I was distracted when I wrote my earlier replies, and haven't had time to get back to this till now. As the Voices rationalizations for opposing those who are trying to protect these traditions is so common, I wanted to point out a few more of the ways this so called "voice of reason" doesn't even make sense.
First , maybe it happens, but I have never heard of a person of Native descent who grew up in a Native community being told they were unsuited to assist in traditional ceremonies because they were the wrong color. With the intermarriage that has happened enrolled community members come in all colors and sometimes traditional leaders don't look Indian. What is important seems to be that people leading traditional ceremonies actually have a life long relationship with a Native community, they are of good character, and it is the Native community that is served by them having a part in maintaining these traditions.
Sometimes I hear Native people try and explain this by saying these traditions don't belong to the White , Black or Yellow Nations, but I suspect what is being said is not that people are being excluded because of physical appearence, but that people cannot be a part of maintaining a collective ancient tradition if they have no real continuously existing connection with these traditions or the collective culture they belong to. If some people think this is racist, look up the meaning of the word "tradition". A tradition that isn't someones tradition , isn't a tradition . I doubt this is about what color people are. Some of the most respected Elders I know are mixed blood and look White not Indian. What color they are just isn't important to the people in their community.
I have known Elders who were open to inviting non native people to share a Pipe ceremony , and these Elders felt non native people might benefit from this, but I have never known a respected Native person who believed non native people have what it takes to be leading traditional ceremonies. (something non native people for some peculiar reason often feel they need to do ) None of these Elders who were open to including non native people , but who also frowned on non native people leading ceremonies , were racist or unkind to people of different colors . They were just being practical.
Chaska mentions the importance of language, and I think this is something people who only speak English often fail to understand.
I don't know much about Lakota traditions, and I am wading into something I don't know much about in what I am about to say , but I have heard Elders explain that even simple verbs like "walking" or "eating" can have so many variations in some Native languages, that a whole chapter of a dictionary would be required to explain them all. Unlike English most Native languages put more of an emphasis on verbs, whereas English is noun orientated.
I have often heard that in many Native languages there is many words which have no English equivalent. Without a word, there isn't even a concept. Which is one reason that these teachings and traditions need to be preserved in the language they originated in. Otherwise it is probably similar to imagining it is possible to teach advanced concepts in physics using the language and concepts of a people who had no use for anything but simple mathamatics.
I may be misunderstanding this, ( if I am wrong hopefully someone will correct me ) but I always had the impression that saying "All my relations" was referring to the behavior (verb ) of having relations and that saying this was more a way of acknowledging duties and obligations to behave properly.
It seems to be only the New Age people who interpret this word as a noun, which together with the word "my" is imagined to mean that everything which belongs to anyone automatically belongs to everybody else, and anybody who puts up any boundaries is in some way denying the basic interconnection of all living creatures. I think this is not only really distorting the meaning , but it is also completely impractical and unrealistic.
Voice also expressed a lot of other typical fuzzy misconceptions that aren't true but serve to justify attacking traditionalists who are trying to preserve their culture ...
Voice
It's interesting you bring up buddhism, as this is a spiritual system in which the adherents believe that there are no boundaries to who can practice.
One can follow these ways if they so desire, and there are traditions that go with it, as well. But these traditions are not exclusionary in any way, shape or form. A white man or a First Nations person could enter a monastery and begin teachings tomorrow.
I know a number of people in the Buddhist community and there is many boundaries which are very strictly policed. People must do many years of practice before they have any chance of being accepted as a monk or nun, they must be recommended by a Spiritual leader who is recognized by the Buddhist community, and this recommendation goes on to be considered by a group of similarly recognized Spiritual leaders and may still be turned down. In fact I know a Native man who wished to become a Buddist monk and even though he had been involved in many Buddhist practices for many years he was told he had worldly karma he had to work out and the answer was NO. Many Buddhist ceremonies are open only to people who are invited, and people hoping to participate must do whatever is required as preparation and even then any individual may be told they bring something into the ceremony which doesn't serves the purposes of the Buddhist community.
In the case of Buddhism, it isn't necessary to consider personal cultural background, but this isn't because Buddhist traditions allow anyone to do whatever they want. It's because ( as I understand it ) Buddhism seeks to empower the part of human nature which is not identified with any conditional form, identity or cultural background. This is , in it's very essence, a very different practice than when indigenous peoples are trying to maintain uncorrupted cultural traditions and identity. And though it hasn't occured to the all knowing voice of rationalization, I doubt the tradition of the Sacred Pipe just started out of now where.
Voice
So ask yourself, when the first pipe was given to the people, there was no history. No tradition established. No connection to the past of the people. What made this pipe sacred? What gave this pipe it's life? What gave it it's ability to heal and bring the people together?
As I understand it, the Red Stone that the Sacred Pipe is made from is said to be the blood of the indigenous People's ancestors, which became the Red Stone. As the Stone existed before any Pipes could be made from it, the traditions that gave birth to the Sacred Pipe, and even how the Pipe came, have their roots in the relationship the People had with the land for many many miilenea.
Voice
My belief is that this pipe has power because of the *intention* and respect in the hearts of the people who use it. Which is still true for that pipe today, and is true for all sacred pipes.
Which goes back to my first post. It is really all about intention and respect.
I also don't understand why, if this is what some people believe, that they feel they need to use Native traditions at all. Why not just take their good intentions and do their own thing, as that is all they seem to think is important.
It seems so incredibly unkind and disrespectful to accuse people taking sensible steps to preserve these traditions of being "greedy" "judgmental" and racist. And calling these accusations "The voice of reason" just adds insult to injury.
What a bunch of dishonest rationalization and double speak....
Sorry to rant but it's been bugging me all week...
