• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

White people need to stop saying 'namaste'.

I don't have relationships with groups

There's a surprise.

It would be a surprise if anyone told me they did have relationships with groups.

What groups do you have relationships with? Why do you choose to have relationships with a group instead of with individuals? Do the individuals in the groups you have relationships with ever despair of being an interchangeable, nameless cog in your relationship to the group they represent to you?
 
I think the parents in Georgia who had yoga banned from the schools would be thrilled to have this woman as an ally.
 
I think the parents in Georgia who had yoga banned from the schools would be thrilled to have this woman as an ally.

Don't be silly. The writer of the article is Indian and even worse, Hindu. Those parents in Georgia who would ban yoga from schools would also like to ban Hindus from India.
 
Why is she confusing traditional Indian culture with not being white? You can be born white in India. You can grow up with all of the culture and it can be as "yours" as it is for brown people. Why the inherent racism in this?
 
I'm going further than that. Although it is more convenient to say 'my culture' than 'the culture I was raised in', the 'my' part is just a manner of speaking. Nobody owns yoga or has the moral right to police it.

Mass commercialization implies something has been refined and revised so that more people can enjoy it. You appear to believe I should instinctively object to it. I do not. What a wonderful thing and moral good it is to take an idea and let more people enjoy it.

Mass commercialization is removing all need for thought or understanding, much less actual comprehension. Mass commercialization is McDonalds, which is fading somewhat as a brand, as people begin to actually comprehend what that food is doing to our health and well being.

Again, I would like to point out that someone aside from the author wrote that white people shouldn't say namaste when that person gave the article a title designed to be click bait. It's not a sentiment backed up by anything the author actually wrote.

What she did write was what it is like for someone who comes from a culture where yoga is practiced in a different way, and on a deeper, fuller level might feel if they attend a white person's yoga class. And why they might feel that way. Rather than calling for banning white people from yoga or using certain words, she's calling for a deeper understanding and appreciation for yoga. How is that a bad thing? Shouldn't we all strive to have a deeper, fuller, more complete understanding of other people and other cultures and how they are mixed into ours and still other cultures? Why shouldn't we want that?



Except that what 'we' are doing is cherry picking what we do and do not want to 'know' and after we have gleaned that which will generate some profit, we use those cherry picked pieces to define an entire culture,

"We" don't do that at all.

Of course we do. All. The. Time.



Do you think it is morally wrong for a secular choir to sing Catholic songs in Latin, without knowing or understanding any of the context, or caring that Catholics have been persecuted and indeed have died for their faith?

Morally wrong? Probably not. Shallow? Probably. Unthinking? Probably. And yet I also think that people can be good Catholics and not attend a Mass in Latin or understand Latin at all. And one can learn and love Latin without being Catholic. Or Italian.


while remaining (willfully) ignorant of the whole or even large enough parts of the whole to have a genuine understanding. We reduce a people, a religion, a religious practice, a culture to a stereotype. That is the opposite of 'knowing' more about someone else. It's a way of not needing or caring to know anything else about them beyond whatever stereotype we've established and continually reinforce.

I've already explained this is a red herring; it would not satisfy the cultural appropriation mythicists if some white devil learned all about yoga and then rejected the spiritual elements.

Here's the thing: you have decided that those who argue against cultural appropriation are mythicists--they do not have as much a right to their perceptions (which as a whole seem to be better researched, more informed, and more articulately argued than your own) as you do for your own self serving, lazy, brash name calling statements. That's not the same thing as a red herring.

You are not 4 years old. You are not 14 years old. You are an adult with some degree of education. Surely you have reached a stage in your life where you are able to consider that other people have feelings and points of view that are well considered and insightful. Even if you not do share their feelings or their point of view.

I find it hard to respect the opinions of someone who makes zero attempt to consider any other viewpoint than his own because why? It's inconvenient? It requires thought? Knowledge and understanding of other peoples? Empathy? Certainly more energy than you seem willing to spend, choosing instead to troll the net for examples of your latest cause du jour. It's not that different than Derec trolling for articles about how horrible women are.
 
Mass commercialization is removing all need for thought or understanding, much less actual comprehension.

Why do I need thought or understanding to get benefits from stretching into downward dog? And why is ancient Hindi thought better than whatever I decide to create and think on my own? Why is it fuller and better to be "authentic"? Who are you to say that changes or simplifications are not improvements?

Have you ever had "authentic" Chinese food? Complete with raw fish heads including eye balls, and chicken feet and hearts? Is is somehow wrong for you then to go and enjoy some "commercialized" faux Chinese food with a knife and fork and fortune cookie? Should that greatly offend me?
 
Last edited:
Why is she confusing traditional Indian culture with not being white? You can be born white in India. You can grow up with all of the culture and it can be as "yours" as it is for brown people. Why the inherent racism in this?

People who cry "cultural appropriation" are mostly not aware that they are being completely racist.

Someone explain to me how "you are appropriating my culture" is any different than "you are not from the correct culture to engage in that activity". Or, in more direct wording, "you have the wrong color skin to do that".
 
My culture invented the water fountain therefore your culture should only use your own.
 
Mass commercialization is removing all need for thought or understanding, much less actual comprehension.

Why do I need thought or understanding to get benefits from stretching into downward dog? And why is ancient Hindi thought better than whatever I decide to create and think on my own? Why is it fuller and better to be "authentic"? Who are you to say that changes or simplifications are not improvements?

Have you ever had "authentic" Chinese food? Complete with raw fish heads including eye balls, and chicken feet and hearts? Is is somehow wrong for you then to go and enjoy some "commercialized" faux Chinese food with a knife and fork and fortune cookie? Should that greatly offend me?

http://www.cracked.com/article_19283_7-ancient-forms-mysticism-that-are-recent-inventions.html

The history of yoga (the exercise)
It wasn't until the 19th century that an Indian prince named Krishnaraja Wodeyar III produced something resembling what we call yoga: a manual called the Sritattvanidhi, which listed 122 poses mostly taken from Indian gymnastics. What really kicked-started modern yoga, though, was the influence of the Imperial British, who introduced Indians to the new exercise craze that was sweeping Europe at the time.

Later a guy named B.K.S. Iyengar came up with the idea of combining these exercise techniques with some of the teachings described in old Hindu texts like the Yoga Sutras and let the result loose on America in the 1960s. Since then, yoga fans have grown by the millions, with few realizing that they are practicing a chanted-up version of early 20th-century gym class.
 
Mass commercialization is removing all need for thought or understanding, much less actual comprehension.

Why do I need thought or understanding to get benefits from stretching into downward dog? And why is ancient Hindi thought better than whatever I decide to create and think on my own? Why is it fuller and better to be "authentic"? Who are you to say that changes or simplifications are not improvements?

Have you ever had "authentic" Chinese food? Complete with raw fish heads including eye balls, and chicken feet and hearts? Is is somehow wrong for you then to go and enjoy some "commercialized" faux Chinese food with a knife and fork and fortune cookie? Should that greatly offend me?

Who are you to say that they are 'improvements?'

If someone were to design a garment that would fit everyone, it would resemble a large shapeless poncho-like garment. Not flattering, not tasteful, but perhaps would serve as a basic covering for a human body. But that's all it would be. Something to cover the body.

Trust me, I know that the 'Chinese' food I might pick up is not authentic, even when the staff is possibly or even definitely Chinese. And if you think you can shock me or gross me out by mentioning fish heads, complete with eyeballs, chicken feet and hearts, well, you simply didn't grow up in my neck of the woods where we ate a lot of fairly rustic meals.

And yeah, I've had authentic Chinese food, authentic Italian (a couple of different regions), authentic Greek, authentic Indian (several different regions), authentic Mexican (again, different regions), authentic Brazilian, authentic Lebanese and I'm sure a bunch of other authentics in there.

I've also watched the faces of people from some of those countries/cultures as they were confronted with the Americanized version of their food. As one person politely put it: 'I'm not saying it isn't good, but it's definitely not Italian.' And of course, no matter what the name of the restaurant, it wasn't. Bonus was when he prepared for me authentic Italian, or as close as he could get with American ingredients (and those from my garden). Even a stupid American like myself could taste and appreciate the difference. And learn something from it.


And when I prepare my home cooked version of any of those, it's quite obvious to anyone that the food might be 'inspired by' rather than authentic....whatever. I don't try to present it as anything else, even if that would fly.
 
Why do I need thought or understanding to get benefits from stretching into downward dog? And why is ancient Hindi thought better than whatever I decide to create and think on my own? Why is it fuller and better to be "authentic"? Who are you to say that changes or simplifications are not improvements?

Have you ever had "authentic" Chinese food? Complete with raw fish heads including eye balls, and chicken feet and hearts? Is is somehow wrong for you then to go and enjoy some "commercialized" faux Chinese food with a knife and fork and fortune cookie? Should that greatly offend me?

Who are you to say that they are 'improvements?'

You are the one complaining about it, not me. I don't mind at all if you keep doing it your way and keep thinking that way is better. Why do you have a problem with me doing it my way and thinking my way is better? Why do you insist that I must have a full understanding of your "authentic" way of doing things so not to be insulted by my better way of doing things? Maybe your old way will even learn a thing or two from my improvements?

Would you be all upset if some restaurant in Korea opened an "American Food" burger place where people ate fries by dipping them in ketchup with chopsticks (it is less sanitary to touch your food with your hands! as my grandfather used to say)? Confused maybe. But upset? Why? What if this then became a fad back in the US and you saw folks in your area doing it at McDonalds? Would that greatly offend your American cultural values?
 
"Fish heads fish heads, roly poly fish heads. Fish heads fish heads eat them up yum" Sorry, just couldn't resist.
Mass commercialization is removing all need for thought or understanding, much less actual comprehension.

Why do I need thought or understanding to get benefits from stretching into downward dog? And why is ancient Hindi thought better than whatever I decide to create and think on my own? Why is it fuller and better to be "authentic"? Who are you to say that changes or simplifications are not improvements?

Have you ever had "authentic" Chinese food? Complete with raw fish heads including eye balls, and chicken feet and hearts? Is is somehow wrong for you then to go and enjoy some "commercialized" faux Chinese food with a knife and fork and fortune cookie? Should that greatly offend me?
 
Who are you to say that they are 'improvements?'

You are the one complaining about it, not me. I don't mind at all if you keep doing it your way and keep thinking that way is better. Why do you have a problem with me doing it my way and thinking my way is better? Why do you insist that I must have a full understanding of your "authentic" way of doing things so not to be insulted by my better way of doing things? Maybe your old way will even learn a thing or two from my improvements?

Would you be all upset if some restaurant in Korea opened an "American Food" burger place where people ate fries by dipping them in ketchup with chopsticks? Confused maybe. But upset? Why? What if this then became a fad back in the US (it is unsanitary to touch your food with your hands!) and you saw folks in your area doing it at McDonalds? Would that greatly offend your American cultural values?


It is already considered unsanitary to touch food that is not on your own plate --and often, even then, at least where I live and have lived. At the very least, poor table manners.

Ketchup confuses me anyway. I don't understand why anyone would eat it on anything. With or without chop sticks or french fries. Or 'freedom fries.'

Would I be upset if people came up to me all the time and asked me ridiculous questions based on misinformation and a total lack of understanding and bad stereotypes about Americans? Well, yes, that sort of thing has confused me and occasionally upset me and made me question the role of media in the world and to appreciate the need for people to actually get to know one another and not to rely on stereotypes and movies for 'understanding.'


Have you read any of the blogs of people whose pieces Metaphor has posted?

It is disconcerting to be visiting in another part of the world and to find some aspect of your culture presented as 'authentic' when it is far from authentic and in fact is mostly a poorly drawn stereotype.

When I watch some foreign films and see/hear how Americans are represented, with terrible accents (and yeah, I know American actors do an equally poor job of accents from Great Britain, Germany, etc.) it can be really...disconcerting and even ugly. But then, I'm watching a film from the comfort of my own safely upper middle class home where I am not in danger of being taken as some cardboard cut out figure of an American. I'm not being erased.

I've spent some time being one of only a couple of Americans in my work place, surrounded by people from all over the world, from different cultures and different religious and political backgrounds than my own. Daily, I was confronted with whatever perceptions had been absorbed, usually from old cowboy and Indian movies, but other pop culture inspired perceptions. And I got to leave every evening, travel through my American city, surrounded by people who spoke some level of English (lots of international people in the streets) and have the full rights and privileges of an American citizen--and a white one at that. It was very educational. There were lots of (good natured) arguments as most people told me that they had a real love/hate relationship with America. They loved America because of (this) but (this other thing) completely drove them crazy. Me, too. Some of those loves and more than a few of those hates were based upon bad stereotypes and not on any reality or genuine understanding.

But then, I am extremely mainstreamed white American: educated, upwardly mobile, white. I even live in the mid-west. I am about as average as one can get, except that our gross family income is above average.

Do you see the outrageous backlash against (fill in the minority) going on now? A certain kind of white American is so outraged, so offended by people who they believe come from a different background than themselves that they are supporting... Fucking Donald Fucking Trump. Who appeals to their inner racist and classist. WTF.

If we, as a people, as a nation, as a planet, don't start to actually look and see, listen and hear and attempt to understand and accept other people then, then we are doomed.
 
toni said:
Again, I would like to point out that someone aside from the author wrote that white people shouldn't say namaste when that person gave the article a title designed to be click bait. It's not a sentiment backed up by anything the author actually wrote.

I disagree. I think she is absolutely saying, “you can’t Namaste, you don’t know how to do it right, you didn’t earn it, and every time you do you’re making baby Ganesh cry”

She quotes:
It shows an ironic attachment of one's ego to a desire for ownership over an ancient practice of material denouncement that emerged from an altogether different, South Asian tradition."

She says:
The history of colonisation in India means that the practice of yoga in countries with colonial ties, like Australia, can never truly be a friendly exchange.

She says:
As a Hindu woman, this places me as the "other" in a culture that is mine.

She says:
It also furthers the economic exploitation of the colonised by the colonisers - landing the profits from a practice that has been appropriated from the colonised in the pockets of the colonisers.

She says:
It's about questioning whether your practice of yoga is claiming space away from people of colour to whom yoga is more than a part of their daily routine – it's a part of their cultural and religious identity.

She says:
It's about considering whether you can practice yoga without spiritually harvesting a culture and religion that is not yours


She says:
And it's about considering whether your casually saying a few namastes at the end of your yoga class feeds into the commodification of Hindu spirituality

All this coming from a woman who isn’t “allowed” to feel “Indian enough” in Australia because someone is “harvesting her culture” .


I already mentioned what I think of Christians saying that Gays arent’ allowed to marry because it “appropriates” the Christian “culture” of marriage. Fuck them, right? (Right? I hope?)

And I think the same thing of all the weeping fundies who excoriate the ones who only go to church twice a year, as well as all the “nones” who go ahead and hang colorful lights.

I think the same of people who say, one shouldn’t be allowed to sell “Persian Rugs” if they aren’t hand-knotted in Iran.

So
toni said:
Rather than calling for banning white people from yoga or using certain words, she's calling for a deeper understanding and appreciation for yoga. How is that a bad thing? Shouldn't we all strive to have a deeper, fuller, more complete understanding of other people and other cultures and how they are mixed into ours and still other cultures? Why shouldn't we want that?

So I don’t think this matches what I read from her. She wants us to question whether we can make sure we do it her way, (“Really? If the yoga class itself wasn't white-centric enough, she really had to place the appropriative cherry on top.”) or consider if we should be doing it at all.

She could be a teacher here. Instead she chooses to mock the Australian yoga teacher in Australia for being too Australian. Is she offering to run the class instead? Meh. I’m not seeing a message about cultural appropriation, I’m seeing a message about complaining.

If all of these Hindus are trying to Keep Yoga Pure,™ do we think they would be turned away if they showed up and offered to teach a Saturday seminar on the depth and history of Yoga? Rhetorical question – of course not. Every single person I know who does yoga would looooove a spiritual dunking. Maybe with some crystals and a sweat lodge.


Do you think it is morally wrong for a secular choir to sing Catholic songs in Latin, without knowing or understanding any of the context, or caring that Catholics have been persecuted and indeed have died for their faith?
Morally wrong? Probably not. Shallow? Probably. Unthinking? Probably.

Really? That’s laughable to me. The Catholics, who make us fight for birth control, abortions, gay marriage, remarriage after divorse, arrest of pedophiles and beer on Sundays getting butthurt that we sing a song in Latin? My irony meter just exploded.

toni said:
Surely you have reached a stage in your life where you are able to consider that other people have feelings and points of view that are well considered and insightful. Even if you not do share their feelings or their point of view.

Hold on, I don’t think this matches the discussion we’re having here. Her complaint makes no effort to understand the Australian’s desire for physical movement without hocus-pocus. I think everyone in this discussion is considering the feelings of others by talking about it – and discussing at what point it is reasonable to expect action or abstinence from others who “do not share their feelings or their point of view.”
 
If we, as a people, as a nation, as a planet, don't start to actually look and see, listen and hear and attempt to understand and accept other people then, then we are doomed.

Namaste. I agree.

Let us stop trying to exclude people from enjoying the fruits of human intellectual labour and creativity, just because they come from a particular culture. Go ahead and eat with chopsticks and wear dreadlocks, as I do yoga and eat a hamburger.
 
Back
Top Bottom