Spirit Animal

There are still a lot of prejudiced people around, but I do believe Canada is making an effort to change things around. Don't forget that the Catholic Church was responsible for a lot of abuse that took place in the 50's, 60's and even into the 70's, with their Residential School programs.
I don't see them trying to remedy the situation.

The mistreatment of native people in Canada should not be undermined, if they tell you that a practice is closed, or that you are practicing it disrespectfully, it might be best to listen.
There may have been advances in Canada but it's not the advances that should be talked about, but the eradication of further suffering and loss.
It's super easy to use another term for your experiences, and we should be able to move on from there.
If you think this was a real spirit, I think it wouldn't hurt to keep exploring your connection to it and to learn more about it, maybe try and find symbolism related to it. I hope everything works out well for you!

Interesting information indeed, however i do also have a few questions for you. Please understand first that they are not meant to be inflammatory or disrespectful. but i want to understand more about this and also your perspective and where the lines lie in this huge grey area. if any question offends feel free to not answer;

1) if you yourself are not native american, then is it not a bit of an overstep to assume you should be fighting their battles for them, over a topic that could be determined as somewhat trivial as it is a linguistic argument? Is it safe to assume they -want- the help?

1b) is ti safe to assume that all Native Americans feel the same about this topic or even care? What do you say to the native Americans who are working tirelessly to promote cultural sharing and understanding?

2) is it not risky to assume that any person you are speaking with who is using said terms is not him or herself educated in their use and meaning?

3) Is it not risky to also assume that said other people do not also have native american friends and/or relations who may have done said educating

4) is cultural appropriation limited to only certain cultures or issues, or would your own practice not be also considered appropriation for following a tenet and belief system not native to your own culture of birth?

5) is a person not allowed to learn new information and tools outside of their culture, out of a desire to better themselves and/or to understand that culture, simply because they were not born into it?

6) is it not counter-productive towards a movement of understanding and sharing, of tolerance and acceptance to generate imposed walls of what a person is allowed or not allowed to learn or practice based on their ethnicity? Logically this is in effect engaging racism to defend against racism. using the current topic of native american culture as example, if only native americans are allowed to learn about, practice, and support that culture, then how would any other culture such as white society learn about, understand, and support that culture and its goals or practices? How can white society come to understand the culture so they can change the system and laws from within to work towards bringing our cultures into a mutual symbiosis?

------------------
Edit for addendum
-----------

I suppose my point is that while I admire the dedication to making things better, I am trying to understand how this particular proposed solution can be seen as constructive when compared to other available courses of action.

I'm sorry, I can't tell if this is related to my response, if it is not then I won't reply further.

And yes, I am native so my opinions aren't completely out of nowhere.

Sorry i should have been more clear. That was directed to Shapash. Although of course if you have thoughts on those questions, feel free to chime in! Like I said I am just trying to understand the perspective, its inns and outs, and such.

I understand what is being argued for, and I understand some of the logic behind it, but I am just having trouble seeing how such actions can be seen as beneficial.

personally if i was working to make positive cultural change i would be doing it by petitioning for legal changes like including native american courses and cultural education within the school system. Sharing the oral history, lore, and philosophies of the culture, lobbying for equal recognition without cultural or racial (or religious/philosophical) walls between cultures. and that sort of thing.

I apologize for not responding sooner Spirit, I was at a family gathering this weekend and I wanted to ensure I gave your questions my full attention.

1a) What I do by responding to the issue is trying to spread information on the term usage and it's problems. It is generally easier on people of marginalized groups when someone of a privileged group listens to them and then uses that privilege to assist in getting the information out there. I have done this by bringing up the issue with the current term, providing examples of other terms that are more appropriate for eclectic practice, and giving out some links which provide the opinions of the peoples involved. I haven't actually said anything about how I feel on the topic or term because how I feel doesn't matter.

1b) No, not all First Nations peoples will feel the same, nor will all of them care. However there is a big difference between cultural sharing, understanding, and cultural appropriation. I will explain below as it applies to other questions. To answer your first question, there's a difference between being raised in a culture -where you are a part of that culture- and being born to a culture -being of certain ethnic origins-. There are also closed cultures -cultures which are only open to people raised in or born to a culture- and open cultures -cultures which are open to everyone-. When you deal with cultures that are closed, you can't simply walk in and take anything you like from it. That culture is reserved for the people of it, born or raised, and is not open to any passerby. Many different cultures have different reasons and rules that apply as to why the culture is closed, and you'll have to look into that specific culture as to why.

"Spirit animal" and "totem" refer to a particular set of practices of closed cultures. Dreamcatchers, however, are not a spiritual practice which is why non-Native people can have them without it being cultural appropriation. (Just make sure if you do that your money is going to Native people, not China, since they are where the tradition of using it to keep out bad dreams come from.)

And you can be invited into a closed culture as many of them have special ceremonies for welcoming in an outsider or adopting them into the culture, but you should never demand to be let in. It's a closed culture for a reason and you should respect that reason, even if you don't know it or understand it.

If you are presenting to a group of people and half the group cannot hear you and requests you speak up, but the other half says you are fine at the volume you are using, do you speak up or ignore the people who cannot hear you? Equally, if we are being asked to stop using the term, we shouldn't ignore the wishes of those people. If we've been invited in and it's appropriate for us to use the term now and we are using it correctly within the context of that culture, then we aren't ignoring anyone's wishes.

2) I think it's safer and better to assume that anyone not sharing the problems with the use of these terms hasn't. I can easily apologize if I'm wrong. However if I sit down and say nothing when I know it's hurtful and wrong, I am putting my personal comfort as a person of privilege first. Burke said "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

3) Please see above where I referenced closed/open cultures and being invited in.

4) Cultural appropriation applies to all cultures with the following criteria:
A. It is a living culture/tradition.
B. It is a closed culture/tradition.
C. The group the culture/tradition belongs to has stated it is cultural appropriation to take from it.

I'm Kemetic Orthodox, but for the purpose of this discussion let's say I'm Kemetic. It is not a living culture/tradition -there's no proof of an unbroken line of worship stretching back to ancient, Hellenic, or even Roman Egypt-, it is not a closed culture/tradition -ancient Egypt welcomed all people and even adopted foreign Deities into the theology-, and it has not been stated that it is cultural appropriation to practice it -because it's not a living culture/tradition, there is no group to say that it is cultural appropriation for me to practice it-. So what I do cannot be cultural appropriation. Additionally, I do extensive research on my own time to try to match up what I do and believe with the ancient culture that existed, I honor my spiritual ancestors for creating this culture, and I try to be as respectful as possible towards it. The other stuff I do either has roots in my ethnic origins, my cultural origins, or they are parts of open cultures/traditions. If you want to know specifics, I can provide those; they just aren't my major focus.

5) There's a difference between learning new information and tools and stealing new information and tools. Please see the above information about being raised in/born to a culture and closed/open cultures. Should a culture be open, it's open to everyone to learn and take what they will from it, however it's respectful to at least recognize where you got it from and learn its origins. Just like you do when researching a paper.

6) I think you misunderstand the difference between tolerance, acceptance, sharing, and understanding and cultural appropriation. Tolerance and acceptance don't require sharing anything. Tolerance isn't actually a good thing in my opinion; it means you are essentially "putting up with" something. Acceptance means you are actually accepting it, which is why most people will take acceptance any day, but want no less than tolerance. Neither one require sharing beyond the bare minimum. Understanding also doesn't require sharing beyond the bare minimum. Technically, you are discussing intermingling the cultures and using that as a basis of support. It isn't necessary and is actually quite harmful; please see the analogy below. It's also a form of erasure which is dangerous for cultures, closed and open, that have already been fighting just to keep their traditions.

I also think you misunderstand what racism is; reverse racism does not exist. Racism requires a system of oppression to be in place based upon the superiority of one race over one or more others. Anyone can be racist, but being told "no, this isn't for you", "no, we won't teach you our things", "no, what we do is for our culture/people", etc, is not being racist. It's defining clear boundaries that have been repeatedly crossed and continue to be. In this modern age many people, especially white people, think they should be allowed to do whatever they want, go wherever they want, take whatever they want, and cry foul when someone tells them no. Being told no isn't a bad thing; it's people who have been consistently oppressed asking for their breathing room back.

Do you go to someone's house and demand to be let inside? Or even more aptly, do you storm in the front door, take their most precious items, and walk out the door saying "this is all mine because I want it"? Don't they have the right to tell you to get out? Don't they have the right to decide if they want to invite you in?

Addendum:

I feel like what you are trying to advocate for is religious/cultural pluralism, when what your words are reading as is an ideology of "unite all the things". We don't live in a world where that's possible and the idea that we can is hurtful to people within closed cultures. Remember the house analogy above? It's like taking that person's stuff, but more than that, you either take their house and kick them out or burn the house down. That's the road that "unite all the things" leads down; humanity was never intended to be a One Religion/Culture kind of people. We have cultural diversity because we are all different, we all come from different places, different backgrounds, we all have different experiences, etc. Expecting us all to be the same is really not healthy for any of us and again is a form of erasure. Cultural pluralism allows for different cultures to co-exist in the same space and be able to positively interact with each other. Just like with actual people, cultures need breathing room to be able to do this. Closed cultures of people who have dealt and deal with racism need this especially, because so much has already been taken from them, over and over, because (usually white) people have taken advantage of them. So when they clearly define a boundary, we should be polite enough to step outside of our hurt feelings at being told no and ask ourselves why they said no. Was it because it's a closed culture? Was it because there's a history of white people stealing from that culture? Was it because you demanded to be let into it? Does the culture have specific rules about who can be let in?

Of course this doesn't cover all cases, I could spend a year writing on the topic and I'd still not have covered everything. But I hope I covered your questions at least and provided enough examples.

Interesting points of view, but if a practice rings true with you then why not adopt it. I'm not native, but I know a lot of them and they are my friends so if I want to sage my house I feel okay with doing that.

Thank you again Shapash for the time you took in both considering and also replying in such detail. I can understand and appreciate the investment it takes to pump out such a huge block of text. it has also given me a lot of food for thought.

As far as personal perspectives are concerned, using your analogy of the house, here is where my perspectives lie;

We all have built our own houses, and each has its own styles and colors, its own materials and floor plans. Each house has things that it does really well, usually tailored to the environment of their construction to best weather the storms and upheavals that come with it. Where one house might be strong, another might be weak.

Who are we to say that one couldn't see a weakness in their own house, observe a strength in that same area in another's house, and so learn the tools or tricks that made that house strong to then apply to one's own house and improve it? there would still be two separate houses. Two separate styles. But now both are also just as strong in that one place. This does not make them the same house, nor does it mean one house has been stolen or destroyed. One has merely adopted a useful technique from the other to make their own dwelling better.

This does not mean people can't celebrate their own homes either, nor from recognizing the beauty in the differences between the homes and how they were built. If anything in my eye it promotes that appreciation because they then know where that beauty came from.

But if a house has a wall built around it, with a moat and barbed wire, brick and iron gates, then all anyone can see is those walls. All they can appreciate is their resilience. they can not see the beauty within the barrier because they are blocked from it. And, if for some reason the people within that house have an emergency and need help, it can't reach them.

Now of course that wall might have been built by the owners of other houses around it, making that wall the barrier of a prison. Which in this case certainly happened. A new builder came to town and saw the house, and completely failed to recognize how valuable it was. Being young and childish, and being raised to be naturally selfish, the new builders blocked of what they thought was ugly and old from their view, shoving it aside to make room for what they thought was a grand structure. And, indeed some did try to burn down that walled in house. A few times no less.

But as the years went by, some people from the new builders found a way to peek over that wall, and were more mature and recognized the unique nature of that little old structure. Burnt and weary that it might be. Worn from the misunderstanding others. But still strong and vital while the buildings around the onlookers were already cracked and tearing. So they work to punch holes in that wall. Tear at the corners. Call over the barring height. And when finally the barrier starts to crumble they find a new one just inside. A wall made on the inside in response to the wall imposed on that home. And so because there are not one but two walls the attempt to break them down is thwarted and none can come to help repair the damage they caused. Until both walls are removed, that original small, beautiful house is doomed to be imprisoned and isolated. Until that isolation is broken, no one can supply fresh wood and paint, or even helping hands, to restore that old structure to its deserving glory.

We can not show our encouragement or support, we can't cheer on those inside to reinvigorate their hearts. We can not smile or show how there are those who have grown up. We can not encourage them to tear down their own walls and see that their prison is crumbling away and that we want them to stretch out and build again so we can all share in what will be created.

I am not sure of you are familiar with the term, but I recognize the ideal of the cultural mosaic. Each culture has its own identity. its own color and texture and pattern, which forms a small picture. but when you bring the many smaller pictures together, side by side, they form components of a larger picture. Individual and unique pieces fitting together, keeping their individuality but also creating a larger picture with its own unique pattern.

It is similar to the philosophical idea; "In the non essential, celebrate your differences. In the essential, celebrate your unity. In all things, operate in love."