Did prehistoric peoples have holy men and women that may have worn masks or had elements of animal symbolism in their ritual practices? Maybe? The closest we can get to this would be, say, "druids" but again lots of issues there.
-
-
Show this thread
-
Did the Picts have druids? They may well have, or they had a comparable group of religious people with a different name. There are plenty of issues with the term but it's preferable to 'shaman'.
Show this thread -
My feelings on "shaman" are the same as my feelings on "tribe". Problematic terms that were baked into the racist, colonialist underpinnings of anthro/arky that still get used uncritically in the West by white scholars.
Show this thread -
Indigenous peoples get to decide how and when they can use these terms, if they want to reclaim them or not. That is not a debate that settlers need to step into. We can however STOP using these terms in our own work.
Show this thread -
As I said: inaccurate, imprecise, problematic.
Show this thread - End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
As far as I know it's a problematic term in general as it simplifies complex social statuses. That's what I've heard from some Indigenous scholars - not an expert
-
Yeah I have heard that too. I think it might have been reclaimed but I am unsure. Nevertheless, a good reason to not use it.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
I have never seen that used but if it was it assumes we know something about specific religious practices and...we really don’t know much at all. And what we do know are second or third hand accounts from people outside those belief systems and/or cultures.
End of conversation
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.