09-07-05 @ 9:14 am EDT

I'm starting to realize something that I think makes me feel not QUITE so tense concerning seeking a better understanding of Native American spirituality. Oddly enough, that something is that...Indian belief isn't so different from Christian belief. o_o

(Now please keep in mind I am an outsider, nowhere near in the know, so the rest of this entry is based ENTIRELY on my outside observations of people supposedly IN the know. I like to think, though, that when I'm interested enough, and especially when I'm not too deeply involved, I'm a moderately good observer.)

This is based, admittedly, on my observations of self-proclaimed natives in online forums and message boards. For all I know every single one of them is white. But I'll go on the assumption that at least MOST of them are who they claim to be. I can't guess as to their degree of participation or knowledge regarding traditional native spirituality so I can only write this based on my observations of what they SAY they know. And based on that, I've come to the conclusion that native spirituality is not that different from Christianity.

Not in its BELIEF systems or PRACTICES, of course--those are as far away from each other as you can get. I'm talking about in HOW it's practiced, how it's followed and believed in, and how it's shared with others. One primary difference which I'll get out of the way first is that Christians proselytize (i. e., seek new members), whereas natives for the most part do not. You won't find Indians preaching to join their religion or burn in hell, or whatever nicer way some other Christians put it. But aside from that, they are a lot similar.

Here we go with my own experiences.

I stopped by a native spirituality message board I hadn't looked at in a while and there's a "new" person there, a Dakota/Lakota, I think; at least she is PART native. I don't know how much. From her earlier posts I really liked her style; she wasn't one of those New Agey types but she wasn't one of those really hardliners who hate white people, either. She seemed sensible and when she asked WHY non-natives were on the board wanting to learn about the spirituality, I gave my own answer, and made a point of telling her I'd enjoyed her posts.

I disappeared for a while busy with my own things, then returned a day or so ago and saw her NEWER posts. And...yeegh. She goes through phases even worse than mine. On reading her latest posts, I was very tempted to go in and take back what I'd said. Needless to say I've lost some respect for her. Every so often she seems to just completely COMBUST and rants at non-natives stealing their spiritual traditions. Understandable--but one of her posts was much along the lines of, "I don't think ANY non-natives should be practicing our beliefs. You white people come in here and ruin everything and you want it to be all..." I could go on and on because she did, but I don't remember her exact words. I just remember that whites/non-natives were disparaged, and the phrase you people was tossed out...on reading the post I felt like permanently slipping back into lurking mode. My first post to her, when I'd answered her question regarding why people like me were there? I had made mention of the fact that I am very leery of even setting foot into such message boards due to my past experiences with natives online. Remember the Ojibwa board? I fully understand the suspicion that comes along with native spirituality and outsiders wanting to learn about it. What I did NOT understand, and still find inexcusable, was when that suspicion turns into PARANOIA, like when I TOLD the reason why I was there, then had to justify my presence TWO MORE TIMES (this, after THEY had accepted my application into the group in the first place!--???), offered to leave and was told I could stay, but was then BANNED from the group in the end anyway...all this, because somebody who decided NOT to take the issue up with ME thought that I was there to write a BOOK about them. (Like you can learn anything in an online native group that hasn't been published already! Cripes! They're not the Illuminati or anything! Based on what I got to post, compared to what they posted in response, I have a strong feeling that I actually knew more about the mythology, if not about the ceremonies, than they did. I tossed out a bunch of names of intermediate/advanced texts I'd read and one of them suggested a really basic kiddie-type text in return--none of them had anything to say about the books *I* mentioned--I feel they'd never read them. Then I posted a really detailed longwinded question regarding their different mythological figures and how they saw them and if they believed in them and all the answer I got was "Yes, we believe in them," no more specifics than that--did they even know who I was talking about? Another person unrelated to that board, who claimed to have been initiated and adopted into Ojibwa/Ottawa ways, even gave me the INCORRECT meaning behind a couple of their words--I later learned the correct meaning...through books. Pff!)

In any event, I had told this person of this event, and she had replied to my post to sympathize with me for having had such a nasty experience. I had told her that this was why, even though I WANT to learn more so I'm not so ignorant on the subject like too many other people, I just tend to lurk, just to avoid such trouble. Well, her LATEST post, with her you people tone, made me want to slip RIGHT back into lurk mode. I was not the only one to feel this way. One of the regulars, whose own positions and overgeneralizations about people I disagree with strongly, even commented to her about her attitude. And another person mentioned the danger inherent in the you people phrasing as well. On reading her post I got the impression, totally contradicting my earlier picture of her, that she detests white people and how they are even INTERESTED in native matters.

I also don't know the usage or etiquette but she keeps referring to whites as wasicu (sic?), which is her people's way of saying white person from what little I know, but I found that offensive. I don't know why. If an Ojibwa called me a long knife or a chemokmon or however they spell it, I wouldn't feel offended unless they said it in an offensive way. But for some reason I got a negative connotation from wasicu. Maybe just me. *shrug* I guess it was just the context in which she used it, which made it sound disrespectful. I actually think it would be cool to be called a long knife :D unless the person calling me that were to be saying something like, "You long knives came in and started doing this and that and etc. etc. etc...." In which case I would again slip into lurkage. o_o

To get back on track, my earlier impression of this user as rather intelligent, well spoken, and nicely middle of the road was broken when I read her posts from that day; she just really lost it. She calmed down apparently but from the sound of it this isn't new; she blows up and threatens to leave and report people every so often. I guess I should not be surprised, I was and sometimes am much the same way. Shouldn't put people on pedestals, I guess. In any event, after I left the board without posting anything of my own I mulled over what had been said. The viewpoints of all the people there. For the most part, I don't post on that board, because the moderators are rather sarcastic and sometimes even bitchy with newcomers of the "wannabe" type, and even not-really-wannabes-but-come-across-as-them-anyway-types like myself. For example somebody will show up and ask a question, a silly New Agey question but still a sincere question nonetheless, and one of them will respond with a sarcastic joke response. If they REALLY wanted to teach that (misled) person something, they would correct them and give them an answer if it applies. To give a joke response does one of two things: 1. it drives that person off and makes them decide not to even bother correcting their mistaken beliefs, as is often the case with me, or 2. it's taken as a LITERAL answer by the asker, which is very unfortunate when it happens! I've been gullible enough to fall for such things in the past. To "trick" people in that way pisses me off. It's not very professional and it makes the people doing it look bad. Joking is one thing--answering a sincere, even if misled, question with a snarky response is another.

But my reaction to this behavior made me think, who am I to say what is becoming of natives and what is not? This also went along with what the Dakota/Lakota lady said. She ranted and railed about New Agers and wannabes, guys who are either not Indian or else part Indian proclaiming themselves religious leaders and starting groups, passing on pseudo-native beliefs, etc. I got the feeling that she disagrees completely with changing traditional belief as it is (or used to be?), and is against mixing it with other beliefs. (Understandable; I even agree, to an extent.) She called the regular I referred to above pretty much a fake or wannabe with the way he responds to people, and said that New Agey leaders who respond to piercing questions with "You're being racist" or "You sound angry," etc. are not real religious leaders.

A good analogy which I see brought up often regarding native spirituality is, you would never see some average Joe put on a Catholic priest's collar and deem himself a priest, and then gather a flock, without getting a lot of flak for it, would you? So how come some average Joe can give himself a name like Joe Eagle Feather, and mix together native beliefs and Tarot cards and astrology, and gather a bunch of followers, and it's okay? And again, this sentiment has its points and for the most part I agree with it. (In case I forget this later, when I DON'T agree with this comment, or rather, when a disclaimer is involved?--you DO see people of the Christian and Islamic and Jewish, etc., persuasions often going out and starting religious groups, and either splitting away from organized religions to start their own, OR declaring themselves religious leaders, just not PRIESTS or PASTORS or anything. Happens all the time. Are all of these Christian motivational speakers and evangelists actually pastors and such? I'm willing to bet some of them are just regular guys who started their own thing and now have a following. I would compare THAT with what happens among most of the native New Ager types. If a wannabe native proclaims himself a Mide priest or an initiate or something, THEN it's comparable to a guy sticking on a priest's collar and calling himself Father Joe. But back to my entry.)

But I got to thinking about my own preconceptions regarding native belief, and those that I keep coming across online, and I can summarize my observations like this:

* Some natives you come across believe that native spirituality is ONLY for natives, NOT for anyone else. Basically, it's almost a racial thing. Perhaps if you are ADOPTED into a tribe, then you can take up a native spiritual path, but you can't just decide to follow one on your own, no matter how sincere you may be. According to this camp of belief, you are pretty much culturally born into your belief system. A common sentiment among these people is, "Instead of looking at our faith, try to learn the roots of your own."

* Some natives you come across believe that anyone can practice native spirituality, with the stipulation that they don't combine it with other belief systems which have nothing to do with it (Celtic, Wiccan, etc.), that they don't just decide to follow one particular ritual (sweat lodge, smudging) without following the rest (i. e., no picking and choosing--you have to be in it all the way), and that they find the appropriate person to learn from because it's not something you can just decide to do after reading a book. They believe that as long as you are sincere and decide to go with it to the very end, it does not matter if you don't even have a drop of native blood in you. A common sentiment among these people is, "Find an elder to learn from. If this path is calling you, and if your heart is sincere, then you can follow. God knows no skin color." (This is the school of thought I lean pretty close to.)

* Some natives you come across combine different belief systems and have no problem with it. For example, I've heard that many of the Ojibwa and Ottawa of this area consider themselves Christian--yet they still rely on native traditions, including spiritual ones, which from a Christian mindset would directly contradict that religion's teachings. From what little I know, however, the native spiritual mindset is sometimes not so strict as the Christian is--but that's the point of the entry, which I'll get to in a bit. Long story short, they do one version of what the above group criticized, combining two different spiritual paths into one. I guess into this group might also fall some of the New Age types who combine different paths, though I'm inclined not to look on them so favorably. From what little I know, the natives who combine Christianity and native beliefs identify themselves as Christian. The New Agey types, on the other hand, either call their path a native one, which it is not, or they call themselves just what they are, a mixture of things. I consider the first type (i. e., New Agers who say they follow a native path) as misrepresenting themselves, but when you think about it, somebody who calls themselves Christian when they also follow traditional spirituality could also be misrepresenting themselves, so...I guess I'm just biased against Christians in this case. But I do point it out here. A common sentiment of these people, though they won't often say it out loud, is "Do what works best for you. In the end, that's what matters most. God (or whatever you call Him) sees no colors, and will decide what to do with us later."

* Then, coming up close behind the last group, some natives you come across just mix and match everything and anything, and no path is wrong, every path is right, we all have our own ways to the Divine, we are all brothers, etc. etc. I like the idea of acceptance but this is too close to the wannabe school of thought for my comfort. I have nothing against mixing spiritual paths together, if it works for somebody. The problem is, number one, too often such people identify themselves as following ONE specific path, which is misrepresenting themselves (the person above who gave me the wrong meanings of words identified first as following a native path, then on another occasion as following a Wiccan path); and number two, a lot of such people are either of the exploiting variety or the sucker variety--they'll either try to sell you their spirituality or they'll buy it up. *sigh* -_- And I have ALWAYS detested when a spiritual path makes you feel like you have to buy a book or listen to a tape to get to know it better. (Yes, I dislike Scientology.) People of this group are of the "feel good" variety, and a common sentiment with them is, "I'm a native spiritualist! And a Wiccan. And a tiny bit Celtic. Oh, and I follow the goddess Artemis. But she gets along pretty well with the White Buffalo Calf Woman so it's all good. I'm still looking around though. Want me to read your cards? You can buy a set for $12.99 online." O_o

What's the point of all this entry? For a long time now I've been agonizing over which school of thought is right. Each has its merits and its downfalls. I would find some native person online whose views I liked, but then they would either say something to contradict themselves, or I would find out we were more different than I'd thought. I felt bad because none of their ideas EXACTLY FIT what I myself was seeking. (The main reason why I felt so relieved when I found out I'm just a panentheist! I NEED a label but nothing fit until I found that. *whew*) Which group of people was RIGHT? The die-hard traditionalists, the moderates, the liberals, the New Agers? As soon as one group starts to sound reasonable, doubt sets in, and then their words contribute to that doubt. And then along comes ANOTHER group to tell them they're wrong. And out come the claws, and back I go into lurkage to wait for another group with a different viewpoint to show up.

This is what made me realize the other day--it's JUST like Christianity!

Face it! This is the one reason why I have any respect for any Christians at all, because the religion itself, as it's set down on paper, does not attract me. Take a look at it.

* You have the hardcore conservative fundamentalist Christians. The ones who think that EVERYTHING in the Bible is exactly as said and should be followed to the letter. Granted, I have yet to meet any who will tear down their house if they find mildew on the wall, or who keep slaves, but for the most part they follow what they can. The world was created in exactly seven days! Gays will burn in hell! Non-Christians too! Even plenty of Christians, who don't follow the same beliefs THEY do. They have to go to church regularly and read the Bible regularly too. There is only ONE way the Bible can be followed; all other ways are wrong. There is just no way to differ from their beliefs because if you do, you are not "one of them" and not a REAL Christian. A common belief is that this world is messed up due to the actions of all those non-Christians and pseudo-Christians, and it's their duty to convert them as quickly as they can. If they can't convert them, they either shun them completely or step up informing them that they're going to hell. (I'm really not being sarcastic here, I've dealt with these people. Yeeks.)

* You have the personally conservative, publicly liberal Christians: "This is how it works for me, and how I believe, but it may not work this way for you." They probably still believe that most people are condemned but they don't make a point of saying it every chance they get, and they may even have some uncertainty regarding how things will turn out. They do NOT follow every single little stipulation in the Bible though they probably follow the New Testament to the best of their ability, and they believe that there's room for metaphor. They might be more reflective and personal about it rather than strictly church based. They recognize that faith changes with the times; the basics remain the same, but not everybody can believe as they do. They usually DON'T view non-Christians as being the downfall of society, though they probably wish more people would see things their way and be saved--probably out of a genuine concern for them, rather than an obsessive need to gather fresh souls. But they usually respect people's boundaries when they don't agree. I had a friend in high school who was like this--we just agreed not to talk about religion, as soon as we found out where the other stood.

* You have the liberal Christians who believe the Bible is something that's not set in stone, and that things change every day. Most of the Old Testament is outdated. Anyone can gain forgiveness if they just ask for it and believe. That's the ONLY stipulation--to ask forgiveness, and believe in Jesus the savior. They do still view certain things as sinning, but they can all be forgiven (though the sinner should learn from the experience and sin no more). These are the "feel good" Christians who always seem so CHEERY about spreading the word--a lot of them seem to have converted to Christianity after some sort of personal experience, and they're quite joyful about telling others. They don't seem to try to convert people for the sake of winning souls or because they fear they will be damned or anything; I get the feeling they do it just because it feels so good to them, and they want others to feel that way too. They may not attend church (though they might) or follow any strict dogma but they do have the same fundamental beliefs. They just aren't as picky or pushy about them.

* And lastly you have the...I don't even know what to call them. The Christians who believe that Christianity works for THEM, but they don't claim to know what's in everyone else's heart, and some of them even believe in the validity of different spiritual paths, for different people. They don't claim that everyone who doesn't follow Jesus will be damned or lost--for all they know, the other gods are just as legitimate. Just not for them. These Christians may follow dogma strictly, or they may not; they view it as a personal choice. They also aren't so big on condemning sin because it's in the eye of the beholder--a common sentiment is, "Do you think God REALLY cares about something as small as that?" To them, no one can really go wrong unless their path isn't working for them. From what little I know, they don't tend to try to convert people, either through condemnation or cheery exclamations. They're more likely to discuss spiritual matters than to try to win anybody over. IMO, this belief system is AT ODDS with what I know of Christianity, since according to the Bible you HAVE to follow Jesus the savior, and no other, but seeing as I'm not Christian, and I don't believe that, I tend to be sympathetic toward this sort of Christian because their beliefs are similar to my own. (I personally believe God can show Himself to anybody however He damn well pleases! I find it much harder to believe that He would let so many thousands of people be fooled.)

And every single one of these types is at odds with the other types, and thinks that THEIR way is the right way (except perhaps the last type--and even them to an extent), and that the others are all wrong.

Sound familiar?

I gave up on Christianity long ago because everything I see is so contradictory. In my own heart, I feel that God really does not CARE who you sleep with if it's consenting, whether you go to church or not, whether the wafer you eat has real wheat in it, etc. But according to BASIC CHRISTIAN BELIEF (albeit of different sects), these things DO matter to God. Christianity has dogma. It's just that not every "Christian" follows it. Whether this is really God's will that the belief system change with the times, or whether they're breaking dogma and God is disapproving and they're wrong, it's not my place to say. All I can do is say what I know of a religion's dogma, and of how different followers are acting, and leave it at that.

And it's the same with the followers of native spirituality. Who's to say which is right and which is wrong? Some directly contradict what their traditional beliefs teach. Some strictly stick to tradition. Some mix and match and say it's fine. Each says the others are wrong and they are right. I've been looking at native spirituality the wrong way, IMO. I was looking at it as a SINGLE POINT in space, and there were several points, so I was trying hard to figure out which one was the RIGHT one. When the truth is it's a SPECTRUM and there's just no WAY to tell who is "right" and "wrong"--you can see what the traditional beliefs really were, but that's about it. And even that is next to impossible to do seeing as European contact has changed traditions so much! (The regular on the board above made a point of disparaging gays when the matter of traditional tribal belief regarding homosexuality was brought up, but said it was best left to the tribes and their traditional teachings. This was in response to a news article in which tribal elders banned gay unions as unnatural according to their beliefs. From what I've seen, LOTS of traditional native teachings regarded gays as either connected to the spirits in an unusual way, nothing wrong, or as just different, nothing wrong. The Christians then came and changed all this so many tribes NOW feel it's traditional to frown on homosexuality. See how even "tradition" has changed?) You can say where a belief system parts ways with tradition, as in the more liberal Christians saying there are other paths out there when the Bible says otherwise, but you can't say which point on the spectrum is right and which is wrong. I see Christians who follow the Bible better than anyone yet I detest their beliefs; I see other Christians whose beliefs I KNOW are directly contradicting their holy book but I sympathize with them more. Because I'm human and I know what I personally believe about God. Yet I also know that there's dogma and there are certain traditions and people go against them. I can say, "That's not how a traditional Christian would do it," but can I really say, "That's not how a REAL Christian would do it"?

One of the lady's complaints was of New Agey native leader-types resorting to angry outbursts such as hers with "That's not how REAL Indians act!" But you know what? Her comment had kind of the opposite effect on me than what she probably intended. When she accused the other guy of acting like that, I saw how SHE was acting like that; even though she never accused anybody of not being a "real Indian," she did react with anger and hostility toward some of them who didn't believe the way she did, and she did use the phrase you people when referring to my sort. Everybody else was wrong in her eyes.

According to the guy who I didn't much care for in the first place, his school of thought was right for him, and hers was right for her.

According to other posters, their view was right, but they didn't see a need to blow up about it or force it on others.

And still others just wanted everybody to stop harping on it because we are all the same inside and whatever works best for you is what counts, in the end.

I'm an outsider so I could not very well sit there and say with authority which one of them was RIGHT or which one was ACTING LIKE A REAL INDIAN. Since I was born into a Christian society, it's easier for me to judge people of that mindset, without thinking about it much. Since I'm NOT native, I think I saw all these reactions in a bigger context, since I wasn't so partial. (Though I could just be bigheaded and fooling myself, it happens.)

Just like with Christian belief, native belief is a spectrum. You have the hardliners on one end and, though you may hate to admit it, the wishy-washy feel-good New Agey wannabes on the other. And a lot of things in between. Some of them break with tradition, but there are so many different mindsets (and so many differing degrees of "tradition"!), how can you say with certainty what is the "real" one and what is "not"? All you can do is say, "This is traditional--this is not"--unless you can read the mind of God I highly doubt you could do much more than that.

I guess I thought that natives had it so together that I would find the point on the spectrum which I would KNOW, with authority, was the RIGHT one. I really misjudged. I haven't been reading all the wrong books or observing all the wrong people, I've just been reading DIFFERENT books and observing DIFFERENT people. Even in my books it brings up a spectrum of differing belief. Why I never noticed this before, I have no idea. Even as I read I thought either, "This isn't what real native traditionalists believe" or "This can't be the right way, there must be another way." The truth is everybody believes DIFFERENTLY, everybody believes THEIR belief is right (at least for them), and neither I nor anyone else is ever going to find out which school of belief is 100% RIGHT.

If I could do that with native spirituality, then I could surely find the ONE Christian out there who is perfectly right, and trust me, if I found somebody that close to God's mind, I probably would not want to point them out to anybody. The world's not ready for such things. o_o

Now by way of examples to delve a bit into my own reading lately. If there's one thing I keep coming across in all my reading about Ojibwa traditional belief, at least, it's that it was highly INDIVIDUAL. There were rules and regulations and a sort of dogma that wasn't set down in stone, but it was there. Despite this, everybody did things their OWN way--and this was not seen as "wrong." Women were supposed to follow certain roles, and men others--but at times things changed, and they took up the opposite roles--women hunted and fought, men stayed at home to tend to the food and children. It might be seen as aberrant by some but by others it was perfectly normal. Tobacco is traditionally offered to spirits but how this was done varied--one person made offerings to the Thunderbirds by sitting up during thunderstorms and smoking cigarettes; another interviewed in the same book said they found that behavior offensive. (Though cigarettes are in fact often used as tobacco offerings to people nowadays.) I read about the artist Norval Morriseau. He was an Ojibwa painter who claimed his artwork came to him through visions. Other Ojibwa were appalled when he started to sell his paintings because it was AGAINST TRADITIONAL BELIEF to make money off of personal visions. But he persisted and did it anyway and today he's recognized as a fantastic native artist. On the message board I started this entry with, a non-native showed up and posted a really gross dream regarding boogers, and the Dakota/Lakota lady reacted with disgust and outrage, saying that SHE would never have such a horrific dream about bodily materials, plus she didn't see what such a filthy topic had to do with native spirituality; yet in the books of myths I've read from some native groups, their traditional myths are just LADEN with references to feces, urine, incest, crossdressing, sodomy, anuses, rectums, penises, vaginas, menstrual blood, scabs, just about everything BUT snot...I could probably find boogers, if I were inclined to look hard enough. o_o I had always believed, from all of my reading, that in order to obtain a vision one had to go into seclusion, fast for however long it took, and sit and concentrate until one came. But the book I'm reading now, written by a white man who observed natives in the early 1800s, before their traditional beliefs changed TOO much, says that sometimes, girls would have visions at the onset of puberty (first menstruation); and sometimes, boys or girls would just have spontaneous visions which they did not even prepare for by fasting, sometimes even in their dreams. That was a surprise to me. Even members of the Midewiwin, the Grand Medicine Society, didn't follow a strict dogma regarding what they learned about. They were taught some things and then the rest was stuff they figured out on their own. To quote a quote in the book:

Although the Midewiwin was a repository of knowledge of herbs, it did not have a pharmacopoeia accessible to every member. The remedies are individual, not general, and an individual when questioned invariably replies, "I can tell you about my own medicines. I do not know about other people's medicines nor their uses of the same plant." Thus it is frequently found that different people have different names and uses for the same plant.

I've read lots of interviews taken of natives in various books and their perceptions of mythological figures, while similar in many respects, are always different. Even their mythology itself is never consistent. There are so very many VERSIONS of all the myths that they will never all be collected authoritatively. Anybody could have a vision or a dream which would influence a myth, or create an entirely new one--it's happened.

And my own paltry experience in this thing--my writing. There were people in the Ojibwa group who reacted with horror and outrage when they learned that I write about their mythological figures, no matter what sort of respect I show them--when I mentioned that I use disclaimers one of them said that didn't matter, it was still horrifically insulting (and this person wasn't even Ojibwa, nor do I think they followed Ojibwa belief).

Another in that group said it was all right if I wrote about the mythological figures, but I should not make money off of them by publishing; I said that I did not intend to but that wasn't good enough for the ones in the paragraph above. (Need I mention now, Basil Johnston, popular Ojibwa author, who has written various books putting his own spin on the native myths, and is doubtless making nice money off of them...? Also see re: Norval Morriseau, above.)

Another person, the one I mentioned above who was wrong on the words, reacted negatively to my writing until I clarified that I wasn't trying to represent accurate Ojibwa belief, then when I put on disclaimers, this person was satisfied that it was all right.

And yet another person, who claimed to be at least partly Ojibwa--said that they really enjoyed the writing, period.

There's the big key word throughout this whole entry--INDIVIDUALITY. Sometimes, what counts as an "individual" is in fact an entire group with the same beliefs, but that's the one consistent thing throughout this spiritual belief system, and throughout any other, when you look at it. When you get right down to it you really can't tell who's wrong or right unless you read the mind of God; all you can say with 100% certainty is that you know what's right for YOU. There just IS no way to know who is right, and who is wrong. Not even Native American Indians.

So the next time a traditionalist states with certainty that somebody like me should just look into my European roots and leave the native path alone, or the next time a New Ager says it's perfectly fine to call yourself a Celtic Wiccan shaman--or the next time somebody hisses and spits and shoots venom when they see that I write about Manabozho or Anubis or whoever--maybe I should try not to feel so discouraged or irritated. They are doing their individual thing, and I am doing mine.