What does 'new age' mean, anyway?

topic posted Sun, January 14, 2007 - 1:30 PM by  Dream Walker
Share/Save/Bookmark
Advertisement
Little Lightening Bolt, in the past life thread, said that we perhaps needed to explore what the term 'new age' really meant, what it means to Natives, and whether it has a culture, per se. I found this definition on Google:

*New Age describes a broad movement in Western culture characterised by an individual eclectic approach to spiritual exploration. It has some attributes of a new, emerging religion but is currently a loose network of spiritual seekers, teachers, healers and other participants. The name "New Age" also refers to the market segment in which goods and services are sold to people in the movement.*

Thoughts?
posted by:
Dream Walker
Phoenix
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • Unsu...
     

    Re: What does 'new age' mean, anyway?

    Sun, January 14, 2007 - 3:01 PM
    "New Age describes a broad movement in Western culture characterised by an individual eclectic approach to spiritual exploration."

    I think that says it all for me. The keys being "individual" and "eclectic"

    I think these are some of the links that I have posted in the past and that Kuntharra was refering to. Though these have more to do with plastic medicine people than new ager's.

    www.dlncoalition.org/dln_iss...ture.htm

    www.bluecorncomics.com/newage.htm

    muse.jhu.edu/demo/americ...3aldred.html

    www.awakenedwoman.com/cultural_theft.htm

    www.u.arizona.edu/~ecubbins/webcrit.html

    www.alphacdc.com/treaty/r-explt.html

    www.comanchelodge.com/plastic...ans.html

    www.geocities.com/ourredear...astic.html

    www.lelandra.com/comptarot...indian.htm
    • Unsu...
       

      Re: What does 'new age' mean, anyway?

      Sun, January 14, 2007 - 3:34 PM
      Here's another site that has an interesting discussion forum:

      www.newagefraud.org/
      • Unsu...
         

        Re: What does 'new age' mean, anyway?

        Sun, January 14, 2007 - 3:39 PM
        And I almost forgot my favorite - The Commanche University Of The 49. It's a big site that's set-up like a joke, but there's some really good stuff there.

        www.members.tripod.com/TopCat4/index.htm
        • Unsu...
           

          Re: What does 'new age' mean, anyway?

          Tue, January 16, 2007 - 12:07 PM
          "syn·cre·tism Pronunciation (sngkr-tzm, sn-)
          n.
          1. Reconciliation or fusion of differing systems of belief, as in philosophy or religion, especially when success is partial or the result is heterogeneous.
          2. Linguistics The merging of two or more originally different inflectional forms.

          Noun 1. syncretism - the union (or attempted fusion) of different systems of thought or belief (especially in religion or philosophy); "a syncretism of material and immaterial theories"
          unification, union - the state of being joined or united or linked; "there is strength in union"
          2. syncretism - the fusion of originally different inflected forms (resulting in a reduction in the use of inflections)
          fusion - the merging of adjacent sounds or syllables or wor


          Syncretism
          From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
          (Redirected from Syncretic religion)
          Jump to: navigation, search
          For the linguistic term, see syncretism (linguistics).

          Syncretism is the attempt to reconcile disparate, even opposing, beliefs and to meld practices of various schools of thought. It is especially associated with the attempt to merge and analogize several originally discrete traditions, especially in the theology and mythology of religion, and thus assert an underlying unity.

          Syncretism is also common in literature, music, the representational arts and other expressions of culture. (Compare the concept of eclecticism.) Syncretism may occur in architecture, as well. There also exist syncretic politics, although in political classification the term has a somewhat different meaning.
          Contents
          [hide]

          * 1 Origin of the word
          * 2 Social and political roles
          * 3 Religious syncretism
          o 3.1 Syncretism in Ancient Greece
          o 3.2 Syncretism in Rome
          o 3.3 Syncretism in Christianity
          + 3.3.1 The Syncretistic Strife
          o 3.4 Syncretism in Islam
          o 3.5 Syncretism in the Druze religion
          o 3.6 Syncretism in the Bahá'í Faith
          o 3.7 Syncretism in Caribbean religions and cultures
          o 3.8 Syncretism in Mughal India
          o 3.9 Other modern syncretic religions
          * 4 Syncretism in linguistics
          * 5 Syncretism in cultures and societies
          o 5.1 Syncretism in the Enlightenment
          o 5.2 Modern syncretic social and cultural movements
          * 6 Syncretism in fiction
          * 7 Syncretism in new media art
          * 8 External links

          [edit] Origin of the word

          The word Syncretism is first attested in English in 1618 and is derived from modern Latin syncretismus, drawing on Greek συvκρητισμός (synkretismos), meaning "a union of communities".

          The word occurs in Plutarch's (1st century AD) essay on "Fraternal Love" in his Moralia (2.490b). He cites the example of the Cretans who were reconciliated in their differences and came together in alliance when faced with external dangers. "And that is their so-called Syncretism." The word is a compound of syn "together" and a second element of uncertain origin. Rather than directly referring to Crete, it could be connected with kretismos "a lie", from kretizein "to lie like a Cretan", or alternatively it could be connected to kerannumi "to mix", krasis "mixture" on the analogy of accretion or concrete.

          The Latin word, used in the modern sense, was probably coined by Erasmus in his Adagia ("Adages"), published in the winter of 1517–1518, to designate the coherence of dissenters in spite of their difference of theological opinions. In a letter to Melancthon, April 22, 1519, Erasmus specifically adduced the Cretans of Plutarch, an example of his adage "Concord is a mighty rampart."

          [edit] Social and political roles

          Overt syncretism in folk belief is a sign of cultural acceptance of an alien or previous tradition, but the "other" cult may survive or infiltrate without authorized syncresis nevertheless. An example is the fact that some Conversos developed a sort of cult for martyrs who were victims of the Spanish Inquisition, thus incorporating elements of Catholicism while resisting it.

          Some religious movements have embraced overt syncretism, such as the case of the adoption of Shinto elements into Buddhism. Others have strongly rejected it as devaluing precious and genuine distinctions; examples of this includes post-Exile Judaism and Islamism.

          Syncretism tends to facilitate coexistence and constructive interaction between different cultures (intercultural competence), a factor that has recommended it to rulers of multi-ethnic realms. Conversely the rejection of syncretism, usually in the name of "piety" and "orthodoxy", helps generate and authorize a sense of cultural unity.

          [edit] Religious syncretism

          Religious syncretism is the blending of two or more religious belief systems into a new system, or the incorporation into a religious tradition of beliefs from unrelated traditions. This can occur for many reasons, and the latter is quite common in areas where multiple religious traditions exist in close proximity and are active in the culture.

          Religions may have syncretic elements to their beliefs or history, but applying the label is often unwelcome by adherents of so-labeled systems, especially those who belong to so-called "revealed" religious systems, such as the Abrahamic religions, or any system that is exclusivist in its approach. Syncretism is sometimes seen by such adherents as being a betrayal of a pure truth. By this reasoning, adding an incompatible belief corrupts the original religion, rendering it no longer true. Indeed, syncretism is sometimes used as an epithet, a charge implying that those who are seeking to incorporate a new view, belief, or practice into a religious system are, in fact, distorting it. Non-exclusivist systems of belief, on the other hand, may feel quite free to incorporate other traditions into their own.

          In modern secular society, religions are sometimes created syncretically as a mechanism to reduce inter-religious tension and enmity, often with the effect of offending the original religions in question. Such religions, however, do maintain some appeal to a less exclusivist audience. Some of these are described in individual sections below.

          [edit] Syncretism in Ancient Greece

          Syncretism was an essential feature of Greek paganism. Hellenistic culture in the age that followed Alexander the Great was itself syncretic, essentially a blend of Persian, Anatolian, Egyptian (and eventually Etruscan-Roman) elements within a Hellenic overall formula. The Egyptian god Amun developed as the Hellenized Zeus Ammon after Alexander the Great went into the desert to seek out Amun's oracle at Siwa.

          These identifications derive from interpretatio graeca, the Hellenic habit of identifying gods of disparate mythologies with their own. When the proto-Greeks whose language would evolve into Greek first arrived in the Aegean and mainland Greece early in the 2nd millennium BCE, they found localized nymphs and divinities already connected with every important feature of the landscape: mountain, grove, cave and spring all had their locally-venerated deity. The countless epithets of the Olympian gods reflect this syncretic character. "Zeus Molossos", as worshiped only at Dodona, is "the god identical to Zeus as worshiped by the Molossians at Dodona." Much apparently arbitrary and trivial mythic fabling is the result of later mythographers' attempts to explain these obscure epithets.

          [edit] Syncretism in Rome

          The Romans, identifying themselves as common heirs to a very similar civilization, identified Greek deities with similar figures in the Etruscan-Roman tradition, though cult practices were not usually copied. (For details, see Similarities between Roman, Greek, and Etruscan mythologies.) Syncretic gods of the Hellenistic period found also wide favor in Rome: Serapis, Isis, Mithras are syncretic deities. Cybele, as she was worshiped in Rome, was essentially a syncretic goddess. The Greek god Dionysus was imported into Rome as Bacchus, and the Anatolian Sabazios was converted to the Roman Sabazius.

          The correspondences varied: Jupiter is perhaps a better match for Zeus than the rural huntress Diana is for the feared Artemis. Ares is not quite Mars. The Anatolian goddess Cybele was physically imported to Rome from her Anatolian cult center Pessinos in the original aniconic archaic stone idol; she was identified in Rome as Magna Mater and was given a matronly, iconic image that had been developed in Hellenistic Pergamum.

          Likewise, when the Romans encountered Celts and Teutons, they mingled these Northern gods with their own, creating Apollo Sucellos (Apollo the Good Smiter) and Mars Thingsus (Mars of the war-assembly), among many others. In the Germania, the Roman historian Tacitus speaks of Teutonic worshippers of Hercules and Mercury; most modern scholars conclude that Hercules was likely Thor, and Mercury was Odin.

          [edit] Syncretism in Christianity

          Nascent Christianity appears to have incorporated many European Pagan cultural elements, "baptizing" or "Christianizing" them to conform with Christian belief and principles, at least partially, through discarding theologically or morally incompatible elements. One example of this is the strong connection between the thought of St. Augustine and Neoplatonic thought, and St. Thomas Aquinas' many citations of "The Philosopher" by Aristotle. Many scholars agree to this syncretism in principle, though any specific example is likely to be labeled "controversial". Open Theists (a subset of Protestant Evangelicals) assert that Christianity by the 3rd and 4th centuries had incorporated Greek Philosophy into its understanding of God.

          "Syncretism" was not on the table when Christianity split into eastern and western rites during the Great Schism. It was invoked however with the rifts of the Protestant Reformation, with Desiderius Erasmus's readings of Plutarch. In 1615 David Pareus of Heidelberg urged Christians to a "pious syncretism"[citation needed] in opposing the Antichrist, but few 17th century Protestants discussed the compromises that might affect a reconciliation with the Catholic Church: the Lutheran Georg Calisen "Calixtus" (1586-1656) of Helmstedt School was opposed by Johann Hülsemann, Johann Georg Dorsche and Abraham Calovius (1612-1685) for his "syncretism".[1] (See: Syncretistic Strife)

          The modern celebrations of Christmas (as celebrated in the northern European tradition, originating from Pagan Yule holidays) and Halloween are examples of Christian syncretism. Earlier, the elevation of Christmas as an important holiday largely grew out of a need to replace the Saturnalia, a popular December festival of the Roman Empire. Roman Catholicism in Central and South America has also integrated a number of elements derived from indigenous and slave cultures in those areas (see the Caribbean and modern sections); while many African Initiated Churches demonstrate an integration of Christian and traditional African beliefs. In Asia the revolutionary movements of Taiping (19th-century China) and God's Army (Karen in the 1990s) have blended Christianity and traditional beliefs.

          Syncretism can be contrasted with contextualization or inculturation, the practice of making Christianity relevant to a culture.

          [edit] The Syncretistic Strife

          The Syncretistic Strife is the name given to the theological quarrel provoked by the efforts of Georg Calixt and his supporters to secure a basis on which the Lutherans could make overtures to the Roman Catholic and the Reformed Churches. It lasted from 1640 to 1686. Calixt, a professor in Helmstedt, had through his travels in England, Holland, Italy, and France, through his acquaintance with the different Churches and their representatives, and through his extensive study, acquired a more friendly attitude towards the different religious bodies than was then usual among the majority of Lutheran theologians. While the latter firmly adhered to the "pure doctrine", Calixt was not disposed to regard doctrine as the one thing necessary in order to be a Christian, while in doctrine itself he did not regard everything as equally certain and important. Consequently, he advocated unity between those who were in agreement concerning the fundamental minimum, with liberty as to all less fundamental points. In regard to Catholicism, he was prepared (as Melanchthon once was) to concede to the pope a primacy human in origin, and he also admitted that the Mass might be called a sacrifice. On the side of Calixt stood the theological faculties of Helmstedt, Rinteln, and Königsberg; opposed to him were those of Leipzig, Jena, Strasburg, Giessen, Marburg, and Greifswald. His chief opponent was Abraham Calov. The Elector of Saxony was for political reasons an opponent of the Reformed Church, because the other two secular electors (Palatine and Brandenburg) were "reformed", and were getting more and more the advantage of him. In 1649 he sent to the three dukes of Brunswick, who maintained Helmstedt as their common university, a communication in which he voices all the objections of his Lutheran professors, and complains that Calixt wished to extract the elements of truth from all religions, fuse all into an entirely new religion, and so provoke a violent schism. In 1650 Calov was called to Wittenberg as professor, and he signalized his entrance into office with a vehement attack on the Syncretists in Helmstedt. An outburst of polemical writings followed. In 1650 the dukes of Brunswick answered the Elector of Saxony that the discord should not be allowed to increase, and proposed a meeting of the political councillors. Saxony, however, did not favour this suggestion. An attempt to convene a meeting of theologians was not more successful. The theologians of Wittenberg and Leipzig now elaborated a new formula, in which ninety-eight heresies of the Helmstedt theologians were condemned. This formula (consensus) was to be signed by everyone who wished to remain in the Lutheran Church. Outside Wittenberg and Leipzig, however, it was not accepted, and Calixt's death in 1656 was followed by five years of almost undisturbed peace.

          The strife was renewed in Hesse-Cassel, where Landgrave Wilhelm VI sought to effect a union between his Lutheran and Reformed subjects, or at least to lessen their mutual hatred. In 1661 he had a colloquy held in Cassel between the Lutheran theologians of the University of Rinteln and the Reformed theologians of the University of Marburg. Enraged at this revival of the Syncretism of Calixt, the Wittenberg theologians in vehement terms called on the Rinteln professors to make their submission, whereupon the latter answered with a detailed defence. Another long series of polemical treatises followed. In Brandenburg-Prussia the Great Elector (Frederick William I) forbade (1663) preachers to speak of the disputes between the Evangelical bodies. A long colloquy in Berlin (Sept., 1662-May, 1663) led only to fresh discord. In 1664 the elector repeated his command that preachers of both parties should abstain from mutual abuse, and should attribute to the other party no doctrine which was not actually held by such party. Whoever refused to sign the form declaring his intention to observe this regulation, was deprived of his position (e. g. Paul Gerhardt, writer of religious songs). This arrangement was later modified, in that the forms were withdrawn, and action was taken only against those who disturbed the peace. The attempts of the Wittenberg theologians to declare Calixt and his school un-Lutheran and heretical were now met by Calixt's son, Friedrich Ulrich Calixt, The latter defended the theology of his father, but also tried to show that his doctrine did not so very much differ from that of his opponents. Wittenberg found its new champion in Ægidius Strauch, who attacked Calixt with all the resources of learning, polemics, sophistry, wit, cynicism, and abuse. The Helmnstedt side was defended by the celebrated scholar and statesman, Hermann Conring. The Saxon princes now recognized the danger that the attempt to carry through the "Consensus" as a formula of belief might lead to a fresh schism in the Lutheran Church, and might thus render its position difficult in the face of the Catholics. The proposals of Calov and his party to continue the refutation and to compel the Brunswick theologians to bind themselves under obligation to the old Lutheran confession, were therefore not carried into effect. On the contrary the Saxon theologians were forbidden to continue the strife in writing. Negotiations for peace then resulted, Duke Ernst the Pious of Saxe-Gotha being especially active towards this end, and the project of establishing a permanent college of theologians to decide theological disputes was entertained. However, the negotiations with the courts of Brunswick, Mecklenburg, Denmark, and Sweden were as fruitless as those with the theological faculties, except that peace was maintained until 1675. Calov then renewed hostilities. Besides Calixt, his attack was now directed particularly against the moderate John Musæus of Jena. Calov succeeded in having the whole University of Jena (and after a long resistance Musæus himself) compelled to renounce Syncretism. But this was his last victory. The elector renewed his prohibition against polemical writings. Calov seemed to give way, since in 1683 he asked whether, in the view of the danger which France then constituted for Germany, a Calixtinic Syncretism with "Papists" and the Reformed were still condemnable, and whether in deference to the Elector of Brandenburg and the dukes of Brunswick, the strife should not be buried by an amnesty, or whether, on the contrary, the war against Syncretism should be continued. He later returned to his attack on the Syncretists, but died in 1686, and with his death the strife ended. The result of the Syncretist Strife was that it lessened religious hatred and promoted mutual forbearance. Catholicism was thus benefited, as it came to be better understood and appreciated by Protestants. In Protestant theology it prepared the way for the sentimental theology of Pietism as the successor of fossilized orthodoxy.

          This article incorporates text from the public-domain Catholic Encyclopedia of 1913.

          [edit] Syncretism in Islam

          Islam seems to have incorporated many beliefs from other religions, mainly from Judaism, but also from Christianity. However, this is not considered by Muslims as syncretism because Islam is considered to be the successor to the Jewish and Christian religions, completing the divine revelations through the Prophet Muhammad that God (Allah) began with other prophets, and all those from the progeny of Abraham. Muslims, however, do not see this as syncretic, since Abraham was said to have built the Ka'bah, and Muhammad removed and destroyed the idols within the Ka'bah upon his return to Mecca.

          [edit] Syncretism in the Druze religion

          The Druzes integrated elements of Ismaili Islam with Gnosticism and Platonism. Their practice of disguising themselves as followers of the dominant religion makes difficult to ascertain what is believed and what is simulated.

          [edit] Syncretism in the Bahá'í Faith

          The Bahá'ís follow Bahá'u'lláh, a prophet whom they consider a successor to Muhammad, Jesus, Moses, Buddha, Zoroaster and others. This acceptance of other religious founders has, to some, indicated that the Bahá'í religion is a syncretic faith. However, Bahá'ís and the Bahá'í writings explicitly reject this view. Bahá'ís consider Bahá'u'lláh's revelation to be an independent, though related, revelation from God. Its relationship to previous dispensations is seen as analogous to the relationship of Christianity to Judaism. That beliefs are held in common is seen as evidence of truth, progressively revealed by God throughout human history, culminating in (at present) the Bahá'í revelation. Bahá'ís have their own sacred scripture, interpretations, laws and practices that, for Bahá'ís, supersede those of other faiths.

          [edit] Syncretism in Caribbean religions and cultures

          The process of syncretism in the Caribbean region is often referred to as creolization. (The term Creole is used to describe anyone, regardless of race or ethnicity, who was born and raised in the region.) The shared histories of the Caribbean islands include long periods of European Imperialism (mainly by Spain, France, and the United Kingdom), the importation of African slaves (primarily from Central and Western Africa). The influences of each of the above on the islands, in varying degrees were woven together producing the fabric of society that exists today in the Caribbean. The Rastafari movement, founded in Jamaica, is highly syncretic, mixing elements from the Bible, Marcus Garvey's Back-to-Africa movement, and Caribbean culture. Another highly syncretic religion of the area is voodoo, which combines elements of Western African, native Caribbean, and Christian (especially Roman Catholic) beliefs. See the modern section for other Caribbean syncretisms.

          [edit] Syncretism in Mughal India

          The Mughal emperor Akbar, who wanted to consolidate the diverse religious communities in his empire, propounded Din-i-Ilahi, a syncretic religion intended to merge the best elements of the religions of his empire. Sikhism blends elements of Islam and Hinduism.

          [edit] Other modern syncretic religions

          Recently developed religious systems that exhibit marked syncretism include the New World religions Candomblé, Vodun, and Santería, which analogize various Yorùbá and other African gods to the Roman Catholic pantheon of saints. Some sects of Candomblé have incorporated also Native American gods, and Umbanda combined African deities with Kardecist spiritualism.

          School of Economic Science is a modern syncretic religious cult which incorporates the ideas of Ouspensky, Gurdjieff, Advaita Vedanta, Sankara and Maharishi Mahesh Yogi.

          Unitarian Universalism is an example of a modern syncretic religion; it traces its roots to Universalist and Unitarian Christian congregations while at the same time freely incorporating elements from other religious and non-religious traditions.

          In Vietnam, Caodaism blends elements of Buddhism, Catholicism and Kardecism. Among new Japanese religions several syncretic religious movements such as Konkokyo and Seicho-No-Ie have been founded in the latter half of the 19th century forwards.

          Examples of strongly syncretist Romantic and modern movements include mysticism, occultism, theosophy, astrology, Neopaganism, and the New Age movement.

          In spite of the Jewish prohibitions on polytheism, idolatry, and associated practices (avodah zarah), several combinations of Judaism with other religions have sprung up: Jewish Buddhism, Nazarenism, Judeo-Paganism, Messianic Judaism, Jewish Mormonism, Crypto-Judaism (in which Jews publicly profess another faith and privately celebrate Judaism), and others. Until relatively recently, China had a Jewish community which had adopted some Confucian practices.

          Several of the Jewish Messiah claimants like Jacob Frank and the Sabbateans ended mixing Cabalistic Judaism with Christianity and Islam.

          Another important modern syncretic religion is the Sathya Sai Baba movement founded by the Indian guru Sathya Sai Baba who stresses the unity of all religions.

          [edit] Syncretism in linguistics

          In linguistic syncretism, one word form serves two or more morphosyntactic functions. Some inflected words or word forms in some natural languages indicate (morphologically) a distinction in syntax, while some other words in the same language do not. For example in Russian, some nouns have different word forms (inflections) in nominative and accusative (kniga, knigu) while some other nouns (pismo, pismo) inflect without a distinction. The former indicate a distinction in the Russian syntax while the latter hide that distinction.

          [edit] Syncretism in cultures and societies

          [edit] Syncretism in the Enlightenment

          The modern, rational non-pejorative connotations began with Denis Diderot's Encyclopédie articles, Eclecticisme and Syncrétistes, Hénotiques, ou Conciliateurs. Diderot portrayed syncretism as the concordance of eclectic sources.

          [edit] Modern syncretic social and cultural movements

          Other forms of syncretism not directly related to religion are found in the modern world as well. This phenomenon is sometimes referred to as cultural and/or social syncretism. Japanese culture after World War II and the moderate tendencies within Neo-Tribalism are sometimes offered as examples. The eclectic aspects of postmodernism represent an important contemporary example of cultural syncretism observable in much of the Western world. The socio-spiritual movement Ananda Marga, which originated in India in 1955, is based on a syncretic approach to the different strands of yoga, as propounded by its founder P.R. Sarkar. The stated purpose is "to help individuals achieve complete self-realization and to build a social structure in which the physical, mental and spiritual needs of all people can be fulfilled."


          en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syncretic_religion




          can any one name a list of syncretic indigenous religions or spiritual traditions?
          • Re: What does 'new age' mean, anyway?

            Sat, January 20, 2007 - 8:55 AM
            It's been my thought that the indigenous peoples of the Americas have worldviews that are essentially syncretic. My grandma can have a total buy-in to the catholic religion and at the same time, despite the obvious contradictions, uphold native "religion." I can fully "believe" a Great Lakes religion as much as one from the Great Plains. I suspect the historic cultural diversity of this intertribal continent encouraged syncretic worldviews as an important function for diplomacy and peace. I don't think this is especially unique in the Americas. Syncretic approach to religion is probably more contentious among monothiestic religions (but to note that native religions are both polythiestic and monotheistic).
            • Re: What does 'new age' mean, anyway?

              Sun, January 21, 2007 - 7:48 AM
              I think if you want to be really honest about this, all world views are syncretic in nature. Nothing exists in a vacuum and there is no religion or belief system that hasn't been influenced at one time or another by "outside" influences.
  • Re: What does 'new age' mean, anyway?

    Sun, January 21, 2007 - 1:48 PM
    my skin is flesh tone, my mother is of Italian/sicilian decent, father of scotch/irish decent, my eyes are like the sky, my heart beats a river like pipestone, i am native. born in california, to a family whose history and traditions have been destroyed and replaced with euro-mind materialist anti-culture. i live my life walking with spirit.
    good thread here.
    like it or not the "new agers" or "plastic shaman" are the best bet for continuation of the old ways and spirit consciousness. I generally understand what/how they are/think, i understand your views or "majority" views of them. It takes sometimes, great patience and careFull teaching to reach them. Like with all traditions, many who claim are hypicrits, or ride the wave of whats in vogue, just to feel connected to something, anything. there is great stratification of understanding in this day we live. we need to clear our minds of labels, look into eachothers eyes and hearts, pass the pipe and break bread. the elders need to teach or it will be lost, the children must seek. because you know, you must find a way, no one but you can tell you the way. be assured. don't let the poison jade you. pray for those who need it, someone always does. In lak'ech.
    • Unsu...
       

      Re: What does 'new age' mean, anyway?

      Mon, January 22, 2007 - 1:21 AM
      heh... you know its interesting how the terms "plastic shaman" and "new ager" cuase upset... i think this is because they are used in a some what durogitory sense... and its definitely ment as a form of criticism....
      honestly... i think that useing words such as new ager or plastic shaman as critical lables just causes more problems... mostly fo rthose of us that use the words in a durogetory way... its like saying " you people" or some racial slur... the words can also be used to falsely pigeon hole people into a catagory that is broad and vague, and easliy defended by the person calling some one those names...
      how does it cause us harm useing these words in a critical and deragetory way... well it makes our minds lazy apathitic and lacking in empathy... thats how i see it personaly... most broad lables of people seem to have that effect...
      so i think its more helpfull to actualy spell it out some times and to speak with intention, intelligently, with thought and speaking from your heart...
      so keeping that in mind... whats your personal definition of a plastic shaman and new ager... speaking from your heart that is...
      • Re: What does 'new age' mean, anyway?

        Mon, January 22, 2007 - 2:51 AM
        We may use words that are harsh and critical, but they usurp our traditions and do not understand that it is not a weekend romp or a sometime thing. It has always been our custom to listen and adopt ideas which best offer a continuation of our traditions. The elders
        try to lead with wise counsel,(not always successfully), regarding those ideas which may threaten our cultural heritage. Our many nations
        have survived a halocaust because we keep secret and sacred, some of our traditions.If the "new agers and plastic shaman" are offended
        my advice is "get over it".
        • Unsu...
           

          Re: What does 'new age' mean, anyway?

          Mon, January 22, 2007 - 3:50 AM
          hey now lets look at what your actualy saying...

          "We may use words that are harsh and critical, but they usurp our traditions and do not understand that it is not a weekend romp or a sometime thing. It has always been our custom to listen and adopt ideas which best offer a continuation of our traditions."

          who usurps your traditions?
          whats their name, where do they live? how old are they? what do they look like? what do they act like?
          what is it that this person is doing when they usurp your tradition? you cant make blanket generalizations about people... well you can but it is a detriment to you and others.
          but you can say people who do this and this and this...suck, and this is why i feel that way.
          not all new age people or even Neo-shamans fit under the catagory your speaking of... i would say many do but you cant call all germans nazis or all hawaians spam lovers can yah? there are people who are into the new age movement that could give a flying fuck about anything even remotely native or even belonging to the culture of another people... but then again there are those that are constantly practiceing cultural appropriation... now new age people are not cultural appropriators and usurpers... but there are those that are into the new age movement that are... either knowingly or unknowingly...
          if your offending people that have not offended you because your beef is not with them but another... then your makeing the first strike...

          my concern is that the lable gets thrown around alot in a rather thoughtless way, and where there is thoughtlessness theres ignorence...
          as i pointed out before... who are you talking about when you say "new ager"?

          there are "new ager" people like i said that spend thier time in strange contraptions that make funny noises so that they can alter their state of conciousness of who are just really into reiki and have no interest in native cultures... there are some that are just into UFOs... is some one who is into JUST UFOs usurping any ones culture and religion? nope... but if they do so maybe in a sweat lodge and charge people 150$ to sweat with a martian then mayeb you have a justified reason there... and i am sure thats happened... but not every one who is into something thats CONSIDERED "new age" is usurping any ones culture or traditions.

          my concern is that people can get an idea in thier head with out thinking to hard on it and then they start building on that idea as a foundation... after that foundation has been built on its hard to get rid of... and if its a bad foundation well if you can follow a construction anology well enough you know that a bad foundations is not a good thing at all.... so if we have this idea that every one is the same that all people that are into soemthing thats a new religion or spiritual trip then they are bad and usurpers... they all have thier heads up their ass ect ect... it doesnt really give them a fair break... generizations about people is never a good thing...
          "new age" does not equal cultural appropriation. what it equals i dont even know... but... if we keep saying that new age equals cultural appropriation then even if it doesnt it will in the minds of those that dont knwo any better then to question what they hear or read or even think... and thats what i mean when i say that its a detriment to not only others but our selves...

          and honestly i think the term plasitic shaman totaly fits with many that the word is labled too... but when its thrown around carelessly its a detriment as well...
          • Re: What does 'new age' mean, anyway?

            Mon, January 22, 2007 - 3:59 AM
            What is the taking of another's culture when one does not live in that culture?If I take the artifacts, rituals and words but not the commitment to living in the family of the people from whom I have taken them, is that not diminishing the cultural landscape?
            • Unsu...
               

              Re: What does 'new age' mean, anyway?

              Mon, January 22, 2007 - 4:23 AM
              i hear you uncle.

              it's a good thing to stigmatise newagism. it stings, and that sting drives people to search deeper and find their true path spiritually, or to give away the ceremonial theft game. and i really hate this discourse of cultural rescue that keeps popping up - like we're too useless to carry on our own traditions, like we're all dying out and need newagers to carry the torch for us.

              get your fuckin hands off my torch! look, but don't touch! (unless you wanna get burned)

              and hey, mediterranean/celtic dude - your skin colour is irrelevant to your ethnicity and ancestry - and by the way, you seem to be blue... but that's ok. some of my best friends are blue... they're a very musical people (when they're not drunk). i often channel the spirit of an old blue lady who teaches me salamander magic, so i feel justified therefore in painting bluan initiation designs i saw in an encyclopaedia once, and then i sell them on the internet. i also offer a workshop in bluan salamander magic rebirthing. i've even made a salamander song cd where i play bluan pipes and sing ancient hymns to the dead to resurrect blue spirits...

              well, if all that were true,
              how would it feel to be blue?
              • Re: What does 'new age' mean, anyway?

                Mon, January 22, 2007 - 7:15 AM
                *who usurps your traditions?
                whats their name, where do they live? how old are they? what do they look like? what do they act like?
                what is it that this person is doing when they usurp your tradition?*

                I will tell you a true story... Many years ago, now, I lived in Tucson. There is a fairly healthy and growing population of 'new-agers' there. One time, a guy rolled into town on a harley, name of Pete. He connected up with this 'wiccan; woman named Isis who had a 'metaphysical' store there. Next thing I know, old Pete was calling himself 'Totem" and was dressing in buckskin and claiming to be a shaman. This guy was quite good-looking and charismatic, and he garnered quite a following very quickly. He and Isis began 'teaching classes' aboput 'shamanism', and was doing tarot card readings for money as well. Some people I knew had a metaphysical church, and invited Totem to talk one Sunday. I just had to hear what he had to say, so I took my oldest son, then about 14, and we went.

                Old Totem talked about how he was 'trained in secret by the Hopis' among other things, and as I was sitting there listening, a spider came out of his mouth. It sat on his bottom lip for a spell and then dropped off, dangling from a strand of silk under his chin. I was looking around but no one seemed to see this but me. When his talk was over, I took my son and left, as the women were all 'oohing and ahhing' over this guy, enthralled with his talk. When we hit the parking lot, my son turns to me and says, "Mama, did you SEE that spider come out of his mouth?" Needless to say, we two were the only ones who saw that... and we were the only Indians there, too.

                Totem did very well for himself in Tucson for awhile, eventually, he and Isis hit the road on his harley. Believe me, they were replaced by others.

                As for the bigger picture, ever hear of Lynn Andrews? Or Hyemeyohsts Storm? These two have gotten rich off this stuff. Here is a good article about this: www.legendarysurfers.com/naw/b...s.html

                The bushes are lousy with these folks, and they ARE usurping MY traditions and making boup coup money doing it. Honestly, have you ever been to a Medicine person who won't help you until you pay them money???
                • Unsu...
                   

                  Re: What does 'new age' mean, anyway?

                  Mon, January 22, 2007 - 12:48 PM
                  "*who usurps your traditions?
                  whats their name, where do they live? how old are they? what do they look like? what do they act like?
                  what is it that this person is doing when they usurp your tradition?*"

                  by makeing this comment i by no means ment that there are not people doing this what a ment was that people... specific people do these things...
                  not all new age people do this... i felt a made a pretty storng case for that... but some do for sure... but the term new ager shoudl not become a slighted bigoted term...
                  it would be much more usefull to say this person did this... or this group... or this author... or this anthropologist... and i think it would be much more helpfull to just say cultural appropriators do this and that... instead of equateing "new agers" with the term cultural appropriator... be not all new agers are cultural appropriators...
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
                    Unsu...
                     

                    Re: What does 'new age' mean, anyway?

                    Mon, January 22, 2007 - 1:40 PM
                    ""thats cultural appropriation for certian... and thats wrong... and all kinds of people do it...
                    are all the people who do that "new agers" no... do all "new agers" do that? no... they do not... btu some how the term "new ager" has come to mean one who does... though not all "new age" people ( still what ever that means) culturaly appropriate...
                    so basicly because some do all do... thats pretty illogical... "

                    Hmm? You define "new ager's" in the above statements and then say "whatever that means" in regards to the definition. That doesn't make much sense to me. I am also wondering why you find a need to defend the term, and people of, "new age"? "

                    where did i define new ager H?
                    i didnt...
                    im defending people who are into what ever they are into who dont culturaly appropriate and are being confused with those that do...
                    the term new ager is a blanket lable around here thats used to describe cultural appropriators... yet it would seem that not all of the people who are into newer spiritual traditions ie "new ager" (there is that a definition?) culturaly appropriate...

                    the way new ager is used here is a biased and bigoted word for the most part now... its like saying ah those cahtolics are all child molestors... those new agers are all cultural appropriators... when in actuality not all catholics are child molestors and not all people who are into new spiritual practices are cultural appropriators... how many other ways do i have to put it?
                    the only reason why i defend any one is when i feel they are being mistreated... you can piss on or bet up or brow beat or stare down or cuss out any cultural appropriator you want but if they arent and your lableing them one with new ager as the new term thats replaced cultural appropriator... then what you your doing isnt right...
                    the whoel question came up because people with new concepts of reincarnation were being called new age... and new agers were being lumped in with western buddhists...there was a need for clarification i felt...

                    the fact is the term new ager has become a passive agressive way fo just calling someone a thief... instead of actuaoy directly calling some one a theif and dealing with the conflict as it arises...
                    • Re: What does 'new age' mean, anyway?

                      Mon, January 22, 2007 - 2:51 PM
                      Please define for us what "new Age" represents. I do not mean what they believe, but what they do.I am willing to give some ground for any misunderstanding that I may have. However, I have found that not many of these folks stay around very long after the ceremony or the pow-wow.Very few of them can be found around the community in any other involvement. I remember some missionaries coming to distribute bibles and some donated clothing and food packages.We had a few groups who wanted to adopt our children.I have met and maintained a close relationship with several young people who were genuinely interested in our community and one might say that they are now like members of our extended family.They stepped up when they saw a need for action on behalf of our community, e.g., assisted in a rebuilding project for an elder, took a group of our inner-city youth to an activity, attended a "ghost supper" and brought a dish to pass. One young man was admittedly a seeker of spiritual answers but did not insert his views about our way as opposed to the other ways he had observed.We found his respectfulness and his willingness to just be with us, not ordinary, for one raised as an inner-city black youth.I call him nephew as he calls me uncle.
            • Unsu...
               

              Re: What does 'new age' mean, anyway?

              Mon, January 22, 2007 - 12:45 PM
              "What is the taking of another's culture when one does not live in that culture?If I take the artifacts, rituals and words but not the commitment to living in the family of the people from whom I have taken them, is that not diminishing the cultural landscape?"

              thats cultural appropriation for certian... and thats wrong... and all kinds of people do it...
              are all the people who do that "new agers" no... do all "new agers" do that? no... they do not... btu some how the term "new ager" has come to mean one who does... though not all "new age" people ( still what ever that means) culturaly appropriate...
              so basicly because some do all do... thats pretty illogical...
              • Unsu...
                 

                Re: What does 'new age' mean, anyway?

                Mon, January 22, 2007 - 1:25 PM
                "thats cultural appropriation for certian... and thats wrong... and all kinds of people do it...
                are all the people who do that "new agers" no... do all "new agers" do that? no... they do not... btu some how the term "new ager" has come to mean one who does... though not all "new age" people ( still what ever that means) culturaly appropriate...
                so basicly because some do all do... thats pretty illogical... "

                Hmm? You define "new ager's" in the above statements and then say "whatever that means" in regards to the definition. That doesn't make much sense to me. I am also wondering why you find a need to defend the term, and people of, "new age"?


                I just recently received this email from a group I've been keeping my eye on. This looks like cultural appropriation and seems to be pretty new agey to me:

                "******** **** is pleased to announce an upcoming Joint Ceremony of the Sacred Pipe & the Andean Medicine.

                We are blessed to have the participation and support of our dear sister ***** "fake indian name" ******, Medicine Woman and an officer and Spiritual Leader of ********** ********** ****** ******** ****** of ****. ***** is also a member of the Board of Directors of ******** ****. ***** and her husband, our great brother ***** ****** "fake indian name" ****** and their lives and ceremonies are a part of the foundation of ******** ****. We are honored to have ***** join us.

                The Grandmother of this Pipe ceremony, my adopted sister and first teacher ******* ***** ****, Lakota Medicine Woman and Sundance Leader, will be joining us. It is an honor and a blessing to have her loving presence.

                If you would like to attend this ceremony or have any questions, please contact **** ****** at **********

                Space for this ceremony is limited. Please respond as soon as possible if you would like to participate.

                When: Saturday, 03/03/07. 6:30 pm arrival.

                Location: **** **** ******, San Francisco

                Suggested Donation: $150

                ******** **** is a non-profit organization that relies on your donations to support its intention to offer sacred ceremonies and continuous ongoing support to all who come in a good way. Your donation also enables Medicine Path to offer material support to our friends, elders and teachers who share this intention."
                • Re: What does 'new age' mean, anyway?

                  Mon, January 22, 2007 - 2:59 PM
                  Okay so don't say new age. It gets people all defensive. Maybe, as Indian Americans who are discussing these issues in the eyes of lurkdom, we could, as someone mentioned earlier, just be more specific. It's not so much new agism that offends, but particular behaviors, big and small, that offend. Some things people do feel like blasphemy. So of it seems grossly insensitive. Much of it is obviously ignorance, but still feels like a slight.

                  I've become less offended over the years, mostly because the offenses seem so endless and trite. Still, things upset me in little ways all the time, but I try to ignore it. I am most frustrated when I try to explain to someone why it is offensive, or blasphemy, but they respond with philosophies about freedom, or openness or goodness.

                  I guess that's my main frustration: when someone from outside the culture commits a blasphemy and then, when confronted, defend themselves with good intentions, rather than take the time to learn why what they did was offensive. I would love, just once, if an outsider would just say, "Oh, okay, I can now see why that's offensive. I didn't understand. Gosh, I won't do that again."
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
                    Unsu...
                     

                    Re: What does 'new age' mean, anyway?

                    Tue, January 23, 2007 - 12:53 AM
                    well there is this definition of the term...
                    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_age
                    there is mention of borrowing alto in it... which can also be thought of as appropriation... but there are some that dont appropriate but instead find inspiration in other traditions and thus focus on thier own unique relationship with spirituality... paying respect to the source of thier inspiration and takeing the responsabilty that is nessescary...
                    there are alot of new age people that are really not into cultural "trappings" as they would put it and are just into a more abstract concept of energy/spirit... that seems to be the most common thing i have seen with peopel who are into "new age" things, and seems to be a more common trend...
                    in some ways it reminds me of a next step in the old spiritualism that camee out fo the late 1800s with the mediumship of spirits becomeing channeling ect... alot of it had to do with the human potential movment... psychic or intuative awareness... and all that jazz... i have alot of critisim for all of this myself... it can be really ungrounded, and in the face of tradition that are grounded and centered and have a long history they may seem really wacky and out there... but not all of it...
                    there are some smart people out ther who have integrity and are looking at how to relate to spirituality form new perspectives in good and respectfull ways.

                    i really think the problem is those that culturaly appropriate in the name of "ecclectic spirituality"... i have seen this ecclectic approach work and i have seen it fail, the failure due to the appropriation of other traditions instead of a focus on inspiration and finding an honorable and more syncretic approach.

                    but your right Kimowan, and im glad that you get the jist of my point. generalizations are dangerous to make and blanket statements dont do any one any good either... being specific i think and haveing clear communication is always nesescary.
                    "It's not so much new agism that offends, but particular behaviors, big and small, that offend."
                    and we all know what those behaviours are but it doesnt hurt to communicate them when we are talking about these issues so that we dont alienate people and we get a better oppertunity to heal and teach when the oppertunity arises, and man its allways ariseing! but we can crush the opertunity for assiting others when we aleinate them. its allways a more mature way of relating when we try to express or boundries and limits in a way that can help another person... instead of just saying hey your fucked up... i hate you and all you stand for... or your a moron... get out of here, or your a freak ect ect... i have had great success teaching those back ally muggers a thing or too... putting my own anger aside and treating the situation as an oppertunity to help some one get well and to live right.

                    "Some things people do feel like blasphemy. So of it seems grossly insensitive. Much of it is obviously ignorance, but still feels like a slight. "
                    i know what your talking about ive had freinds tell me that they were at a sweat where some people showed up and asked them if the frequency of the crystals they brought with them would be the same frequency of the sweat, looking at them liek they would know because all native americans know about the frequency of sweats and crystals... ive seen people blindly mix medicines, practice traditions that are not thiers to practice and its rediculous and very offensive... we all have everry right to be offended... but it takes a much bigger person to be able to step back and look at them as confused people...
                    i used to just loath wiccans... just hated them, and new age anything as well as christains... jut hated them! but then i started to realize well they are at least trying no matter how misguided... they at least acknowldge spirit... maybe not how i would... christ said once if they are not against us they are with us... i try to consider that from time to time... try to find a way to relate to them in a way thats productive... educate ect...
                    i used to work with developmentaly disabled people... if you treated them with respect they would actualy start to learn from you.... if you didnt they would resist you the whole time... and its hard to find a way to find it in your self to respect some people...
                    "I am most frustrated when I try to explain to someone why it is offensive, or blasphemy, but they respond with philosophies about freedom, or openness or goodness. "
                    that can be hard to come up against some times... but i find if some one is leaning to far in one dirrection they are off balance and pushing them just the right way can either makethem fall or put them into balance... when people talk about freedom... i bring up justice and responsability, when peopel over focus on the good i bring up the bad... when people are overly focused on openess i hold thier head under water until they almost pass out and then ask them "soooo if you so focused on openess why didnt you open your mouth and just let the water in brother?" ; )

                    its frustrating for certain that when you confront someeone who has done something wrong andd then cant own up to it... but i think that it creates a really interesting challenge. its been my experince that when some one gets all defensive like that then you have to be alittle sneaky... you have to get in their some how help them make up thier mind to make the change themselves... you have to some how HELP them find it in themsleves that your right... you cant convince them they have to make that choice... but you can totaly help them do this... but it takes getting to understand them on thier terms some times, and thats what few peopel are willing to do because they have to much self rightous indignation and they are not seeing these incidents as oppertunities to grow...

                    "I would love, just once, if an outsider would just say, "Oh, okay, I can now see why that's offensive. I didn't understand. Gosh, I won't do that again.""
                    i would love that as well... and i have heard it said... the secret is i think is that you have to have alot of empathy...
                    • Re: What does 'new age' mean, anyway?

                      Tue, January 23, 2007 - 4:43 AM
                      One of the problems in the approach to indigenous people and where they are in ritual and ceremony, is in context. Not all practioners of the Anishnabeg way of cultural traditions are at the same place(spiritually/psychically) and our culture makes room for individual inderstanding, but we are all related in our extended family with certain basic connectedness, whether we find ourselves among the city homeless or a college student, a professional ,blue collar worker in the suburbs or remain on the land of our grandfathers. The seekers of pieces of our traditions do not maintain that context. To try to identify the "new agers" is a little like trying to identify the mentally ill, there are no perfect fit diagnostic categories, but it helps to treat someone if you can isolate them by categories. Sorry, that's just a human characteristic to identify and store information by categories.As I said before, I really feel little need to be politically correct to the dominant culture,'let them suck it up'.
                    • Unsu...
                       

                      Re: What does 'new age' mean, anyway?

                      Tue, January 23, 2007 - 7:02 AM
                      "but there are some that dont appropriate but instead find inspiration in other traditions and thus focus on thier own unique relationship with spirituality... paying respect to the source of thier inspiration and takeing the responsabilty that is nessescary... "

                      That in itself is appropriation. When you "find inspiration" you are appropriating part of a tradition. It doesn't matter how much respect or responsibility you take, you are still borrowing from something. And from what I have been taught that is very dangerous business.

                      "there are some smart people out ther who have integrity and are looking at how to relate to spirituality form new perspectives in good and respectfull ways."

                      It's the same thing to me. As Pequamo has pointed out, I don't see those people participating in the community.

                      "i really think the problem is those that culturaly appropriate in the name of "ecclectic spirituality"... i have seen this ecclectic approach work and i have seen it fail, the failure due to the appropriation of other traditions instead of a focus on inspiration and finding an honorable and more syncretic approach."

                      For one, I don't ever hear that type of person proclaim that they have an eclectic approach. And two, they are still stealing and doing things out of context, which is dangerous and disrespectful...

                      "but your right Kimowan, and im glad that you get the jist of my point. generalizations are dangerous to make and blanket statements dont do any one any good either... being specific i think and haveing clear communication is always nesescary.
                      "It's not so much new agism that offends, but particular behaviors, big and small, that offend."
                      and we all know what those behaviours are but it doesnt hurt to communicate them when we are talking about these issues so that we dont alienate people and we get a better oppertunity to heal and teach when the oppertunity arises, and man its allways ariseing! but we can crush the opertunity for assiting others when we aleinate them. its allways a more mature way of relating when we try to express or boundries and limits in a way that can help another person... instead of just saying hey your fucked up... i hate you and all you stand for... or your a moron... get out of here, or your a freak ect ect... i have had great success teaching those back ally muggers a thing or too... putting my own anger aside and treating the situation as an oppertunity to help some one get well and to live right."

                      Yes, being specific and having clear communication is good. But we live in a world where that is not a reality. I know that I don't live in a glass house. My brother and I have been having the same talk with a guy who comes to our weekly lodge for over 6 months. He is putting us at risk with his antics. He doesn't understand, and IMO will never understand, that some of what he does is wrong. And that's because he is a human with a different kind of thought process than we have. We've actually had 10 people talking to this guy after a lodge, all telling him the same thing, and he still doesn't get it. And this guy is a Sun Dancer!!

                      So, as you can see, being specific and having good communication is good, but not always possible. And I find that appropriators are always the best at not hearing what they don't want to hear...

                      And on the topic of alienation, please..... Indians have been alienated and repressed for a very long time, why would we want to invite, heal, teach, and assist those that have a history of disrespect? Why would we want to share something that was given to us, not them? Why is it our responsibility to help this so called healing process between peoples?

                      I think the one thing you might not understand is that this happens every day in our lives. It get's old and tiring to try and teach the same things over and over and over. The success rate I see is about 1-50, if that. Those are not very good odds and makes one feel like it is useless to try and teach someone how it really is.

                      btw - I also feel no need to mince words on this subject. Sorry LLB :)

                      "i know what your talking about ive had freinds tell me that they were at a sweat where some people showed up and asked them if the frequency of the crystals they brought with them would be the same frequency of the sweat, looking at them liek they would know because all native americans know about the frequency of sweats and crystals... ive seen people blindly mix medicines, practice traditions that are not thiers to practice and its rediculous and very offensive... we all have everry right to be offended... but it takes a much bigger person to be able to step back and look at them as confused people..."

                      Mixing and practicing things that are not theirs is offensive and also very DANGEROUS. People have died in improperly run sweats before.

                      I'm feeling from this thread that you are trying to tell us how to live and be. Which is typical. We've been doing fine without any outside help for thousands of years, I don't think we need to change anything. I don't know if you realize how big this topic really is. There are websites who's only focus is to bust and take down plastic shaman's. There are boards and groups all over the net that are having this very same discussion. Myspace is full of this kind of converstation and the people there aren't playing nearly as nice as we are here ;)

                      ""I am most frustrated when I try to explain to someone why it is offensive, or blasphemy, but they respond with philosophies about freedom, or openness or goodness. "
                      that can be hard to come up against some times... but i find if some one is leaning to far in one dirrection they are off balance and pushing them just the right way can either makethem fall or put them into balance... when people talk about freedom... i bring up justice and responsability, when peopel over focus on the good i bring up the bad... when people are overly focused on openess i hold thier head under water until they almost pass out and then ask them "soooo if you so focused on openess why didnt you open your mouth and just let the water in brother?" ; ) "

                      Kimowan makes that statement and then LLB talks about balance. Hmm... I see Kimowan taking up a non-confrontational position here, since he is such a gifted writer he is trying to be as gentle as possible about this. But as I can see it didn't work, hehe...

                      It is not my job to try and spiritualy balance everyone I run into. It is not my job to justify my ways to everyone. It is not their right to take our traditions and morph them into something new. It is not their right to have everything explained to them in a way that they understand. Ugh....

                      "its frustrating for certain that when you confront someeone who has done something wrong andd then cant own up to it... but i think that it creates a really interesting challenge. its been my experince that when some one gets all defensive like that then you have to be alittle sneaky... you have to get in their some how help them make up thier mind to make the change themselves... you have to some how HELP them find it in themsleves that your right... you cant convince them they have to make that choice... but you can totaly help them do this... but it takes getting to understand them on thier terms some times, and thats what few peopel are willing to do because they have to much self rightous indignation and they are not seeing these incidents as oppertunities to grow..."

                      So you acknowledge that it's frustrating, but you don't understand it. Do you realize how many people I meet who are very interested in what I do? And that I can tell them all about it, and maybe even invite them to a sweat? But the minute it challenges their beliefs of right and wrong, and they see the responsibility involved, that they either run away faster than a jack rabbit, or I have to spend the rest of my day justifying everything I've told them. It's fucking frustrating!!!!!!!!! And it's not my job to ease their fragile little ego's!!!

                      ""I would love, just once, if an outsider would just say, "Oh, okay, I can now see why that's offensive. I didn't understand. Gosh, I won't do that again.""
                      i would love that as well... and i have heard it said... the secret is i think is that you have to have alot of empathy..."

                      I have seen that as well, but it is extremely rare. As a matter of fact that's how I became familiar with the traditions I practice. HUMILITY and RESPECT for the people that I'm around and for the traditions I'm being taught. That, and becoming involved in the community and helping out in any way that I can. I don't challenge it, I just do it...
                      • Re: What does 'new age' mean, anyway?

                        Tue, January 23, 2007 - 7:34 AM
                        You're right, I'm trying a non-threatening approach. Personally, if I wanted to learn another group religion, I would at first find a principle source, observe and listen for a long time, learn the protocol, context, history, people. If wanted to belong to that group, I would then begin to participate---appropriately, and as an insider.

                        I would presume to know nothing. The more different the religion's culture to mine, the longer I would expect to learn.

                        Native religions are more different than Western religions than non-Natives would think.
                        • Re: What does 'new age' mean, anyway?

                          Tue, January 23, 2007 - 8:52 AM
                          I don't really know yet what I have to add to this conversation . . . I'm think some might consider me a new ager . . . I'm certainly a mixer of cultures. Once joked with someone that I'm an Easter European Jew who practices Chinese Medicine and plays Australian Didgeridoo's, and practices East Indian Yoga and Japanese Martial Arts, loves African, Mexican, (East) Indian, Japanese, Greek, Italian, etc., Food; married a Mexican woman, uses Amazonian Healing medicines, lives on Chumash land, eats with chopsticks, loves the rhythmic complexity of Middle-Eastern music, plays jaw harps from all corners of the world . . . and that doesn't even touch upon the stuff I want to learn/experience before I check out. With the exception of the Martial Arts and the Mexican wife, it's all still part(s) of me.

                          But what I really wanted to say if that I wonder if the land itself isn't in many ways the source of the religion/spiritual practices that the people who live on that land become. If we assume archaeological evidence is accurate, and the Native Americans came over the Bering Straights land bridge during a previous ice age (not a theory I'm totally comfortable with, btw), well, you don't see a whole lot of Mongolian influences in the pre-columbian manner of being of the Americas. So perhaps it was the land itself that transformed a nomadic Asian people into what they became over thousands of years. If this is the case, is it not possible that the beginnings of the European residents of the Americas interest in native culture and spirituality might just be the beginnings of a similar transformation triggered by the bioregion (thanks LLB) itself (perhaps I should say herself)? So perhaps my desire to clear my patients with sage smoke is the work of the bioregion, the spirits and Spirit of this land, adapting me to a way of being more consistent and in harmony with it and not a cultural appropriation?

                          I've been deeply blessed to have spent time in 5 different lands on 4 different continents, letting and feeling the influences of the land and the culture permeate and change me, with deepest respect for that land and the cultures. This has profoundly influenced who I am today and how I view the world and the workings of Spirit. Who I am is none of those, and all of those. Something different. Profoundly grateful.

                          • Re: What does 'new age' mean, anyway?

                            Tue, January 23, 2007 - 9:56 AM
                            Yes, definitely Native religions, cultures, worldviews, are intertwined into geography. The relationship between culture and land enjoys a long-established complexity. People arriving from other parts of the world are making their own connections to this land, a few centuries for some generations. Farmers, ranchers, old-money urbanites have really taken to their vernacular geographies, certainly.

                            I suspect more recent generations suffer a disconnect from something like "home." I think these generations might be responding more to the modern, cultural landscapes, rather than the geographical and historical characteristics of the kind that Native Americans recognize.

                            A related factor is that Native Americans have tweaked this relationship to the continent over thousands of generations. Contemporary non-Natives' desire to establish significant roots to the continent has been made difficult by the fast-pace of cultural change. They can't seem to get their footing because the rapid change is like having rug pulled out from under them. However, something always remains, continues to build. It's going to take New Americans (to coin a new phrase) a long time to find harmony here, if ever.
                            • Re: What does 'new age' mean, anyway?

                              Tue, January 23, 2007 - 12:49 PM
                              Aho! It is the connection to the land and the geography that somehow feels deep-rooted in our culture. When I walk the paths along the great lake called Michigan(Michigamme), it is the same path that was traveled by my predecessors. In fact there remain trees bent by their hand to indicate the direction to spring water, etc.I still walk to a place in the woods where my great grand uncle created a village when he broke with the main body of the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi. Many of the stories retold by my parents and grandparents were place specific and feel alive for me as I visit. As a result it becomes difficult for me to see the disrespect and degradation of my home.
                            • Unsu...
                               

                              Re: What does 'new age' mean, anyway?

                              Tue, January 23, 2007 - 1:10 PM
                              "A related factor is that Native Americans have tweaked this relationship to the continent over thousands of generations. Contemporary non-Natives' desire to establish significant roots to the continent has been made difficult by the fast-pace of cultural change. They can't seem to get their footing because the rapid change is like having rug pulled out from under them. However, something always remains, continues to build. It's going to take New Americans (to coin a new phrase) a long time to find harmony here, if ever."

                              thats a really good point, and i think your right...
                              something is continueing to build...
                              " It's going to take New Americans (to coin a new phrase) a long time to find harmony here, if ever."
                              your right its goign to take along time... for these new americans to do this... its goign to require new ways fo relating and its not going to be easy... my dedication lies in finding ways to co-create this harmony.
                              • Re: What does 'new age' mean, anyway?

                                Tue, January 23, 2007 - 1:43 PM
                                Does this co-creation mean cooption or amalgamation? Somehow, I think it continues to be the idea that we will certainly get it wrong if left
                                to our own ways.
                                • Unsu...
                                   

                                  Re: What does 'new age' mean, anyway?

                                  Tue, January 23, 2007 - 1:58 PM
                                  to some people i think your right they may see co-creation as cooption and amalgamation... but i think these folks are pretty misguided, and thats unfortunate. not saying that you do... but for alot of people they get stuck on that level and dont really get "it" lol.. ive left quite a few communities just because of this...
                                  i think that real co-creation means not cooption and amalgamation but instead finding a way within your self to relate to life in a healthy way.
                      • Unsu...
                         

                        Re: What does 'new age' mean, anyway?

                        Tue, January 23, 2007 - 1:04 PM
                        "That in itself is appropriation. When you "find inspiration" you are appropriating part of a tradition. It doesn't matter how much respect or responsibility you take, you are still borrowing from something. And from what I have been taught that is very dangerous business. "

                        NO H THAT IS NOT APPROPRIATION AT ALL... you are confused brother... inspiration is not borrowing at all and borrowing is not appropriation... ( borrowing wiht out asking or permission is appropriation) we have had this discussion before and its a complex issue which requires detailed definitions... to be inspired by something or some one does not mean that you TAKE something from them that they own... if you are inspired by the moon or the stars or a speach are you stealing soemthing from them are you takeing with out asking... is inspiration even something one can control. i am sure the artists amoung us can say a thing or two about inspiration.

                        ""there are some smart people out ther who have integrity and are looking at how to relate to spirituality form new perspectives in good and respectfull ways." "
                        "It's the same thing to me. As Pequamo has pointed out, I don't see those people participating in the community. "
                        whos community? do they have to participate in your community? i am sure they have their own communities and are workign on creating them... if they are "outsiders" they may not be welcome in other communites. and if they have no interest in native ways then what does it matter?

                        "For one, I don't ever hear that type of person proclaim that they have an eclectic approach. And two, they are still stealing and doing things out of context, which is dangerous and disrespectful... "

                        i agree to a certain point... some of them are not stealing how ever... some people learn from many teachers in an appropriate way... you and i have talked about mixing medicines before... because some one mixes medicines does not make them a thief... and some people say mixing medicines is bad some do not... you have seen it do harm i have seen it do harm... but i have also seen it do good... which i do not think you have...

                        "And on the topic of alienation, please..... Indians have been alienated and repressed for a very long time, why would we want to invite, heal, teach, and assist those that have a history of disrespect? Why would we want to share something that was given to us, not them? Why is it our responsibility to help this so called healing process between peoples? "

                        no one is saying its your responsability... however just because some one has been disrespected or alienated does that give them the right to disrespect or alienate another... so what your saying is two wrongs make a right? you can justify what ever you want... just like an appropriator i guess...


                        "I think the one thing you might not understand is that this happens every day in our lives. It get's old and tiring to try and teach the same things over and over and over. The success rate I see is about 1-50, if that. Those are not very good odds and makes one feel like it is useless to try and teach someone how it really is. "

                        teaching is hard buisness not every one is a teacher, but every one teaches regardless... even if you dont want to teach some one something we are teaching someone... even if we refuse to teach some one we are teaching them... we teach by every thing we do... we have to pay extra clos attention to what we are teaching some one. what do people learn from our actions and words? by our example... so maybe its not your responsabilty to teach people... but the fact remains we end up doing it any way...

                        "Mixing and practicing things that are not theirs is offensive and also very DANGEROUS. People have died in improperly run sweats before."

                        and you telling me this because i dont know?

                        "I'm feeling from this thread that you are trying to tell us how to live and be. Which is typical. We've been doing fine without any outside help for thousands of years, I don't think we need to change anything. I don't know if you realize how big this topic really is. There are websites who's only focus is to bust and take down plastic shaman's. There are boards and groups all over the net that are having this very same discussion. Myspace is full of this kind of converstation and the people there aren't playing nearly as nice as we are here ;) "

                        thats BS H and you know it... im as native as you are bro... im not telling any one how to live and be at all... im not talkign about plastic shamans and i am not talking about cultural appropriation... your bringing your politics into what i am talking about, and makeing it pretty conveluted and twisting my sentiments around pretty well...
                        my point was not all new age people are cultural appropriators just like not all catholics are pedaphiles... you cant make generalizations about people... thats my only point... i feel strongly about cultural appropriation as well...

                        "Kimowan makes that statement and then LLB talks about balance. Hmm... I see Kimowan taking up a non-confrontational position here, since he is such a gifted writer he is trying to be as gentle as possible about this. But as I can see it didn't work, hehe... "

                        are you trying to insult a freind H or what? im not trying to school Kimowan... hes got great insights... hes got a very gental and non-confrontational point of view... and that works, and is a great method... i was trying to point out that that method works btu sometimes you can be confrontational and gental as well and get your point across in a differrant way. i was trying to ease his frustration from another angle. i wasnt saying he was out of balance i was saying the peopel who are frustrating him are out of balance...
                        jesus H i kinda feel you just WANT to find fault in anything i say on this one... which is really disapointing bro...

                        "It is not my job to try and spiritualy balance everyone I run into. It is not my job to justify my ways to everyone. It is not their right to take our traditions and morph them into something new. It is not their right to have everything explained to them in a way that they understand. Ugh.... "

                        im not saying it is... but your really focused on that... if you look for something hard enough you will find it every where...

                        "So you acknowledge that it's frustrating, but you don't understand it. Do you realize how many people I meet who are very interested in what I do? And that I can tell them all about it, and maybe even invite them to a sweat? But the minute it challenges their beliefs of right and wrong, and they see the responsibility involved, that they either run away faster than a jack rabbit, or I have to spend the rest of my day justifying everything I've told them. It's fucking frustrating!!!!!!!!! And it's not my job to ease their fragile little ego's!!! "

                        yeah i do understand H... its not your job its not your job its not your job... yeah i have heard you say this i get it... i understand... its not your job... no ones saying it is...there are other ways of relating to the things that cause frustration so that they dont cause frustration... but i wont get into that... i dont want you thinking that im telling you how to live... ; )

                        "I have seen that as well, but it is extremely rare. As a matter of fact that's how I became familiar with the traditions I practice. HUMILITY and RESPECT for the people that I'm around and for the traditions I'm being taught. That, and becoming involved in the community and helping out in any way that I can. I don't challenge it, I just do it..."

                        thats great H... i am glad you have seen that too then.
                        much love bro...
                        • Re: What does 'new age' mean, anyway?

                          Tue, January 23, 2007 - 1:53 PM
                          I can feel H-Street's frustration. I mean I feel it.

                          Let me just say that from the inside viewpoint, cultural trespassing is conspicuous and easy to identify. There's a super-complex set of thoughts, memories, experiences, that come into play in order to spot the transgression. I sometimes feel like, wow, that's so wrong in so, so many ways, but it would have to be an immense discussion, take lots of time, to explain to the outside transgressor what is out of place. So a lot of times I see things, even little things like "Native Scents Cedar Sticks" at my local health food store, and I am resigned to the small offense. I am too tired to explain. It isn't my job. And yet, I could say something, but is it worth it?

                          I learned my culture first from my childhood experiences in my family and community circles. It became more formal as I grew, specific people and societies. It has taken a life to know my culture. I am in the inside. Insiders can tell outsiders in a flash, the little mismatches are often glaring. It's a no brainer.

                          The fundamental mismatches are major discussions. Discussion itself, within Indian circles, has its own kind of protocol. So, when insiders like myself, or H-Street, engage in these talks, we are constantly aware of what we can say and what we cannot. We are also keenly aware that simple statements mean different meanings depending on who's listening.

                          It's also extremely frustrating to talk about "new agism" issues because non-Native people often say simple statements that you they regard as a fact, when you know it to be an opinion. What often seems like a fundamental truth, to a new ageist (or whatever semantic label you want) is often recognized as supremely antithetical to Indian thought.

                          The gap in cultural understanding is immense. I would argue that Native North Americans know quite a bit about mainstream society, since we are participants as well as neighbors. We are also insiders in the modern western culture. I think we understand the gap much better than non-Natives because we can compare. Non-Natives often do not have this dual cultural frame of reference.

                          I guess I am saying that you non-Natives need to trust Indians more. We can't argue just anything, we're constricted by protocol, but we love the protocol. You have to trust we are being truthful if we say, "You are missing out on the community aspect," or "It's offensive," or "I understand your good intentions and you are excluded, but for benign reasons."

                          The only problem here is that non-Native do not often recognize voices from inside the culture. They cannot assess authenticity and they are not aware of their own blindness. Indians can assess authenticity in a blink of an eye.

                          So, I can feel H-Street's frustration. He's being pushed into a defensive position. He can push back or try to explain or just let things slide.

                          Really, talking with new agey people is like getting dozens of baseballs thrown at you at the same time. The pitcher thinks he or she just threw out one ball, but by the time it gets to the Indian, it is seen as a barrage. So we catch a ball now and then and let all the others go. We know that same ball will be thrown again.

Recent topics in "Nativepeoples"