Sorcery is a very taboo subject for the indigenous people so I'm not surprised the public hasn't heard about it. Shamans use icaros songs to bring the energy of spirits into their ceremonial space. Shamans that practice sorcery use dark spirits. That's how I would define it. If you would like to learn more about these experiences the ayahuasca forums should help explain it better then I.

So to respond Snozz, I think you've made a lot of great points and there isn't anything that I really disagree with. Unfortunately I simply lack the time to be able to respond as thoroughly as I'd like

I guess my question is how do we do this? As Jamie pointed out, the ESC just released a statement apologizing and expressed their interest in opening dialogue--I think that's something to take advantage of. How can we ensure that the right voices are being heard in this dialogue, and how can we draw connections between the rhetoric of the ESC and that of the institutions which are calling the ESC out? Aside from these conversations, what does that look like and who leads the way in such an endeavor?

As far as the "low fruit on the tree" analogy, I agree but what I was really trying to get at was not that we should do this, then that, then that, etc... (X,Y,Z), taking advantage of easier targets first. I completely understand the problematic nature of a reductionist approach. Not to get off topic, but to draw a comparison to a well known issue; I think of the "indict the killer cops" mantra that is now so common in the anti-racist campaigns taking place across the US, and how folks tend to zone in on the argument of good cops vs bad cops, and whether or not Michael Brown and others deserved to be shot...shouldn't we be calling into question the entire paradigm of the prison industrial complex and the supposed need for police at all, and not just pushing for the incarceration of what are perceived to be "crooked cops"? Shouldn't we be questioning the fact that these "killer cops" never saw trial in the first place, and not debating whether or not their victims "deserved" to be murdered? The reductionist approach is harmful and it censors out the larger issues at hand which we should really be discussing, but it's comfy and it provides some of the worst of the bunch to hop on the bandwagon and look good shouting "indict the killer cops" on the news. So I feel you there.

Really I think that this whole shenanigan with the ESC serves as an opportunity to do exactly what it is that you are suggesting. I'm not saying that we should hop on the bandwagon, wait and focus exclusively on the ESC until we find a more convenient time to address the inconsistencies of these other groups. What I was really trying to get at was that this charade has provided a golden opportunity. The conversation has already been started, now how can we take advantage of that and extend the conversation to make it more real, more relevant, and make those pointing the fingers more accountable?

In retrospect, I think it's bold of me to suggest that the work of the ESC is more imminent than the work of any other group--to be honest I didn't even consider how Amy impacts indigenous communities just through the promotion of Aya tourism, so my earlier statement is indeed problematic. I think the nature of the reaction to the goals of the ESC does speak for itself however, and I guess in a nutshell I'm just wondering how we can use this reaction to the advantage of the ayahuasca community at large.

I wish I could spend more time responding to each of your points, but I'm writing this on the fly and to be honest there isn't anything you said that I think really needs to be contested and/or elaborated on.