Change vs. Permanence

After reading Bahr's "Pima and Papago Medicine and Philosophy," I find myself even more shocked than before at the impact of American "westernization" on the lives of American Indians. In addition to the White's imposition of Christian ideals, the impact of American civilization on the shamans within Indian communities took me by surprise. Shamans, known for their deep connection/relationship with spirits and overall importance to Indian communities, as we have seen in traditions and ceremonies such as the Salt Pilgrimage, have always been central to Indian life. Yet, somehow, they became scapegoats for disease, and in turn, outcasts. This is surprising considering how long they have been deeply involved in Indian societies and how many important different purposes they serve.

I also found the concepts of wandering sickness and staying sickness to directly illustrate the fine divide between the two ideologies. For Westerners, there appears to be a common theme of changing things and people to the way they "should" be. For example, wandering sicknesses must be cured. They come and go while staying sicknesses are forever contained among the Pimans. Gregorio's comparison of staying sickness and the ocean contrasts with the idea of permanence, and lifetime relationships, within Indian communities. Furthermore, the common theme of reciprocity among Indians is seen in their personification of wandering sickness. Their belief that wandering sicknesses can be placated shows the strong ties felt between Indians and their surroundings.