Talk:Medicine man

Anthropology

Good to see someone writing articles about anthropology, an area in which Wikipedia has been pretty weak so far. I know almost nothing about this topic, so I don't really want to edit the article. But I do think this article needs a lot more of the cultural background of this term, re Native American folk healers. Also, it's hard to say this in a politically correct way, but anyway: many M.D.'s would deny that many people called "medicine men" are actually physicians, in the main sense of this term, literally speaking. Moreover, under this definition, many M.D.'s would count as medicine men, which they are not, literally speaking. --LMS

This article needs a lot of work. Koyaanis Qatsi, Sunday, June 23, 2002

<<This article needs a lot of work.>>

Agreed. I put up the notice. (I don't know enough about the subject to fix it well.)--Curtis Clark 00:42, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

That is an understatement. The term medicine is not necessarily a reference to "the healing arts." Rather, it is a reference to supernatural forces and the items and religious practices used to control those supernatural forces. These supernatural forces, items, and religious practices may be used to heal people, but they may also be used for many other purposes.--NetEsq 5:39pm Sep 5, 2002 (PDT)

Moved comments from the main article --

I am not qualified to edit this page, but I am qualified to ask one applies "healing arts" to a folklore, local or otherwise.

This is not a sentence. Can someone, anyone help out here?

This may aid your asking for help (I'm relating to healing): medicine men sought in spirit to "see" a "problem" (individual, or whole tribe) before it was able to enter the physical world, so that it may be prevented from happening in the physical world by using their spiritual power (and knowledge in using this power) to "dissipate" the impending problem (a battle on the supernatural level). M.D.'s seek to correct the "individual" problem after it has happened in the physical world. In short, medicine men seek to battle the spiritual "cause" of a potential problem so that the "symptom" of the cause does not enter the physical world... the problem being dissipated at the "spiritual cause", as the aim of a medicine man's deeper purpose, regarding healing (and lore)... keeping evil spirits away, if you like, before they can "effect" the physical world (cause and effect). M.D.'s seek to alleviate the cause after the symptom has presented itself in the physical world. Both are medicine men... one working on the problem in the spiritual world before the problem enters the physical world, as the aim. The other working on the problem in the physical world, after it has entered the physical world. May it be that this helps without offending anyone. White horse (open palm) 8\Mar\06.

---

More editing necessary:

1) Castaneda is a fraud.

http://skepdic.com/castaneda.html

2) "The worldwide practice of shamanism" doesn't exist. Shamanism is confined to southeastern Siberia. It does not have much at all in common with indigenous North American traditions; in fact, shamanism has more in common with Christianity. Even worse (for "core shamanism" people, at least), the word shaman is derivative of a Chinese word for Buddhist monks. 3) In fact, many Indians consider the word "shaman" offensive because it evokes that "All primitives are identical" image so typical of the 19th century.

Thank you! I agree completely. Shamans are very specific people from a very specific region. I never hear Indians use the term "shaman" — only non-Indians and anthropologists. "Medicine man" or "medicine woman" is a completely respectful term and one used in Native communities. I'm a "scholar" and I would never use the word "shaman" to describe any Native American. The idea that medicine people are automatically not capable of treating disease with herbs alone is false -- there's such a wide variety of skills that medicine people hold, even within a single tribe. I also question that a medicine person's "role in society complements that of the chief." Most medicine people I've met in my life work completely independently of tribal government, with one exception of a former chief married to a medicine person. -Uyvsdi (talk) 06:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Re: Castaneda is a fraud

Skepdic.com could not be a more libertarianistic vomitfest of "setting the record straight". It may make one's life more content to debunk the nature of psychoactive drugs and their abilities to induce dramatic personal insight. Calling Castaneda a fraud on the basis that his movement was a coincidence of the 1960s and referencing interest with peyote, mescaline, and other organic compounds that initiate an elevated state of conscious awareness in such a cynical manner is not only closed-minded it is completely ignorant and almost offensive to any individual with an ounce of scientific education. Inform yourself, then choose.

The second point I may raise issue with is that while shamanism or any etymological research thereof would conclude that this term is solely characteristic of Siberia, that does not remove the fact that the nature of these individuals remained quite similar. The plants are different, the illnesses may be different, the people are different, but the goal is the same. To use the planet as a means of healing the sick or injured.

Anthropology, ecology, or any humanistic science field will long be neglected if we continue to get fools like you posting information from snopes or skepdic. Please think outside the box and not about it.

It is a bad practice to call other people "fool," and in general to demean people by any means. Please maintain a civilized environment out here in the Void. P0M 04:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if it's useful

"Medicine Man" But I looked for this movie http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0104839/ So, if it can be added - "Medicine Man" is also a movie. :)

Medicinal vs. Spiritual

Of the Dakota leaders there are two different roles that could be considered a Medicine man. Sometimes one elder took on the roles of both practices, sometimes there were several "specialized" Medicine men at once. One type, known as Pezuta Wicasta, has knowledge about the plants and whatnot that can cure illnesses, help in child birth, heal wounds, etc. The second type, a Wicasta Wakan, acts as a spiritual interpreter of sorts, as many American Indian cultures belive that when elders die their spirits remain. However, this information is specific to the Dakota tribe and does not cary on to other tribes necessarily. When missionaries came over from Europe their interactions with these different Medicine men varied significantly. As very vew religions accept the existance of other ones, the spiritual beliefs of the Medicine men clashed with the missionaries' views. In contrast the scince that the healing Medicine men practiced was appreciated and respected by the missionaries and relationships were established. One such missionary, named Samual Pond, lived with the Dakota in Minnesota and there are a couple of books about his experiences.

Rewrite for Medicine Man

It seems like this term is used broadly for different roles in varied societies. Surely each of these societies had their own word for what has been lumped into Medicine Man. It seems like the best use of this article would be to list the other terms it has encompassed, linking each to their own article. It could include a brief history of how and why all these positions got lumped together by Euroethnic documenters.

I agree with this approach. A user of Wikipedia might reasonably expect to find an article on Medicine Man, and the encyclopedic thing to do would be to provide useful information.--Curtis Clark 19:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Looking at things from the aspect of their similarities, they are all "the same." Looking at things from the aspec of their distinguishing characteristics, they are all "different." Even in the case of one "religion" that has had a long and voluminous written tradition, Buddhism, what people say is "true Buddhism" can vary greatly from school to school and book to book. To understand how many different traditions of belief and practice have evolved out of a common source it is generally least confusing to begin at the beginning and trace things through. In the case of Shamanism, the task may not be so easy.

If it is true that the beliefs and practices of the Australian aborigines is very similar to the beliefs and practices of shamanism as practiced in northern Asia and in the Americas, then it may be that (1) the ability to shamanize is fairly common among all groups of humans, and/or (2) those who originally populated Australia around 80,000 years ago carried their traditions with them at that early time and have preserved them there with little or no change.

Mircea Eliade made the best attempt I know of to try to objectively describe these beliefs and practices and then make comparisons among them. His book, entitled Shamanism in its English version, is regarded as a classic. I know of nothing to compare it to. It is, I suppose, always possible to pick holes in somebody else's work, but anyone who wanted to start working in this field on a comprehensive basis would need to retrace his researches.

His general position is that regardless of whether possibility (1), possibility (2) or both are valid explanations for particular cases, in general there is so much similarity worldwide among the religious practices he calls shamanism that it looks like something interesting is going on. In such a case the best course is not to try to force the evidence to support one ideology or the other, but to patiently gather the evidence and eventually let it speak for inself.

Even among Native American groups, there are many languages and many words for people who employ similar religious practices. Humans get in trouble when they let language rule over reality. P0M 04:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Points needing attention

I have started to try to clear up some of the problems with the current version of this article. I got down to this point--

The medicine man was a very important figure in Native American society. When European missionaries came over to try to convert the Natives into Christianity, the medicine man stood as a major obstacle to the missionaries in trying to convert them.

and decided to delete it. First, it is unsourced. If I thought it was right, or remembered something vaguely along those lines, I might have left it and tried to find a citation to fit. Second, it sounds to me entirely POV. For one thing, use of the word "obstacle" makes it sound like the "medicine men" were out there trying to protect their turf and keep the pure light of Christian revelation out of the eyes of the dupes whom they had under their spell. From reading Lame Deer, Seeker of Visions, and other such sources, I get a different story. What I remember from the two times that I met Lame Deer was that if he had negative feelings toward anyone in this regard it would have been the BIA (Bureau of Indian Affairs), not the local preacher.

One of the problems with the quoted passage is that it pictures a clash of ideologies. The missionary comes in and says, "Jesus died for your sins, and if you do not believe it you will go to hell." (That's what a Lutheran (?) missionary from Finland told me in Kyoto, Japan.) And the "medicine man" trots out his one-line sermon, which is... What? I remember what Lame Deer said one time when commenting on Christians taking a bath in guilt and then copping a plea (my words, not his): "Why don't they forgive themselves and reinvolve themselves with their lives and communities?" (The second half is a paraphrase. I heard his words decades ago.) Anyway, I think the typical Native American "medicine man's" reaction to the ideologies of the various missionaries and preachers would likely have been, "I do not believe it, and I don't see anything that would tend to make me want to believe it." There is no opposing ideology to speak of. There no equivalents to Biblical texts to throw back at the missionaries. But if you don't know anything about the other guy's religion, then you are likely to think it is a "perverted" version of your own, even its negative image, perhaps.

Some of the criticism of the article listed above do not seem to me to correctly interpret what the article currently says. Please point out problematical texts and give specific criticisms. P0M 05:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Deleted one paragraph--No need for "phony X" in articles on X

The presence of even a short section on "plastic shamans" tends to overbalance the objective descriptions of the real "medicine men" in the Native American traditions. It's already bad enough to have an article that uses a Euro-centric term (and one that may carry negative connotations due to its similarity and possible connection to "traveling medicine shows").

There is another account of a Native American "medicine man" by John Neihardt. It is older, and written more entirely from the Euro-centric perspective, so it isn't as useful as Lame Deer's book. Another problem is that, if I remember correctly, Neihardt also wrote about the Lakota.

It would be good to get information about a much wider range of people and cultures. I can try to find out something about the Cherokee who remained on the East Coast. I think one person who contributed recently may have some direct personal experience and might be able to put us onto written sources. Then there are the groups that use peyote. My guess would be that someone has written objectively about their religious beliefs and practices, but I don't recall having seen anything.

A broader question in regard to this article is how it is supposed to fit in with other articles. If the article on shamanism is adequate, then this article would only have to detail the distinctive practices of Native American groups, e.g., sweat lodges, sun dance, ghost dance, the sacramental use of smoke, the so-called peace pipe, etc. If I remember correctly, Lame Deer makes mention of the shamanizing practices of other American Indian groups that he has visited. I guess that kind of thing is at least quotable first-person anecdotal information.P0M 19:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Point of View Issue

I have noticed that a few articles (i.e. "Maria Sabina") that contain the link "medicine woman" redirect to an article titled "medicine man." Is there a difference between a medicine woman and a medicine man? If so, perhaps there should be two separate articles. If not, then perhaps the original article should have more emphasis on this fact given the title. Comments?--Shady Jade (talk) 07:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Spooky Image

That image at the top of the page scared me half to death. Maybe someone should switch the first and second image around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.85.129.6 (talk) 02:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Medicine men occur in all indigenous and aboriginal societies

Why this article has thus far only included North America is a puzzle to me. Meanwhile, I've sectioned that information off, and the article needs sections on medicine men of other cultures. Softlavender (talk)

The title of this article is misleading and sexist and should be changed

All the tribal societies I have known (and I have known a few in both Canada and Australia) had both male and female healers who were considered to have equal if sometimes different powers and knowledge. I propose this article's name be changed to something like "Native American healers", "Traditional healers of the Americas", or something equally unbiased. Of course, it would be important to provide redirection notices for such names such as "Medicine men", and so on, so that readers can easily access the article. I also believe there should be another article for Traditional healers in other societies. I would welcome any comments from other editors before I move this article. I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 22:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

School assignment

New topics go at the bottom of the page. Moving new content here. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 04:04, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi all, I'll be developing this page for a university project over the next few weeks (until ≈ early April 2016). I intend to expand the introduction, comb through the current article and improve language to be more standardized to Wikipedia's guidelines, and add specific sections on the herbal approaches and impacts. I look forward to any collaborators or opinions in the near future! Here's a link to my sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ljlight/sandbox Ljlight (talk) 14 March 2016

Could you first explain to us what your aims are in including this article in a topic on drugs? As we already have articles on herbal medicine, this article should primarily link to those articles, not duplicate the material here. I am also concerned with some of the planned edits here in your sandbox, as they inaccurately call Native people "shamans" and assign new age beliefs like the use of crystals to traditional cultures that do not use such things. Also a cause for concern is when anyone writes about living cultures in the past tense. This source is not usable as it contains zero footnotes, is a commercial site, and contains inaccuracies. As I have with other students wanting to add content to Native articles, I'm going to ask you to spend time learning what are WP:RS sources for Wikipedia, as well as WP:RS sources on this topic. Please prioritize writings from members of the cultures in question, rather than outdated or commercial accounts by outsiders to these cultures. Thanks. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 04:04, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ljlight - I'm very concerned over problematic sources you've inserted. Editing Wikipedia is about improving articles not adding inaccurate information gleaned from problematic commercial sites. Ways to improve articles about indigenous peoples is to use sources by AUTHENTIC indigenous peoples, not individuals appropriating from them. I don't see the need to add the use of herbs, some of which are inaccurate ie: the Iroquois are a confederacy not a singular tribe. UMICH has one of the most reputable ethnobotanical collection on line, it's confusing why you would not utilize this seeing that it is more accurate than this source. Indigenous girl (talk) 18:49, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Indigenous girl and CorbieVreccan, I really appreciate your insights and I understand your critiques. I'll try to address the one's I'm able to now and I will be sure to continue to address further concerns. I'll discuss with my professor the appropriateness of the inclusion of herbal medicine within this article, however the intent is to develop examples of the ways in which plant substances were used as medicinal drugs for readers to better understand the herbal approaches of medicine men and Native American medicine. Further, to my knowledge there have been no articles developed thus far stating similar information to what I have presented in terms of preparation, cultural usage and the biomedical healing pathways, so this point worries me less than others. To the shaman comment, as stated currently in the article and as intended by my addition to the introduction, shamanism is inaccurately linked to the already questionable term of medicine man. I appreciate the note on crystal usage, and I will be sure to either back that up with a highly reputable source or delete it. I will do my best to utilize the proper tense when discussing this. I agree about your concern of the specific source and I will replace it and the information gleaned from it with a stronger source. Additionally, I really appreciate the note on the ethnobotanical collection, I hadn't been aware of it but I will utilize it heavily moving forward. I look forward to further discussion, Ljlight (talk) 19:53, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Looking at your sandbox, things like "Some people believe Native American healing can be used to treat a variety of human ailments" ... this others Natives and continues to lump the traditions of over 500 different Nations into one. See WP:Coatrack for the issues about duplicating herbal articles here. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:23, 16 March 2016 (UTC) P.S. As you have (thankfully) not tried to add these things to this article, I put some further comments on the talk page of your sandbox project. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:33, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Any source you find on crystal use by Native Americans or First Nations/Inuit/Metis people is going to lack authenticity. I'm not sure why you are determined to be offensive by including it. I would appreciate it if you would try to understand that an addition of a supposed indigenous apothecary is not helpful nor is it true to the position of a medicine person. Various plants are used by regular normal members of community on a daily basis. You are attempting to glamorize what is akin to a normal medicine cabinet found in just about everyone's house. Just because your neighbor has some Nyquil, a box of bandaids and some asprin it doesn't mean they're a physician or pharmacist does it? Indigenous girl (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

And if your neighbor is NDN, does that make Nyquil a "Native American Healing" remedy? (sorry). - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:08, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Indigenous girl and CorbieVreccan, before I respond I'd like to note that while I will engage in discussion on topics relating to this article, I will not respond to an aggressive and argumentative commentary lacking constructive criticism. To your concerns on the "some people..." comment CorbieVreccan, that exists within the current article and is not my wording nor opinion. I have not yet modified any existing article material within my sandbox beyond the introduction, instead compiling my own sections. To your concerns on crystals, Indigenous Girl, while I appreciate the concerns as I mentioned I intend on confirming your statement through research and if truly unfounded I will rescind it. Please be aware that what is in my sandbox is a first rough draft that is being developed over the next few weeks and is thus unfinished. However, it is nice to feel both of your passions and I look forward to reading both of your contributions to this article. Ljlight (talk) 21:58, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Any further commentary from myself will occur on the talk page of your sandbox and will be copied to the talk page for your course.Indigenous girl (talk) 22:06, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback Indigenous girl, and your concern about article quality. Bear in mind that drafts are drafts, and they will change - for the better, with feedback. This conversation has gotten a bit heated, but I'm confident that we all have the same goal in mind here - ensuring the best content possible for the encyclopaedia. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Clarification on my comment about the misrepresented link: I was mistaken about who added it. The sandbox edit made it look new, when actually it isn't. My concerns about the commercial sources and the past-tensing (still taking place in comments above) still stand, however. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 22:22, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ian (Wiki Ed). I'm not sure why you feel the conversation has gotten a bit heated. I provided the student user with information regarding the UMICH ethnography database as well as raised some valid concerns over authenticity. There are a number of links in her sandbox that are not valid or reputable sources and it seems like she is determined to add content that belongs under another subject matter. I provided a link in her sandbox to the Native American ethnobotany page which seems to be more suited to what she would like to contribute and the page could really use some good input. No heat from here :) Indigenous girl (talk) 00:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that Indigenous girl; I suppose it's the eternal problem of the internet - that it's hard to gauge tone. :) Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:23, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ian (Wiki Ed), yes tone is often misunderstood. As I stated previously, the student seems to be determined to include inaccurate content (which is actually specific to the community I grew up in and the topic of crystals is something we've been dealing with for years thanks to the new age movement). This is frustrating as is the read as pretentious. Whether that was the intended tone or not I'm fine with it, it's nothing new to my experience :) I'm hoping she realizes that her intended additions are not on topic and that she takes on the Native American ethnobotany which desperately needs help.Indigenous girl (talk) 15:11, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Coming by from a ping at WP:IPNA, I have to say that it is very inappropriate for someone to appropriate this article for a current topic. They may want to consider a new article or palce snippets of their research into multiple articles. As this sits, we have enough trouble with "culture vultures" on the Native articles as it is. The Ethnobotany article is one good place for more work, as are articles on New Age topics. (Crystals? Oh dear...) Montanabw^(talk) 05:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Webster's "poorly grounded perception"

The 1954 version of Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language reflects the poorly-grounded perceptions of the people whose use of the term effectively defined it for the people of that time: "a man supposed to have supernatural powers of curing disease and controlling spirits." What exactly is incorrect about this definition? Iapetus (talk) 23:01, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Ethnobotany as very common is not supported

This sentence in the second graf, "those who employ Native American ethnobotany, a practice that is very common in a large number of Native American and First Nations households.[2][3][4]" has what appear to be bogus or unreliable sources. Nos 2 and 4 are not scientific, nor are they objective or reliable, they are position papers. Any statistical weight they can bring to bear to support the claim that "Native American ethnobotany, a practice that is very common" would be 3rd hand or further removed. Citation 3 links to an abstract of a scientific examination of the effectiveness of Native American ethnographical botanical practices but says nothing about its prevalence/frequency of use/common knowledge within the various Native American communities. Therefore, this assertion is not supported, and smacks of advocacy for a naturalist, "Noble Savage" worldview that presents a problematic bias towards Native peoples — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.109.171 (talk) 23:59, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Issues with details regarding Cherokee people

i find it somewhat interesting that Cherokee are explicitly mentioned here, but very little actual detail is stated, except for [potentially] misleading statements with a broken link to source and this phrase As in all Native American cultures, Cherokee medicine people had to practice in secret from the post-contact era until 1978, when the American Indian Religious Freedom Act was passed., which doesn't have a source at all.

there is a published book by Richard (Bark) Foreman and Jas Mahoney called "The Cherokee Doctor" in 1849 that mentions: Comprising a Brief View of Anatomy, With General Rules for Preserving Health without the Use of Medicines. wouldn't this be fitting to be included in this article as Richard Foreman was a Cherokee Indian and also a healer Doctor.

disclaimer: i would like to note that the individual in question (Richard Foreman) is my grandfather so i felt it fitting to not make any changes regarding him myself. i really hope someone sees this and can make some nice additions to this wiki as the book in question is filled with herbal remedies for known health problems of the time and according the the non-Cherokee author was substantial stating: It Also Contains a Description of a Variety of Herbs and Roots, Many of which are not Explained in Any Other Book, and their Medical Virtues have Hitherto been Unknown to the Whites; To which is Added a Short Dispensatory. Stayfree76 (talk) 19:28, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

since there has been no movement on this i find it fitting to do a more formal request as i feel the issue should be addressed. as an additional option, maybe no explicit group of people should be mentioned for balance/fairness? StayFree76 ^talk 21:03, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Stayfree76:, I agree with your assertion that "practice in secret" needed a citation. I looked at the source provided in the section (and used The Way Back Machine to find an archive of the webpage) and I do not think the citation is a WP:RS because there is no author attributed to the article and the website does not have a masthead/editorial team. I decided to remove that section from the article, and the information can be added back in when a reliable source is found.

As for "The Cherokee Doctor", I think it is a WP:PRIMARY source (since Foreman was a medicine doctor, and he was describing his practice) that could be used to source a description of a medicine man's craft in the 1800s (and I am sorry if I used the wrong terminology by calling what medicine men do a "craft".) I would discourage you from using this source to describe a medicine man's work in 2020 as things might have changed. I encourage you to find WP:SECONDARY sources (such as academic journals or books) that can describe medicine men in different time periods. If you decide to use the book as a source, please follow the instructions at Template:Request edit/Instructions to make another request.

I am going to mark this request edit as "answered". If you have any questions, please post below or contact me on my talk page. Happy editing! Z1720 (talk) 02:59, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@Z1720: thanks for that and for the insight regarding past vs present practices. unfortunately, my primary source citing would probably be more like writing a thesis and not very wikivoice. i am also a little out of my league regarding the topic as there has been alot of intermarriage of "whites" making me basically one of them, hehe. my grandfather (my mom's dad) was the last generation to be born on native land/ reservation. StayFree76 ^talk 07:33, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree that editing an article can be overwhelming, especially when it is a topic in another culture. If I was editing this article, I would look for academic journals and books on JSTOR or scholar.google.com to find WP:RS, whose information is easier to translate into "wikivoice". I also think that North American indigenous culture is underrepresented on Wikipedia and needs editors to build articles on their practices. If you are interested in this topic, don't worry about your cultural or racial background. Instead, worry about getting culturally and racially diverse sources to verify the information in the article. If you need help, I am happy to answer questions or find more resources to help you build this article. Good luck with editing! Z1720 (talk) 21:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

References

Witch Doctor

Is witch doctor really an offensive term? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dloewenherz (talk • contribs) 17:28, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

No, and there is a full article on the term on Wikipedia. Thanks for pointing the editorializing out, fixed. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:32, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Shaman

how would I go about finding a true honest authentic Shamen or Medacine Man/Woman in my area? I'm in need of protection, and the Native American culture is the only ones who have the knowledge. Stacy d moore (talk) 02:54, 28 June 2023 (UTC)