Zephyros
Oh, gregory, keep baiting me and I'll have to bite, even after rescinding my previous comments. 
Lo Scarabeo Shaman Tarot
gregory
Oh, gregory, keep baiting me and I'll have to bite, even after rescinding my previous comments.
Oh go on then
Zephyros
Very well then
It is the easiest thing in the world to appropriate hundreds of practices, simply by calling them all shamanism. According to Wikipedia, by the turn of the 21st century, anthropologists had no less than four different definitions of what constituted shamanism.
The first and most general is that anyone who holds congress with the spirit world through a heightened state of consciousness is a shaman. This definition, however, could apply also to mediums, clairvoyants, psychics and Ouija board users.
The second definition is similar to the first, but holds that the congress must be held at the behest of others. This definition is also problematic, as it doesn't really define the term at all.
The third was coined especially to avoid association with the "magico-religious specialists who are believed to contact spirits, such as "mediums", "witch doctors", "spiritual healers" or "prophets"" mentioned in the first point, by concluding that a shaman must use a certain technique (meditation, drugs, etc.) However, scholars could not come to an agreement as to what that technique actually was.
The fourth definition refers to the indigenous religions of Siberia and neighbouring parts of Asia, those who actually invented the word "šamán."
Now, this whole thing wasn't to berate this deck, not all and it's a perfectly fine deck. My point was that the terminology used, by no fault of its creators, as the word shaman has become ubiquitous, is inexact. Simply by the definition, one can conclude witch doctors do many of the same thing. In embracing other cultures, we should at least give them different names. First Nations people also have a "version" of shamanism, but I'm pretty sure they don't call it by a Russian word. Some Inuit use the term alignalghi, while the Navajo call the practice Hatałii. This may seem like mere semantics, but remember that semantics are exactly what makes cultures special. Lose the semantics, and you call a Matzo a communion wafer.
Anthropologist Alice Kehoe raises some good points (again from Wikipedia): "... To Kehoe, what some scholars of shamanism treat as being definitive of shamanism (most notably drumming, trance, chanting, entheogens and hallucinogens, spirit communication and healing) are practices that exist outside of what is defined as shamanism and play similar roles even in non-shamanic cultures (such as the role of chanting in Judeo-Christian and Islamic rituals) and that in their expression are unique to each culture that uses them and cannot be generalized easily, accurately or usefully into a global religion of shamanism. Because of this, Kehoe is also highly critical of the notion that shamanism is an ancient, unchanged, and surviving religion from the Paleolithic period."
In choosing to lump so many diverse practices that all come from different spiritual points of view, I feel we, the "enlightened," are doing these same people we seem to admire a great disservice. Although I agreed with Riccardo that the deck was not specific to any one culture, even saying that could be construed as problematic, as perhaps the whole point is lost, and entire cultures are smothered under the shaman's blanket.
It is the easiest thing in the world to appropriate hundreds of practices, simply by calling them all shamanism. According to Wikipedia, by the turn of the 21st century, anthropologists had no less than four different definitions of what constituted shamanism.
The first and most general is that anyone who holds congress with the spirit world through a heightened state of consciousness is a shaman. This definition, however, could apply also to mediums, clairvoyants, psychics and Ouija board users.
The second definition is similar to the first, but holds that the congress must be held at the behest of others. This definition is also problematic, as it doesn't really define the term at all.
The third was coined especially to avoid association with the "magico-religious specialists who are believed to contact spirits, such as "mediums", "witch doctors", "spiritual healers" or "prophets"" mentioned in the first point, by concluding that a shaman must use a certain technique (meditation, drugs, etc.) However, scholars could not come to an agreement as to what that technique actually was.
The fourth definition refers to the indigenous religions of Siberia and neighbouring parts of Asia, those who actually invented the word "šamán."
Now, this whole thing wasn't to berate this deck, not all and it's a perfectly fine deck. My point was that the terminology used, by no fault of its creators, as the word shaman has become ubiquitous, is inexact. Simply by the definition, one can conclude witch doctors do many of the same thing. In embracing other cultures, we should at least give them different names. First Nations people also have a "version" of shamanism, but I'm pretty sure they don't call it by a Russian word. Some Inuit use the term alignalghi, while the Navajo call the practice Hatałii. This may seem like mere semantics, but remember that semantics are exactly what makes cultures special. Lose the semantics, and you call a Matzo a communion wafer.
Anthropologist Alice Kehoe raises some good points (again from Wikipedia): "... To Kehoe, what some scholars of shamanism treat as being definitive of shamanism (most notably drumming, trance, chanting, entheogens and hallucinogens, spirit communication and healing) are practices that exist outside of what is defined as shamanism and play similar roles even in non-shamanic cultures (such as the role of chanting in Judeo-Christian and Islamic rituals) and that in their expression are unique to each culture that uses them and cannot be generalized easily, accurately or usefully into a global religion of shamanism. Because of this, Kehoe is also highly critical of the notion that shamanism is an ancient, unchanged, and surviving religion from the Paleolithic period."
In choosing to lump so many diverse practices that all come from different spiritual points of view, I feel we, the "enlightened," are doing these same people we seem to admire a great disservice. Although I agreed with Riccardo that the deck was not specific to any one culture, even saying that could be construed as problematic, as perhaps the whole point is lost, and entire cultures are smothered under the shaman's blanket.
gregory
I agree with you ! I referred specifically to the use of the word.
As you also say.
It could be argued that the various traditions are all different and are perhaps unwise to use the same over-arching word for what they variously do. Is all
ETA Actually we are off topic for this thread and should pop back to the other one with this, no ? Mea very culpa.
Grizabella
I'm of Native American descent and the "cultural misappropriation" thing is just a boatload of b.s., to bluntly state my own never-so-humble opinion. Native Americans don't even have such a thing as a shaman, for one thing. The closest counterpart would be a medicine person. If a person is going to claim "misappropriation" about a deck of Tarot cards, then they might as well claim it about Thoth and RWS having "misappropriated" stuff from Marseilles.
Cloraspexa, I'm not being harsh with you in particular, even though I did quote you. I just quoted you to point out the topic I was going to mention.
I, like gregory, LOVE this deck! And it's just the latest in a whole stack of decks that Lo Scarabeo has hit a home run with where I'm concerned. I can't wait for LS to come out with lots more decks because right now, they're my favorite decks, even though for my first few Tarot years, I didn't "get" them at all. Recently I just suddenly had an epiphany and I'm finding that there are some really awesome decks you've published, both old and newer.
As for the old gripe that LS has too many big boobs and young girls----God bless the Italians! I'm of the old and saggy, baggy generation of women now, but Italian men LOVE women and I think there are refreshing many who, when they see a woman they fancy of any age, actually see the saggy baggy ones like me as being just as desirable as Betty Bubbleboobs when they love the woman. I love Italian men and always have. A fantastic thing about them and about Native American men is their love of and respect for their women no matter what age the woman is.
Thank you, Ric and Lo Scarabeo, for another beautiful deck. It's gonna be with me for a very long time. Keep up the great work. And keep putting out these fantastic decks, boobies and all.
ETA: Just a final word about breasts----I've noticed that very many Italian women have larger, very beautiful breasts when they're young, so I don't find it at all surprising that you see them in Tarot decks that originate in Italy. I don't think it's an objectifying of women, I just think it's an expression of appreciation just as much as the portrayal of beautiful sunsets and animals and anything else.
Zephyros
Just to clarify, I didn't mean (and if I remember correctly, mention) the appropriation was done to specifically Native Americans, but rather to any culture with perhaps similar rituals, all being grouped together as shamans. On the contrary, I did state Native Americans did not have shamans but were often inappropriately grouped with so-called shamanic cultures (who may not strictly be shamanic themselves).
Grizabella
Yes, I remember you saying such things, both here and I think in another thread about this deck.
Grizabella
I wanted to come back and add some things I forgot to mention.
I love the vivid colors of this deck and I especially love the color scheme on the card backs.
If there are things I don't care for so much, it would be the symbols on the bottoms of the court cards because I just sort of had to guess at what court each of them was meant to symbolise. I guessed right, though, so that's a minor obstacle.
I also find the Drums, Stones, Bows and Bones kind of a stumbling block in my readings at times because that and those symbols interrupt my flow a little bit when I have to stop and think a moment to remember what they mean.
Those are just minor little pesky things, though, and I'll get over them soon enough, once I get more used to the deck.
As always, too, I love the size of the deck and the cardstock. These things are very important to me because shuffling is part of my "process" and these LS decks are always a dream.
I love the vivid colors of this deck and I especially love the color scheme on the card backs.
If there are things I don't care for so much, it would be the symbols on the bottoms of the court cards because I just sort of had to guess at what court each of them was meant to symbolise. I guessed right, though, so that's a minor obstacle.
I also find the Drums, Stones, Bows and Bones kind of a stumbling block in my readings at times because that and those symbols interrupt my flow a little bit when I have to stop and think a moment to remember what they mean.
Those are just minor little pesky things, though, and I'll get over them soon enough, once I get more used to the deck.
As always, too, I love the size of the deck and the cardstock. These things are very important to me because shuffling is part of my "process" and these LS decks are always a dream.
gregory
THANK YOU dear. I appreciate that validation very much.
RiccardoLS
Well... appropriation or misappropriation are inevitables when you create any thematic deck.
Whatever you do, you have to take something complex, and huge, and different, and synthetize it into a visual statement.
It is true with "shamans" as it is with "vampires".
Too many times the act of creating a Tarot deck is translating and relating. You translate from one concept (aka "Shamanic traditions") to Tarot cards and from Tarot cards to human experience and interpretations/meanings. And you create connections that are both powerful and clear, and weak and misleading.
What I would like to say, is that parts of these processes are not bad: they are actually powerful tools, for creating an effective Tarot deck. It's the same for the use of stereotypes (yes, the Hermit must be wise because he is old and he has a long beard). We use them...
I think things start to get wrong when it's the stereotype using us (I hope I can explain).
In the end I think that to "look" really at a Tarot deck, we cannot forget our subjective reaction to it.
The same card/image on the Shaman deck may bring us to clearer or higher spot... and for another person it may cheapen something sacred.
I would defend most of the choices behind the deck... but that would never make them the right choices for someone else with a different experience or perspective.
The only thing I'm truly convinced with is that decks should take risks. Just like with persons... decks that stay on the safe side, will never be able to move us.
And besides, if - starting from all the necessary misconceptions and simplifications of the deck - a person would be encouraged to pursue Shamanism (either as a path or as just getting more in-depth information), it's a win
Ric
Whatever you do, you have to take something complex, and huge, and different, and synthetize it into a visual statement.
It is true with "shamans" as it is with "vampires".
Too many times the act of creating a Tarot deck is translating and relating. You translate from one concept (aka "Shamanic traditions") to Tarot cards and from Tarot cards to human experience and interpretations/meanings. And you create connections that are both powerful and clear, and weak and misleading.
What I would like to say, is that parts of these processes are not bad: they are actually powerful tools, for creating an effective Tarot deck. It's the same for the use of stereotypes (yes, the Hermit must be wise because he is old and he has a long beard). We use them...
I think things start to get wrong when it's the stereotype using us (I hope I can explain).
In the end I think that to "look" really at a Tarot deck, we cannot forget our subjective reaction to it.
The same card/image on the Shaman deck may bring us to clearer or higher spot... and for another person it may cheapen something sacred.
I would defend most of the choices behind the deck... but that would never make them the right choices for someone else with a different experience or perspective.
The only thing I'm truly convinced with is that decks should take risks. Just like with persons... decks that stay on the safe side, will never be able to move us.
And besides, if - starting from all the necessary misconceptions and simplifications of the deck - a person would be encouraged to pursue Shamanism (either as a path or as just getting more in-depth information), it's a win
Ric
