonday 06:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

um...as an outsider to the issue, this is more of a wacky PC attack site than POV-neutral. granted, the bee guy is IMHO certifiable and dangerous, but there's a big spectrum to cover here, and a good article would help people see where say, Michael Harner, Wimme Sari, or Tuvan shamanic tourism fit into the picture

A POV-free article would need to describe the relevant points of view at conflict. With a particular tradition I would expect to find..

• those who practice the tradition and value its stability
• those who practice the tradition and desire change
• those who practice the tradition and may not desire, but accept change
• those who live in the culture, don't practice, but value the tradition
• those who live in the culture, don't practice, and don't value the tradition
• those who live in the culture, don't practice, and don't care
• outsiders who value the tradition's stability
• outsiders who value parts of the tradition but not it's stability
• outsiders who see the tradition as related to their own
• outsiders who see some part of the tradition as harmful
• outsiders who see the entire tradition as harmful
• outsiders who see the tradition as a resource to exploit

let's look at the links.

"See also" - need to point toward more comparative religion, rather than just "us and them".

Further reading - Books - they are mostly POSITIVE towards what is being called "plastic shamanism" except the ones that announce their attack agenda (controversy, opportunism) in the title.

Even the title of the website list announces its attack agenda - no neutral POV here

FEH! In the big picture, this article probably should not exist. It should just be a stub that defines "plastic shaman" as a derogatory term, used by some defenders of some traditional spiritual practices, towards those they see as corrupting those traditions or illegitimately claiming lineage in them. Then the stub should point to someplace more neutral in the whole shamanism/religion picture.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.17.180.126 (talk • contribs) .

Wow! Well said! Your list, especially, puts the whole thing in perspective. It has always been my view that the article was created by someone with a grudge to push, but it seemed worth salvaging. I like your stub idea better, though: the article ironically draws attention (and "wiki-gitimacy") to agendas that otherwise might not merit an article in Wikipedia, and for those that do, the articles themselves should present the pros and cons.--Curtis Clark 22:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

I probably wouldn't be as harsh as 71.214.102.193, who wrote "WARNING: DEEPLY SUBJECTIVE AND AMATEURISH ARTICLE FOLLOWS", but I see the point. Some of the contributions to the article seem to come from people who have been burned by specific traditions. And yet there are phenomena that are not touched on: One could make a case, for example, that Gerald Gardner, Joseph Smith, Jr., and L. Ron Hubbard were plastic shamans, but the result in each case was a worldwide religious movement. And the argument that outsiders steal indigenous beliefs without returning anything to indigenous people, which is evidently the source of the term, is not well elucidated by the examples.

I've hesitated to do cleanup, since I'm no expert about the subject. I'm hoping that we can arrive at a consensus on the Talk page as to what the article should encompass, and then fix it.--Curtis Clark 16:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Personal gain?

To me, that's the big question. Does "plastic shaman" refer only to those who seek personal gain, or does it refer to anyone who "misappropriates" a tradition (whatever that means)? Does anyone actually have a reference definition of "plastic shaman"? Until we have a better sense of what the term means, I don't see any point to attempting to fix the article.--Curtis Clark 05:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think they all do it for personal gain, which is why I have put the POV tag on it. I know a couple of people who might fall into category, one of whom does "healing" for FREE on his friends. So I wouldn't call that personal gain, but his links to Shamanism are weak, as he has never left Scotland. --MacRusgail 10:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

In response to the 'gain' not being financial and therefore not selfish in nature, the reward for being a 'neo-shaman' could be an egotistical one. As the 'plastic-shaman' wiki page states, "...the "plastic shaman" may have some genuine cultural connection, but is seen to be exploiting that knowledge for ego, power or money." --blogofrob 3:18, 14 Oct 2009

Answer to Question

• Curtis Clark asked:

"[To me, that's the big question. Does "plastic shaman" refer only to those who seek personal gain, or does it refer to anyone who "misappropriates" a tradition (whatever that means)?]"

To answer your question Sir both is correct. I would add sometimes someone needs to distort Native beliefs in order to con the public for financial gains. For example running a public seminar on suppose Hopi Native spirituality and delibrately fabricating rituals that has never existed in that particular tribe. Many Native peoples believe its in-appropriate (or "misappropraite") to make profit from thier religions. Their religion is held sacred to them and that "one cant buy spirituality".

If I might jump in here, "personal gain" is not necessarily financial. There have been many reports of "plastic Shamans" exploiting their members sexually and psychologically. For many it's not the money, it's the power trip.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.43.31.254 (talk • contribs) .

• Curtis Clark's second question

[ "(Does anyone actually have a reference definition of "plastic shaman"?)" ] I personal dont but there are some academic material that I can refer you to on the issue. (see below)

---

Recomended Reading Sources:

-Kehoe, A. B. "Primal Gaia: Primitivists and Plastic Medicine Men." in: Clifton, J., ed. The Invented Indian: Cultural Fictions and Government Policies. New Brunswick: Transaction; 1990: 193-209.

-Green, R. "The Tribe Called Wannabee." Folklore. 1988; 99(1): 30- 55.

-Hobson, G. "The Rise of the White Shaman as a New Version of Cultural Imperialism." in: Hobson, G., ed. The Remembered Earth. Albuquerque, NM: Red Earth Press; 1978: 100-108.

-Rose, W. "The Great Pretenders: Further Reflections on White Shamanism." in: Jaimes, M. A., ed. The State of Native America: Genocide, Colonisation and Resistance. Boston: South End; 1992: 403-421.

-Smith, A. "For All Those Who Were Indian in a Former life." in: Adams, C., ed. Ecofeminism and the Sacred. New York: Continuum; 1994: 168-171.

No Probable Cause

Apparently some of the posts and entire sections were removed without any justifications. If someone is going to erase posts in particular entire sections they should at least give some reason why.

(Note: It was the entire "Further Reading list" and the entire "External Link" section that were erased.)

Self-Protecting

Many of these Plastic Shamans actively seek out and try to attack articles on the Net (and in print) that provide information against them. They do not want the general public to realise the truth about them.

Reason for edit

I have edited out sections of this piece which seem to me to be a personal attack on Simon Buxton. I have read his book 'The Shamanic Way of the Bee' and note that the forward is written by a Professor of Anthropology who is the head of department at a British university. There is no obvious pilfering from the Navajo Pollen Path, as Buxton's Path of Pollen is based around the honey-bee and honey-bee pollen, whereas the Pollen Path of the Navajo utilises corn pollen as a sacred sacrament and has nothing to do with bees. Also, none of the ceremonies described by Buxton have any resemblance to Navajo traditions. So, other than both sharing the words 'pollen' and 'path' I can see no link between the Pollen Path and The Path of Pollen!

More Cleanup

I have only just found this article, but I am quite familiar with the topic, and with many of the groups and individuals discussed herein. I think I can help in making it more readable. Hopefully, with a little work we can bring it more in line with Wikipedia standards and get the cleanup and other flags removed. Feel free to jump in if I make any changes that don't work for you. --Kathryn NicDhàna 18:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, what we need now are the citations for the sweat lodge deaths and the denouncing of some of the specific shameons. We also need to update the links. --Kathryn NicDhàna 19:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Uh, "denouncing" is POV (as contrasted to citing references that denounce)--Curtis Clark 21:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Good job so far, though...--Curtis Clark 21:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I actually did mean "citing references that denounce". (Not encouraging anyone to add POV rants in the article, by any means.) I didn't realize I was being unclear, so thanks for clarifying that for anyone reading. --Kathryn NicDhàna 21:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, it still needs Wikifying, but I think the main cleanup and POV issues have been addressed so I've removed the flags. --Kathryn NicDhàna 22:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

POV check

To label someone as plastic just because they are not indigineous is fascist

Plastic shaman has an extreme point of view indeed it could even be classified as indigineous fascism and racism, why is this in the wikipedia. If I wrote an article that an indigineous could not become a medical doctor because it is western medicine the article would not last 10 seconds. I do not see how you can classify 'plastic shamanism' as npov when my critique did not last 10 minutes. You cannot represent this extreme point of view without a counter argument. here is the posting :

Critique of the 'Plastic Shaman' thesis

Whether the term shaman, witch doctor, visionary, sorcerer or what ever term you wish to use is used is of no importance, these are just words, what is important is understanding and respecting that some people are blessed or some may consider cursed with wisdom and supernatural abilities. The Native American tradition has a great respect for visionaries and healers but they do not have a monopoly on shamanic abilities. The hand of god(another word with so many interpretations) can touch even those from the most ruthless, unethical cultures, some might call plastic societies. There has always been and there probably always will be frauds and cheats people who pretend to have abilities that they do not posses. The west does not have a monopoly on this, there have been countless cases of fraudulent Native American Shamans, indeed any culture you wish to investigate you will find decievers. If a proven healer from the west wishes to use elements of the Native American medicine wheel, because it helps in his succesful practice what is the problem with this. If the label applied to them is shaman is this of any importance. No the shamanic world is a symbolic world beyond superficial labels.

• See the discussion on the Talk:Jindyworobak Movement page as well. I'm sure there are "indigenous" frauds as well, and it's probably worth pointing out that some of the peoples who have indulged in Shamanism are very remotely connected in many ways too. More remotely than with non-indigenous peoples. --MacRusgail 17:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• As I see it, and as I understand it from reading the cited sources, it's not about race, it's about culture. Many, and perhaps most, of the "frauds" listed on "Wall of Shame" type sites are of indigenous ancestry, just not part of the tradition they claim to be representing. The article is not about race, it is about people of any race presenting themselves as a tradition-bearer or teacher of a culture they are not really part of. It is also about people, of any culture, behaving in ways that the traditions of the culture state are inappropriate or exploitative. The "fraud" part is about the individual in question not having the knowledge and experience they claim, and not about the race of the claimant. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• I'm sorry but there is a rascist undertone to the article such as examples of further reading 'The Great Pretenders: Further Reflections on White Shamanism.' and 'For All Those Who Were Indian in a Former life.'

Even if it is just a cultural observation it is still cultural fascism. There is a whole culture surrounding becomming a western medical Doctor, it is nothing about race, it is a culture. Should those from 'traditional' indigineous cultures be excluded from joining this culture because they are from a different culture?

There are also cases of frauds who where born into a tradition, have recieved comprehensive and complete training within this tradition, but due to lack of skill simply do not posses the shamanic abilities they claim to posses.

Yeah, but becoming a doctor in American culture is not within the realm of the sacred; it's profane. If a culture doesn't want it's sacred knowledge revealed to others from outside that culture, then that is their right. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 01:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Firstly Western medical science is not 'American' it is an international culture that has evolved from ancient Greek, Roman and Christian and Islamic belief systems. This has coloured its perception, to someone who has been cured by this system I am sure it is very sacred. Secondly polarized comments separating the 'sacred and the 'profane' merely exhibit your ignorance to the concepts and practice of Shamanism.

If someone does not want to share their knowledge that is their right, but if their decision on who to share it with is founded purely on cultural and racial judgements, then they are are a cultural fascist! There are true shamans that you cannot keep secrets from, whatever culture he or she are from.

• One, please sign your posts on talk pages (but not in articles). Typing four tildes ~~~~ will do it. Two, discuss issues instead of making personal attacks against those who disagree with you. Three, as it is usually white people who are appropriating Native culture against the wishes of those cultures, it is not racist to point out that pattern. The phenomenon of white people pretending to be Native "shamans" is documented, and it is documented that many native people and their supporters believe that misrepresentation of Native culture is rooted in racism. Pointing out racism is not a racist act. But our opinions on these issues are not the point. The point is what can and can't be sourced in the article. Please read the links on Wikipedia policies included in the welcome message on your talk page. Thanks! --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 04:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Also, allopathic medicine is not a "culture". The more apt analogy is that someone claiming to represent, say, Cherokee culture and religious traditions when they have never lived as part of that culture is analagous to someone claiming to have a medical degree when they never attended medical school. It is not racist to point out when someone is practicing medicine without training or a license. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 05:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The distinction between the sacred and the profane is a key concept within cultural anthropology (and some other social sciences). "Sacred" refers to matters of the spirit, whereas "profane" refers to the day-to-day workings of the world that aren't viewed as spiritually significant (see here for more info). I am an anthropology major and I think I know what I'm talking about to some extent. I've studied with Hank Wesselman and have personally attempted to do "shamanic" journeying (I have "shamanic" in quotes since the term shamanism really should only apply to Siberian groups). Anyways, I never ruled out other Western cultures when I said "American" and I was careful not to do so. Regardless, my own perspective on this as an American and as an observer of cultures is that most people in America (and probably other Western nations) don't consider doctors to be religiously oriented. They cure the physical body and that's about it. Some people may also attribute their healing to their own sense of the sacred, but rarely do they view the doctor as manipulating the sacred as a "shaman" would. There is a clear difference. I also suggest you consider the trials that many of these traditional groups have gone through. Many have had their lands and lives stolen as part of colonization by powerful nations. Of course they're going to be suspicious and not incredibly accepting of outsiders learning their religion. Think about it: many are in situations that seem hopeless and many seem powerless to stop the repression of their cultures. Their religion is in some cases one of the last things they have that they can derive power from. Why would they then want to give that power to the very people who have stolen everything else from them? It's not racist, and it's surely not fascist; it's an understandable and perfectly legitimate reaction to what is happening. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 06:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• I am not attacking anyone, I am stating a fact if some one is seperating the sacred from the profane in understanding shamanic practices then they have a polarized world view that show a complete lack of understanding of shamanism. This is fact. Please before anyone replies to this do your research.

As you are comining from a anthropological perception I suggest you read further some basic reading such as Mercia Eliade's observations on the sacred and the profane. Any shamanic system does not seperate the sacred from the profane, there is an apreciation of the duelism that underlines all reality. The seperation of the sacred from the profane is a monotheistic ( Judaism, Christianity, Islam Etc) practice whereby the mind (spirit) is percieved as heavenly and the body as sinful Developing a culture that perceives the material world, including our bodies, as sinful and that indulging in such would prevent us from achieving a state of grace. Current academia has it's foundations on this mind-body split, which is why so little anthropological work is able to succesfully assimilate and understand shamanism. Shamanism does not have this mind-body split, the sacred and the profane, it has a duelistic apreciation of both concepts. A core of Shamanism is animism, within Christianity the animal realm is associated with the demonic, getting the picture yet?

As for Kathryn NicDhàna's statement 'as it is usually white people who are appropriating Native culture against the wishes of those cultures, it is not racist to point out that pattern.' This statement is inconsistant with your previous statemnt when you claimed that this is not an issue of race but one of culture, now you saying it is an issue of race but that is understandable because of all the hardships they have recieved. I am sorry but whatever persecutions a race may have experienced by 'individuals' who belong to a certain race or culture to paint the whole of the race or culture with the same brush is racism. Broad brushstrokes and generalisations have no place with those interested in truth. By the way if I was a doctor in medicine I would be very insulted by you labeling me as profane. I suggest you check the established dictionary definition of profane before you continue on your attack of this community. Please also check the dictionary definition of 'culture'. dorjezigzag

You clearly don't understand what profane means from a social science view. It is not an insult or associated with negative things, and does not mean sacreligious as it usually does in mainstream conversation. It just means not religious. And my dictionary has "secular" as one of the definitions, along with the more insulting (to you) ones. Western medicine is almost entirely secular. You aren't disagreeing with that, are you? And to some extent you are right--"shamanic" cultures don't place as much emphasis on a sacred vs profane dichotomy. There is still some though. For example, many groups might not care about sharing something like their techniques for making baskets, but might refuse to give up information on their sacred ceremonies and beliefs. As for Kathryn's statement, race is often wrapped up in culture. Even in America, there is more than one culture and many of them have racial differences. There is a major cultural difference in general between mainstream white America and mainstream black America (or Latino/Chicano America, or Asian America or whatever). And as a whole, it is the white culture that is doing this sort of thing. And even if it is based on race, you have yet to address my last argument. Anyways, what gives people outside of a culture the right to demand that culture's knowledge? Can I come knock on your door and demand you tell me everything about yourself, and then whey you don't tell me everything I want to know, can I call you a fascist or a racist? Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 00:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• This is not a discussion on social science this a discussion on shamanism if you wish to discuss social science I am sure there are appropriate sections.

I feel I need to remind the discussion the issue at point that I have raised because people are loosing focus and detracting from this issue.

Is the term Plastic Shaman an accurate label to be applied to fraudulent shamans especially as it is so race and culturally specific.

Your argument about the 'demanding' of knowledge has nothing to do with the case in point. To be called a fraudulent shaman you need to be a practicing shaman, if you are a practicing shaman you have to believe, or not be concerned, that you you have the appropriate knowledge. Therefore no need to 'demand' any 'secret' knowledge from any one else.

As for race and fraudulent shamans, there has been a repeated claim on this discussion board, a racist claim unless they can back it up with hard facts, that most fake shamans are white, has no one here visited New York, New Orleans, India, Hawaii, Mexico, India and Africa.

I feel I need to further comment on the practice of certain people to use the origins of a word to stifle it's current universal meaning. Shaman being a case in point. On this note it is interesting to look at the origins of the word doctor. The earliest use of "doctor" in WRITTEN English was in 1303, but the term applied to "doctors of the Church," meaning "learned men in the scriptures." It was not until 1377 that it was used in the sense of "medical doctor," or one who treats illnesses or diseases. Outside the English language the word's origin came-- from the Old French "doctor" from the Latin "doctor," meaning "teacher." And that noun came from the verb "docre" which meant "to teach.

It's current widely accepted meaning within the English language is A doctor of medicine; applied to any medical practitioner. Also, a wizard or medicine-man in a indigenous tribe.

I'm sorry applying profane to the word Doctor is inaccurate, whatever perspective you are coming from. I see where you are coming from but it is simply not correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorjezigzag (talk • contribs)

Dorjezigzag,

You see the essential question as "Is the term Plastic Shaman an accurate label to be applied to fraudulent shamans especially as it is so race and culturally specific"; however, that's not a Wikipedia issue. We don't decide on proper terms, we report what other people decide are the proper terms. If "plastic shaman" is an accepted academic term, that's what we use. If you have sources- not your own argument- saying that "plastic shaman" is an inaccurate or misleading term, please present them- otherwise, this is a moot issue.

More broadly, your argument doesn't make much sense. "To be called a fraudulent shaman you need to be a practicing shaman" is saying, essentially, that anyone can call himself a shaman and thus deserves to be treated as such. What Force seems to be saying is that various cultures have their own definition of shaman, and it is up to them to decide who has access to their information and thus who can be called a shaman. He sees a plastic shaman as someone who pretends to have privileged knowledge that he does not actually have, while you don't believe in the idea of a plastic shaman because you don't believe in this privileged knowledge. I have to unequivocally side with Force here- many, perhaps most, cultures have their own rituals and traditions that they do not share with outsiders. The academic literature reflects this.

Further, I don't think there is anyone out there who associates "shaman" with "doctor" first and foremost. It has a very specific meaning related to low-tech societies. How many fantasy RPGs and novels are there with the stereotypical shamanic character? The term is rigidly defined in our culture; consequently, if somebody is engaged in certain activities (ritual dancing, claims to know traditional medicine, etc) and claiming that they represent tribal tradition, one can easily identify them as a plastic shaman. Stilgar135 04:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• I am sorry where did I say 'that anyone can call himself a shaman and thus deserves to be treated as such', I most definitely did not. I am not disputing there are fake shamans, I am disputing that this a white dominated manifestation, a section entitled fake shamans could be acceptable, plastic shamans is not.

If someone is a fake they are not interested in truth, therefore they are not especially interested in gaining any real knowledge.

People are free to a degree, to engage in academic discourses about their racist uninformed opinions, but this a npov encyclopedia therefore extreme unproven racial slurs are not tolerated within it. For example is there a section on Nazi eugenics presented as facts in this Wikipedia?

Please check the dictionary for interpretations of the word 'doctor', An encyclopedia is very much on the same lines as a dictionary.

In most cases you do not study to be a 'shaman', you are born a shaman or receive a vision or experience that leads you on the shamanic path. There are countless cases of people gaining 'inner' knowledge, not from a book, or from a teacher. This is what the academic world finds so threatening as its heirachy is built on the consumption of and creation of words. This is also why so many academics (not all!) like to see shamanism as an extinct practice, placed in the past as a curiosity, all about basket weaving, dancing and feathers. They are not prepared to believe that it has evolved and very much alive in our culture.

I was interested to see that Ungovernable Force has had a shamanic session with Hank Wesselman. In many uniformed peoples perception he is a plastic Shaman, he teaches a tradition other than that he was born into. How did he gain this knowledge? Well he certainly did not need to 'demand' it from anyone, he received it through vision. Are the Polynesian line of Kahunas angry at Kank Wesselman for 'stealing' there knowledge? No, they accepted him into there fold and call him the Vessel man. please see this excellent [video http://www.consciousmedianetwork.com/members/hwesselman.htm]

You may have a problem with above link you may need to go first to [1]first and look for the Hank Wesselman link on shamans on this page, i think you may even have to be a member, but it is free to join.

Not that this matters, but for people who judge opinions on pieces of paper, I received first class honours for my dissertation on contemporary shamanism, more importantly for a discussion on shamanism, I am an acknowledged shaman throughout the world.dorjezigzag

You're speaking in non-sequitors. The word "white" doesn't appear anywhere in the main body of the article. If you're arguing that the page shouldn't give the impression that there are more white fake shamans than non-whites, you're arguing that the page should stay the way it is. You seem to really dislike the term "plastic shaman" but you haven't explained why it's so much worse than "fake shaman".

I'm sorry if I misinterpreted you about who can be called a shaman, but that's the impression you're giving off- that the term "shaman" isn't really important, all in all. When I went back and reread your comments, it seems that you sincerely believe in shamanic powers. You're free to hold that belief, but Wikipedia articles are written from a non-supernatural perspective. If you have widely-read authors (and evidence that they're widely-read) who believe that shamanic powers are randomly or abritralily gifted to different peoples across cultures, you can mention them- but your own beliefs are not the sort of thing that Wikipedia includes. Stilgar135 22:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, technically wikipedia is not supposed to be written from a non-supernatural perspective, it's supposed to be written from a perspective that incorporates any and all relevant (and relatively notable) worldviews on a topic of discussion. Of course, it does tend to lean towards a Western academic and scientific worldview. I go into that more on my userpage. Anyways, I never took a session with Wesselman as it is very expensive and I'm very poor, and the whole idea of paying for something like that makes me very uneasy. He teaches Magic, Witchcraft and Religion at my school, and that is where I had him as a teacher. At first I thought he was pretty credible, but the more I saw of him, and the more I've reflected on the experience afterwards, the more skeptical I've become of his claims, which is part of what has influenced my stance on this issue. First off, he seems far too comfortable with clear hacks like Castaneda. He also seems way too full of himself and drops names constantly, but tries hard to seem humble. I just feel like he's deceptive on a number of levels, and this is a feeling I can't help but have when I'm around him. I wanted him to be authentic, but I just can't seem to believe he is. He also makes factual errors in some of the information he teaches. He makes a lot of unreasonable assumptions regarding the meaning of symbols, and although his interpretations may be correct, he does little to qualify that his interpretations are conjecture at best. He has taught incorrect information regarding Sun Dances, which led to another teacher in the department to criticize him in class (albeit without naming names). One of the other teachers in the department was criticizing him today after class. A lot of his information is interesting and thought-provoking, and on one level he is a pretty cool guy, but I have a lot of reservations about him, as do most of the other students in the department, as well as the teachers. And like Stilgar, I'm having trouble seeing why you object to "plastic" but not "fake". How does plastic have any inherent racial undertones? And I'm not saying it isn't possible for a white person to be a "shaman," but I do think that the ones who go out and write books about it to make money and charge hundreds of dollars for training conferences probably aren't the real deal. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 00:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• I was interested in Ungovernable forces last posting regarding Hank Wesselman, I have never met Hank wesselman so I cannot be a judge on his character, I used him as an example as someone who was acknowledged as gaining 'secrets' by elders of a tradition through means of vision.

I think the problem that a lot of westerners have when accepting people as shamans in the west is that we associate holy men with being good, honest and saintly, this not necessarily the case they may be shamans but they are human subject to the same weaknesses as any one else. Shamanic stories from throughout the world are full of tales of extreme kindness and cruelty and the symbol of the trickster is often associated with the shaman. Carlos Castenada is very much from this tradition, I know there are a lot of inconsistencies in his work but there is also a lot of knowledge, with some excellent narration of other worldly experiences. Shamans often live between worlds, in a place where reality is dissolving, the rules and perceptions of this world are gone and a new language has to be found, it may then appear inconsistent but that is the point, I think William Burroughs work with cut ups is an example.

I know that some of the more intense experiences I have experienced are not remembered in the conventional sense, if something happens that is beyond the rational, your brain has certain defense mechanisms that distort and hide memories that are just to traumatic to process in the conventional sense.

I would be interested to hear more about the incorrect information about sun dances, I think from a shamanic perspective people pay far to much attention to the external manifestation of a dance, which in most cases although symbolic is not really important what is more important is the inner experience of the dance, the trance state it induces. There are a 1000 different shamanic dances all with different names and moves but all have the same objective.

I don't think the title of shaman fits very comfortably in our society, especially one that is suspicious of these powers, which is probably why there is a lot of resentment of Hank, i think the teachers are being very unprofessional insulting another teacher to the students, which undermines his authority. I am sure all of your lecturers make some mistakes or inaccuracies at some point or other, or present theories that are a bit flaky, but I imagine all mistakes Hank makes are examined under a microscope and blown up because of the shamanism. A shaman is just basically more in tune with 'other' dimensions, he is not necessarily academically clever and is as subject to arrogance, ignorance and intellectual failings as anyone else

My problems with the word plastic is the obvious association of this word, come on you know what the 'intent' was by those who coined the word. Plastic is a product of modern society, the origins of which is very much within European white culture that has come to dominate the world. Yes this disposable culture can be pretty nasty and has decimated indigenous cultures with there more organic outlook, but shamanism is still alive and well in this plastic disposable culture. Anyone who studies the workings of ruthless corporations will know that there is a very powerful occult element working within them. Whether I like it or not I was born into this plastic, disposable culture, many of the symbols I work with are from pop culture. Despite being born into this culture I have continually manifested shamanic abilities, for me a discussions about alleged shamanic abilities are not theoretical they are a reality. I don't expect anyone to believe this, indeed if you haven't experienced them I would totally expect people to be very suspicious of them, but I can say with certainty that associated manifestions such as telepathy, prophecy, shapeshifting all exist. The latest multi-dimensional theories associated with metaphysics and string theory are bringing a scientific understanding to these manifestations Yes we need to become less plastic, but that does not mean that some of the achievements of this culture are worth keeping hold off.

So basically what I am saying is that it is not accurate to view plastic shamanism as fake shamanism, this sets shamanism as something in the past as something 'other', not from this culture. I think academia and religion often uphold an agenda and would like to hide a magical reality from the masses. Meanwhile the elites use interdimensionality and use this power to control the masses.

To be quite honest I am also a little baffled by these shamanism courses, especially those run by white people dressing up as indians, I don't see shamanic ability as something that can be studied like being a lawyer or a doctor. Yes there is a tradition of master and apprentice but the choice of apprentice was decided by ability not the highest bidder.

But in the most part they don't do any harm, O.K there may be a few exceptions but usually the students take on board a more holistic outlook, and learn about meditation,breathing dance trances and creative visualization, which can help bring about a more positive life experience, but I think very few would emerge as shamans. I think some of the more positive of these shamanic experiences that can be purchased are more just an experience with a shaman, such as yage in Peru, as apposed to learning to become a shaman which is unrealistic in many cases.

Although that is not to say that I don't believe that the work of shamans has material value. If a shaman has used his gifts to heal someone then the time and energy he has invested should be rewarded.

Just because a shaman is using his powers immorally by exploitation and manipulation doesn't make him not a shaman, he is just not a very nice one.

In relation to stillgar request for sources of shamanic traditions 'who believe that shamanic powers are randomly or arbitrarily gifted to different peoples across cultures'. Well I never said they were random or arbitrary, but most shamanic traditions share this believe in the concept of shamans being born rather than made, although they can be moulded. I think you could read any serious study of shamanic cultures and there is a sense of shamanism being a ogift or a curse form the gods or ancestors, or often a reincarnation of a particular spirit. dorjezigzag

User:dorjezigzag, you may not be aware of this, but the talk pages on Wikipedia are not the place for personal editorializing or posting of original research, as neither of these things are allowable in Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia is not a message board or blog. May I suggest that these long posts on your theories would be more suitable for those sorts of venues. Thank you. -- Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫

I was thinking of plastic more as being flexible and synthetic, not as necessarily associated to European/American culture. Either way, if "plastic" is a common term for fake shamans (more common that any other) than we need to use that as that is wikipedia policy. I honestly don't know if that's the case though. Also, I am very open to the possibility that some or all of the things described by healers are in fact possible although I myself have not seen them personally. There is a startling level of similarity between the experiences of mystics and healers from a diverse array of cultures with little to no contact with each other which suggests there may be something more to it all than just hogwash. You can call it the collective unconscious, a true other world or whatever, but there seems to be something there. Of course there are major differences in worldviews and such, but a lot of it is consistent. So I'm not trying to say it's impossible, and I know that the teacher who openly criticized Hank is very respectful of the religious beliefs of traditional peoples, which is part of why she doesn't like Hank. She thinks he is cheapening it and exploiting it without enough knowledge. Whether she's right or not I can't say, but I understand why she doesn't like him. As for Castanada, read Ward Churchill's essay "Carlos Castaneda: Greatest Hoax Since Piltdown Man" in Fantasies of the Master Race. I understand that there can be a blured reality with a healer, but there are some serious issues with Castaneda's alleged experiences. It is very possible he never even worked with the Yaqui. And for me, yes, a healer should be honest and good, and if they aren't they probably aren't the kind of person I want having spiritual powers. Yes, they are human, but they shouldn't go out of their way to deceive and trick people. As for the Sun Dance, Hank says it was an initiation ceremony. This is not the case based on my Native American Studies text book, my Native American Studies teacher, and a few other sources I've seen. It was only open to people already initiated into the community. Oh, and Hank does seem to have been accepted by at least one Kahuna And as for Stilgar, I can assure you that most traditional cultures I've looked at do believe that spiritual powers usually are gifted to you at birth or in early childhood. The people who become healers often are people who suffered a serious illness or accident as a child to the point of nearly dying as children. This is believed to make the child more sensitive to the spirit world and better able to perceive spirits. It shouldn't be hard to find a cite for that as I've heard that in a couple anthro classes by now. Ungovernable Force^{Got something to say?} 05:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• thanks ungovernable force for your information, I have found this discussion rewarding, as for Kathryn NicDhàna's recent comment if you read my posting I am merely trying to answer the doubts that ungovernable force and stilgar had about my postings. sometimes there isn't a short way of saying things. I have a web site that I will post shortly on which I would welcome your intelligent critiques. I do know a lot of the castaneda critiques and I totally understand your suspicions. My assessment of the work is based on some intense personal experiences.dorjezigzag

The article is just becoming more and more extreme. Just because something has sources does not make it accurate. The article is totally unbalanced.dorjezigzag

---

(Sat 16, 2006) As for the term "Plastic Shaman" it is mainly Native communities in North America that uses the term.

Other indigenious communities outside of North America may use other terms.

It is THEIR term. For this reason I do not see the article as being unbalanced at all.

(Bill)

I'm sorry I don't see the argument, the term 'plastic shaman' does not belong to anyone. Language is about communication and sharing knowledge. I have discussed this issue worldwide, whatever its origin it is now a worldwide concept. The issue of it being unbalanced is the fact that there is no counter argument allowed on the article page. For example the origins of a word are not an argument for its current understanding, I have allready spoken about the origins of doctor. Do people question the validity of the word doctor because it used to mean teacher?

Also the term New-Age has almost now become an insult on a similar line to hippy, a label to put on those 'flakes' interested in spirituality and the occult in this society. Let us not forget the origins of this word new-age, the origins were the fact that when people looked at world wide astrological systems they noticed that they shared a similar cyclical nature and that a new age was dawning, 2012 being an important date. So to define new age as a modern phenomenom is incorrect many ancient societies especially those interesting in star gazing believed in ages, that we entered periods that were governed by different forces. Please view this video that has a lot of academic sources to back up alot of what I have been saying. If cannot believe that anyone could possibly believe that there are only 'superficial' connections between the worlds belief systems, for 'academic basis of this see Jung.dorjezigzag

(Sun Dec 17,200) I dont intend to imply that they literally OWN the term but it is mainly North American Native communities THEMSELVES that uses this term. (Bill)

---

If your want to discuss New Age there is another section in wikipedia about it.

(Bill)

---

dorjezigzag said: "The issue of it being unbalanced is the fact that there is no counter argument allowed on the article page. ...." The same could be said of "Bullshido" (a term coined to decribe fraud in the martial arts by Mr. N. Fletcher.) Maybe the term "Plastic Shaman" is simply neutral?

dorjezigzag said: "...For example the origins of a word are not an argument for its current understanding, ...." Perhaps doing some physical field research among native communities may hold the answer?

• I know many Native Shamans from all over the world very well, my wife is from the Peruvian Amazon, where I have a strong connection. I have been invited to several 'authentic' rituals and ceremonys In North America, one lasted over 72 hours and was exteremely draining, indeed there have been cases of initiates dying during these intense ceremonys. danger in shamanic practice is not resticted to fake shamanic ceremonys.

If the word 'new age' has been mis understood to form the definition of the plastic shaman then my analysis of this word is valid. The difference between " bullshido" and plastic shaman is that Bullshido is not culturaly specific. I would not have a problem with bull-shaman, except that I am sure there are some genuine shamans with bull protectors, so I guess it could be misinterpreted

By the way whoever made the last posting, they have not signed it. It does not bother me but I think there should be consistancy by the editors. Also generaly martial arts require a different learning process. dorjezigzag

My own POV is that all culture is appropriation, but whilst I disagree with the a lot of the Plastic Shaman arguments, I do not think this article is POV or racist. It does not support the theory, it documents it. There is a history of people appropriating indigineous beliefs, and a large body of criticism surrounding that. Surely it is self evident that non-indiginous shaman reject the notion? a cursory mention of this might balance things out a bit more, but there is no need to turn this article into a battle by both sides. Lostsocks 00:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1