From The Peyote Foundation Journal, Vol.II No. I To subscribe,
click here- Subscribe TPF Journal

The question of race often comes up regarding the legal, religious use of peyote. There is considerable confusion because of differing laws and ideas of exactly who is and isn't legally protected. The Federal Controlled Substances Act of 1970 specifies a religious use exemption for members of the Native American Church (NAC), regardless of race. However, the American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1994 narrows apparent Federal protection to enrolled members of American Indian tribes only, without mention of Native American Church membership. Which law would hold more weight if brought into dispute? This question has not yet been definitively asked, or answered. To further add to the quandary, several state laws hold different views on who may be exempt from prosecution for criminal possession of peyote. Of these, thirteen states make no mention of racial requirements, and nine do not mention NAC membership as a qualifying condition. Just who or what are we supposed to rely on, except our constitutional and unalienable rights of equal protection under the laws, and the freedom to worship in our chosen way? Though enrolled tribal members have special status as sovereign people, it is also true that non-tribal people attend and pray at NAC ceremonies regularly. How shall we choose just who is acceptable in God's sight? Can we draw these lines by race only, or does our sincerity and intent play any role in following the peyote road?

Though I am of Mexican-American descent, whose grandparents were of the same desert soil where peyote lives, my genetic ancestry has often been called to question as it regards my own beliefs. I have been associated with the Huichol people of Mexico even longer than I have been attending Native American Church meetings. In both situations, I have seen people of all races and backgrounds who've been helped by the sacrament. The common bond among all the tribes and people who are helped, is that they came with respect, both for the culture they encounter and share in, and for the medicine and its spiritual, ceremonial, and medicinal use.

I have heard this said by officers of the Native American Church: "No one owns this medicine. No one, except perhaps for the Woman who brings in morning water." What this tells me is that my Mexican ancestry does not gain me any special right to the peyote road. I must share this way with those that might be helped and recognize some of Creator's will for their lives. For this reason, I try to be genuine and open about my feelings regarding questions of race and ancestry. I am a grateful visitor in the beauty of the Native American Church. I am forever thankful to the people and forces which have guided and welcomed me to this Church. As an appreciative guest, I must say that my own status as a non-tribal person does not limit my respect or gratitude one bit. Though I understand the delicate nature of race and politics, I also see that this Church is helping Indian people along with their non-Indian relatives by the very same Grace of God.

Aside from North American peyotism being an inter-tribal affair, as documented by Stewart, Slotkin, and others, there have at times been mixed or all-race NAC groups, Anglo-American and Afro-American groups or members. Most NAC chapters allow membership or participation by sincere individuals of various genetic or cultural makeup. Some of the most influential leaders and supporters of NAC peyotism have been people of mixed or European descent. (J. Wilson, Q. Parker, O.C. Stewart, J.S. Slotkin and others.) In order to clarify the issue of multi-ethnic religious use of peyote I offer the following excerpt from Omer Stewart's "Peyote Religion: A History":

"An unusual case of harassment under the Drug Control Act took place in Grand Forks, North Dakota, in October, 1984, when a white couple, Mr. And Mrs. John D. Warner, were arrested by the FBI for possessing peyote, a controlled drug. The two were members of the NAC of Tokio, North Dakota, and had been for a number of years, and Mrs. Warner was custodian of the supply of peyote for the Tokio congregation. The FBI had learned of the possession of peyote by the Warners from the president of the NAC of NA (North America) Emerson Jackson (Navajo), so it was he who brought them to trial. Jackson said that they were not bona fide members of the NAC because they were not Indians. He maintained that in 1982 a motion had been passed by the NAC of NA to the effect that membership in that organization be limited to persons with one-quarter Indian blood, thereby excluding this white couple. A jury in Grand Forks Federal Court found that although they were not Indians, nevertheless they were members in good standing of the local congregation of peyotists. The charges were dismissed.

This case not only illustrates harassment under the Drug Control Act, but it also brings up the legality of non-Indians as bona fide members of the NAC. From the beginning, attendance of non-Indians to peyote meetings has been a somewhat personal or tribal matter. For instance, very early in Oklahoma some Caddo refused to allow non-Indians to attend any of their meetings. But others, such as the Kiowa and Comanche, welcomed non-Indians, black or white, as long as they were seriously interested. With the formation of the NAC, the same attitude has generally prevailed, and the presence of non-Indians has been no problem. It was in the sixties when the hippie generation became interested in peyote and became a nuisance in the peyote gardens of Texas, bringing about the Texas law which forbids possession of peyote by persons not having one-quarter Indian blood and proof of membership in the NAC, that race became an issue in membership. Since then, if non-Indians wish to be allowed to possess peyote, they must show that their involvement in the peyote religion is genuine - that it is not just a recreational, frivolous, or passing interest but a real commitment. Then, as the case against the Warners shows, race is not an issue. Still, it is especially important for non-Indians to carry identification of membership in the NAC if they have occasion to carry peyote, and even so, non-Indians possessing peyote violate Texas law.

The ruling of the NAC of NA that only Indians should be enrolled in the Native American Church is new and is not shared by most peyotists. (Emphasis added) The NAC of NA does not speak for all peyotists, as much as it would like to do so. All peyotists consider themselves members of the Native American Church, but most are not affiliated with the NAC of NA. Each congregation makes its own rules, just as each meeting is conducted by its own roadman."

This excerpt points out the legal and prejudicial complexities involved in sharing the peyote religion with all sincerely interested people, regardless of race. Acceptance of the NAC by the surrounding culture, legislature, and even tribal authorities has been a gradual and convoluted process. Apparently the NAC of NA and other chapters which limit membership by race have sought to protect their own gains by the exclusion of others not of their own kind. While the psychology of this reaction is understandable, it has not served the issues of brotherhood or conservation of the sacrament well. Unfortunately, misinformation has often been used in a purposefully demeaning way in order to argue against the practice and practitioners of the peyote way, Indian or non-Indian. The NAC was instituted by the courageous and purposeful work of individuals experienced in the beneficial qualities of the peyote religion. Despite this, individual, and often, unaffiliated, legitimate peyotists continue to face potential or active discriminatory prejudice simply due to their beliefs and/or race.

The very same arguments used to denounce Indian peyotism is still hurled at non-Indian practitioners with considerable abandon, and sadly, often by their fellow peyotists of Indian heritage. But does the non-tribal or non-Indian peyotist really pose a threat to the public or to traditional people? Also, exactly how far should we geographically extend the "Indian" definition? Should South American, up to Eskimo people be included on our list of legitimate peyotists, thereby dividing the world in half concerning who may or may not eat peyote? This would be like saying only those native to the new world should eat corn. This gift of the people of the Americas now helps feed the entire world. If a nourishing food can be shared this way how can a healing medicine be withheld from those who approach with respect and are in need of God's Grace?

It is a fact that there are many members (including roadmen) of the NAC who are non-Indian. It seems that the ultimate decision of who joins or attends this church should be that of the church itself, not of the government. No other religious group in this nation would ever stand for such intrusion into purely ministerial matters. Government does not dictate whether or not women may enter the priesthood of any denomination, nor which race may worship in which church, nor who is or is not worthy of partaking in the sacrament of their faith. Racial prejudice is not solely to blame for the common acceptance of this mis-appropriated, political, over-parenting in religious affairs, but also, prejudice caused by the war on drugs in general, and specifically, the historical crusade against peyote. Centuries of persecution directed toward peyote people will not be eased or ended if we allow any peyotist, of any race to be threatened, imprisoned, or otherwise harmed or molested simply because of their genetic makeup. It is by our actions and the condition of our hearts that we may be made known, and if necessary, judged.

Ya-Ho!

Back to TPF homepage