White people need to stop saying 'namaste'.

[dismal]

Maybe we can concern ourselves with just getting along with each other and not appropriating anything that too seriously offends others.

Bullshit. You have no right to stop people from doing things by being offended.

But I'll give you the chance to prove you aren't a hypocrite: your post offended me. Stop posting.

 

[Arctish]

I literally quoted the entire text of the article including the heading. I did not 'present' the article in any way. The article presented itself.

You presented the article in bite sized chunks interspersed with your own observations, counter-arguments, and assertions. In one place you split a pretty simple sentence into 3 discrete parts so you could interject your views, making it hard to follow the flow of the author's reasoning. Your 'voice' was louder than hers, even if you didn't plan it that way.

but reading it through without interruptions gave me an impression closer to Toni's:

http://www.dailylife.com.au/news-an...d-to-stop-saying-namaste-20160401-gnw2xx.html

She's talking about feeling alienated while participating in something derived from her own culture. The yoga class is a weirdly altered version of a cultural practice she knows more about and has deeper connections to than the instructor and other students, but it makes her - the one native to the culture that produced yoga and Namaste- feel like an outsider.

Metaphor's take on it is "why should I care?", which is a valid question. But "why shouldn't the author care?" is a valid question, too.

The author should not care because if she is encountering a product she doesn't like, she ought to stop buying the product.

I hate tomatoes. I fucking loathe tomatoes. The widespread acceptance of tomatoes in almost every type of cuisine (including the appropriation of tomatoes by every culture that uses them that is not in the New World) severely reduces my choices in everyday dining.

But I'd have a fucking hide to go up to an establishment serving dishes with tomato and saying 'I find these gross and why are you serving them and stop serving them'.

That sounds strange considering your objections to including women in the Hasty Pudding review.

ETA: The title of the article is Why white people need to stop saying 'namaste', but it doesn't match up with the body of the article. I think Toni is right about someone at Daily Life using click-bait to replace a less attention grabbing title.

The title is consistent with both the tone and message of the article.

No, it really isn't.

The author didn't make any demands in her piece. She spoke of feeling alienated from her own culture, and she explained what makes her feel that way. She said hearing namaste chanted by the white yoga instructor to a predominantly white class was unsettling, and then after a brief disclaimer and abbreviated run-down of the place yoga holds in Hindu culture, she went on to explain why she felt unsettled. She gets to the heart of the matter when she says

"Given most classes are taught by white women, and most ads you see for yoga classes or yoga wear feature white women, white women have become the embodiment of yoga in Australia. As a Hindu woman, this places me as the "other" in a culture that is mine.


And in summation she writes

"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 that then makes it OK for people to Instagram memes such as 'Namaste away from me', to publish a yoga book as a white woman called 'Namaslay', and to make people of South Asian and Hindu identity feel exoticised and misunderstood"

She's not saying you can't practice yoga or say namaste. She's saying that the way yoga was being presented and the way namaste was being used made her feel like an outsider despite the fact that both originally came from her native culture. That's a valid point of view and a fairly common experience for minorities. They can feel marginalized even within what is supposedly their own cultural practices after it's been processed through the dominant culture's filters.

 

[Metaphor]

You presented the article in bite sized chunks interspersed with your own observations, counter-arguments, and assertions. In one place you split a pretty simple sentence into 3 discrete parts so you could interject your views, making it hard to follow the flow of the author's reasoning. Your 'voice' was louder than hers, even if you didn't plan it that way.

I linked to the article at the beginning. People were free to read it without my input. Just posting an article without further comment would make a rather dull OP.

That sounds strange considering your objections to including women in the Hasty Pudding review.

There is no inconsistency. Hasty Pudding, as constituted, was welcome to do what it wanted. I simply pointed out that the introduction of women on stage would change the essence of Hasty Pudding.

And it's certainly the case that if Hasty Pudding rejected women on stage, there was nothing in the world stopping the rejected women from writing and producing and performing their own productions.

In other words, if you don't like this brand of yoga, don't go to it. Do your own yoga.

No, it really isn't.

The author didn't make any demands in her piece. She spoke of feeling alienated from her own culture, and she explained what makes her feel that way. She said hearing namaste chanted by the white yoga instructor to a predominantly white class was unsettling, and then after a brief disclaimer and abbreviated run-down of the place yoga holds in Hindu culture, she went on to explain why she felt unsettled. She gets to the heart of the matter when she says

"Given most classes are taught by white women, and most ads you see for yoga classes or yoga wear feature white women, white women have become the embodiment of yoga in Australia. As a Hindu woman, this places me as the "other" in a culture that is mine.

The culture is not hers. She did not create it and has no moral claim over it.

She's not saying you can't practice yoga or say namaste. She's saying that the way yoga was being presented and the way namaste was being used made her feel like an outsider despite the fact that both originally came from her native culture. That's a valid point of view and a fairly common experience for minorities. They can feel marginalized even within what is supposedly their own cultural practices after it's been processed through the dominant culture's filters.

If she feels marginalised because other people are copying ideas she herself copied, I don't know what to say to her. The feelings she is having are irrational.

 

[EricK]

"Namaste" doesn't literally mean hello and goodbye, though it is used as a religious greeting by Hindus. Namaste conveys a religious message something akin to "my soul is subservient to yours." Non-Hindus saying namaste is like going to the gym while having your weight trainer say "Christ compels you" when you arrive and when you leave. Personally I'd laugh at such a thing. Your weight trainer is completely free to do that because of free speech and such but it might make certain people uncomfortable or some people might say, "okay, you need to stop doing that." None of that means you want to take his free speech away.

ZOMG what a golden workout motivator. Christ compels you...to get on the rowing machine!

I would have thought the cross-trainer was more his thing.

 

[Arctish]

I linked to the article at the beginning. People were free to read it without my input. Just posting an article without further comment would make a rather dull OP.

That sounds strange considering your objections to including women in the Hasty Pudding review.

There is no inconsistency. Hasty Pudding, as constituted, was welcome to do what it wanted. I simply pointed out that the introduction of women on stage would change the essence of Hasty Pudding.

And it's certainly the case that if Hasty Pudding rejected women on stage, there was nothing in the world stopping the rejected women from writing and producing and performing their own productions.

In other words, if you don't like this brand of yoga, don't go to it. Do your own yoga.

That's what people told you to do if you wanted to see an all-male burlesque show if women started appearing onstage in Hasty Pudding productions. You agreed you would have that option, but persisted in decrying the change. You still found the tomatoes gross and wondered why anyone would serve them, and were still trying to convince people to join you in your objection to their being served.

No, it really isn't.

The author didn't make any demands in her piece. She spoke of feeling alienated from her own culture, and she explained what makes her feel that way. She said hearing namaste chanted by the white yoga instructor to a predominantly white class was unsettling, and then after a brief disclaimer and abbreviated run-down of the place yoga holds in Hindu culture, she went on to explain why she felt unsettled. She gets to the heart of the matter when she says

"Given most classes are taught by white women, and most ads you see for yoga classes or yoga wear feature white women, white women have become the embodiment of yoga in Australia. As a Hindu woman, this places me as the "other" in a culture that is mine.

The culture is not hers. She did not create it and has no moral claim over it.

She was born in it, raised in it, and has the same claim to being a member of it that you have to being a member of yours.

She's not saying you can't practice yoga or say namaste. She's saying that the way yoga was being presented and the way namaste was being used made her feel like an outsider despite the fact that both originally came from her native culture. That's a valid point of view and a fairly common experience for minorities. They can feel marginalized even within what is supposedly their own cultural practices after it's been processed through the dominant culture's filters.

If she feels marginalised because other people are copying ideas she herself copied, I don't know what to say to her. The feelings she is having are irrational.

She said why she feels marginalized. If you don't understand what she's saying, that one thing. But if you're just going to construct a strawman, there's no point discussing it with her or anyone else.

 

[Metaphor]

That's what people told you to do if you wanted to see an all-male burlesque show if women started appearing onstage in Hasty Pudding productions. You agreed you would have that option, but persisted in decrying the change.

No, I did not 'decry' the change. I just said it would destroy the essence of Hasty Pudding. I think that would be a loss, but I'm not a member of Hasty Pudding and my opinion on how they ought to vote on the matter obviously carries no weight.

(I never did find out what happened).

You still found the tomatoes gross and wondered why anyone would serve them, and were still trying to convince people to join you in your objection to their being served.

Huh? No, I was trying to get people to understand that changing an all-male burlesque show to not an all-male burlesque changes the essence (that is, destroys it).

I was trying to get people to understand that the creators get to determine the parameters of their creation.

She was born in it, raised in it, and has the same claim to being a member of it that you have to being a member of yours.

So, zero. She has zero claim on it. I don't own the ideas in 'my' culture and she does not own the ideas in hers.

I'm glad that's settled.

She said why she feels marginalized. If you don't understand what she's saying, that one thing. But if you're just going to stuff a strawman, there's no point discussing it with her or anyone else.

She feels marginalised because white people are doing stuff differently to how she was raised to do it. That's crazy and entitled.

 

[Arctish]

No, I did not 'decry' the change. I just said it would destroy the essence of Hasty Pudding. I think that would be a loss, but I'm not a member of Hasty Pudding and my opinion on how they ought to vote on the matter obviously carries no weight.

(I never did find out what happened).

So you felt the change would destroy something you valued and appreciated, and that it's destruction would be a loss, but didn't 'decry' the change. You merely objected to it stridently.

You still found the tomatoes gross and wondered why anyone would serve them, and were still trying to convince people to join you in your objection to their being served.

Huh? No, I was trying to get people to understand that changing an all-male burlesque show to not an all-male burlesque changes the essence (that is, destroys it).

I was trying to get people to understand that the creators get to determine the parameters of their creation.

Wow, you really went about that backwards. That didn't come through in your OP at all.

She was born in it, raised in it, and has the same claim to being a member of it that you have to being a member of yours.

So, zero. She has zero claim on it. I don't own the ideas in 'my' culture and she does not own the ideas in hers.

I'm glad that's settled.

No, not zero. But since you insist on equating ownership with membership and I don't feel like arguing such a silly pedantic point, whatever.

She said why she feels marginalized. If you don't understand what she's saying, that one thing. But if you're just going to stuff a strawman, there's no point discussing it with her or anyone else.

She feels marginalised because white people are doing stuff differently to how she was raised to do it. That's crazy and entitled.

She feels marginalized and alienated because familiar words and practices from her native culture have been warped into something unfamiliar by the dominant culture, so that the members of the dominant culture now seem more at home saying and doing them than she does.

 

[Toni]

I didn't think my tuna analogy would be challenged,

I didn't 'challenge' your tuna analogy. I showed you exactly how apt it is. You just don't like that.

but I'll change it.

Do I need to have gone through the hard yards of baking a cake to appreciate a cake from a first-class bakery?

And, would you ever say to somebody 'you shouldn't eat cake that you did not go through the hard yards of baking yourself. It's disrespectful to the people who baked it'.

I do believe that someone who is an experienced and knowledgeable baker would be able to appreciate a cake from a first class bakery in a way that a non-baker might not be able to do.

An artist who garners praise from the public surely appreciates the praise. But the praise from an informed person is indeed more gratifying. Who would not wish to have their artistry appreciated by someone who knows what they are talking about vs someone who likes something because the media tells them they are supposed to like it.

Yes. Mass commercialisation is a good thing and allows people to experience good things they would otherwise never have been able to.

Mass commercialization has both good and bad points. It is foolish to refuse to recognize both the good and the bad.

Why should I be forced to learn about something I have no interest in?

Who is talking about 'forcing' you to learn anything. You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink. No one can make you think, as you have so convincingly demonstrated.

Please note that this does not mean I'm not interested in learning. I am very interested in learning -- I have two degrees and have done both arts and sciences.

But I'm interested in learning on my terms, not someone else's terms.

I'm happy for you. No one is attempting to force you to learn anything.

When I watch Xena (peace be upon her), I don't know if and how radically Greek myths have been adapted for mass consumption. I just love watching escapist fantasy.

Good for you?

You're missing out quite a bit, though, by not knowing anything about Greek mythology.

Wouldn't mass commercialisation help that? If people are interested in learning about something they'll learn about it.

Mass commercialization generally promotes a sanitized, false version of the authentic. It tricks people into believing they they 'know' the authentic when really, they only 'know' whatever version will generate profits for the corporation.

Sure, it is possible that some will be

The disdain is palpable. Indeed, her poisonous language of Australia having 'colonial ties' is breathtaking - Australia was the country being colonised!

Mm, her point was that Australia was colonized.

The point of yoga is whatever people want it to be.

No, it's not.

Neither you nor anybody else have the moral right to dictate whether someone's doing something 'right' or not, especially when it's their own body they're doing it to and nobody is preventing you doing it any way you want.

Nor is anyone asserting that they can or should be able to prevent you or anyone else from doing whatever they like (within the confines of the law).

You are free to go to as many fake yoga classes as you like and to call out namaste whenever you like.

And other people are free to form opinions as well. And to publicly and privately express those opinions.

That's great. It's wonderful to learn things when it's on your own terms and it accords with your interests, isn't it?

Actually, I greatly regret the lack of musical education when I was growing up. I took some care to make sure my children had better opportunities. Which they did not necessarily appreciate at the time. But they do appreciate music much more fully than I do. Because they were taught it, not always of their own free will.

I don't like hearing arguments that are literally incoherent from the beginning, and I do not like to see widespread acceptance of this incoherence.

I think you have confused 'incoherent' with 'inconvenient.'

I found the author to be much more articulate than any of your arguments.

If their ideas are so sacred and transcendent, why can't they withstand mass commercialisation?

Really?

Nobody is holding a gun to their heads and confiscating religious texts. Nobody is telling them they can't do yoga exactly as they want to.

Yeah, you didn't actually read the article. People actually DID prevent them from doing yoga and engaging in other cultural practices, using force. And then brought back sanitized, more 'convenient' versions when it suited the invaders to do so.

 

[Metaphor]

I didn't 'challenge' your tuna analogy. I showed you exactly how apt it is. You just don't like that.

No. You missed the point of the analogy on purpose.

You think the 'authentic' yoga is better. It isn't. The best version of yoga is whatever people want it to be.

An artist who garners praise from the public surely appreciates the praise. But the praise from an informed person is indeed more gratifying. Who would not wish to have their artistry appreciated by someone who knows what they are talking about vs someone who likes something because the media tells them they are supposed to like it.

'The media' does not tell me what to like. I like what I like.

No one can make you think, as you have so convincingly demonstrated.

Not toeing the cultural appropriation mythicist line is not congruent with 'not thinking'. Quite the opposite, actually.

You're missing out quite a bit, though, by not knowing anything about Greek mythology.

No, you see, that's where you're wrong. You don't know how much I'd enjoy reading about Greek mythology, any more than you know how much I'd like any other intellectual pursuit without knowing me.

I think sports are stupid and boring to watch, and I would find it risible for someone to tell me I'm 'missing out', because I'm not missing out. Sports are just not my taste.

Mass commercialization generally promotes a sanitized, false version of the authentic.

'Authentic' yoga is as slippery as 'authentic' Christianity, and deserves about the same loss of sleep over (that is, none).

The hocus pocus in yoga is already false. Whether and how people are mistaken about the content of the hocus pocus is irrelevant.

Mm, her point was that Australia was colonized.

No, her point was to paint Australia as more similar to the colonizers, not the colonized.

You are free to go to as many fake yoga classes as you like and to call out namaste whenever you like.

I'm glad it's settled.

(All yoga classes are equally fake, by the way. Or all equally real, take your pick).

I think you have confused 'incoherent' with 'inconvenient.'

I found the author to be much more articulate than any of your arguments.

Of course you did. You were already on her side.

Really?

ya rly

Yeah, you didn't actually read the article.

Yeah, I did actually read the article several times.

People actually DID prevent them from doing yoga and engaging in other cultural practices, using force.

Are these despicable white women doing that right now? Why haven't they been arrested?

And then brought back sanitized, more 'convenient' versions when it suited the invaders to do so.

Oh, I see. These white women invaded India. Good to know how mistaken I was. I might have made a right tit of myself.

- - - Updated - - -

No, not zero. But since you insist on equating ownership with membership and I don't feel like arguing such a silly pedantic point, whatever.

But that's the exact opposite of what I'm doing. Literally, the exact opposite. Being a member of a culture does not mean you own that culture, because nobody owns a culture. Membership does not equal ownership.

 

[JonA]

BREAKING NEWS

This just in: There is no such thing as 'authentic'.

 

[Rhea]

This just in: There is no such thing as 'authentic'.

Nobody seems willing to discuss the post #53 by nice squirrel which is pretty relevant to the discussion of "authentic," I think. I'll repost:

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.

So why isn't the author of this article complaining about how Iyengar's massive changes to "authentic' yoga? That is a pretty huge change. I'm interested now in looking further to validate this post and I'm surprised no one else has addressed it.

What's "authentic," and who gets to define it?

 

[Metaphor]

Nobody seems willing to discuss the post #53 by nice squirrel which is pretty relevant to the discussion of "authentic," I think. I'll repost:

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.

So why isn't the author of this article complaining about how Iyengar's massive changes to "authentic' yoga? That is a pretty huge change. I'm interested now in looking further to validate this post and I'm surprised no one else has addressed it.

What's "authentic," and who gets to define it?

From my perspective, I literally place no value at all on 'authenticity', so it's irrelevant whether something is 'authentic' or not, notwithstanding the myriad problems one has defining and judging 'authenticity'.

 

[Rhea]

From my perspective, I literally place no value at all on 'authenticity', so it's irrelevant whether something is 'authentic' or not, notwithstanding the myriad problems one has defining and judging 'authenticity'.

What!!?!?!

Do you wear blue jeans that do not say "Levi's" on the hip!?!

 

[Metaphor]

From my perspective, I literally place no value at all on 'authenticity', so it's irrelevant whether something is 'authentic' or not, notwithstanding the myriad problems one has defining and judging 'authenticity'.

What!!?!?!

Do you wear blue jeans that do not say "Levi's" on the hip!?!

lolz.

Not only do I shun 'name brand' clothes, I shun 'name brand' food if I believe the generic/house brand is comparable.

My only problem is that mass market retailers in Australia do not sell my size ("ample"), my height (super tall), or my shoe size (US 15). You have no idea how much I'd love to go into Kmart and pay $2 for a pair of thongs ("flip flops") instead of US$30+ I need to pay to get size 15.

 

[RavenSky]

ZOMG what a golden workout motivator. Christ compels you...to get on the rowing machine!

I would have thought the cross-trainer was more his thing.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CdVTCDdEwI[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Rhea]

My only problem is that mass market retailers in Australia do not sell my size ("ample"), my height (super tall), or my shoe size (US 15). You have no idea how much I'd love to go into Kmart and pay $2 for a pair of thongs ("flip flops") instead of US$30+ I need to pay to get size 15.

I sympathize, but just please don't make the mistake of walking into an American K-Mart and asking for thongs. What's an authentic thong here will NOT be what you are expecting....



although, it being America, you CAN get it in XXL...
(note authentic zebra print)

 

[RavenSky]

My only problem is that mass market retailers in Australia do not sell my size ("ample"), my height (super tall), or my shoe size (US 15). You have no idea how much I'd love to go into Kmart and pay $2 for a pair of thongs ("flip flops") instead of US$30+ I need to pay to get size 15.

I sympathize, but just please don't make the mistake of walking into an American K-Mart and asking for thongs. What's an authentic thong here will NOT be what you are expecting....

View attachment 6352

although, it being America, you CAN get it in XXL...
(note authentic zebra print)

Double that in Miami. Of course, they won't know what a "flip flop" is either. Here, they are called chancletas

 

[Metaphor]

I sympathize, but just please don't make the mistake of walking into an American K-Mart and asking for thongs. What's an authentic thong here will NOT be what you are expecting....

View attachment 6352

although, it being America, you CAN get it in XXL...
(note authentic zebra print)

Double that in Miami. Of course, they won't know what a "flip flop" is either. Here, they are called chancletas

It's "thongs" people!

 

[dismal]

Nobody seems willing to discuss the post #53 by nice squirrel which is pretty relevant to the discussion of "authentic," I think. I'll repost:

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.

So why isn't the author of this article complaining about how Iyengar's massive changes to "authentic' yoga? That is a pretty huge change. I'm interested now in looking further to validate this post and I'm surprised no one else has addressed it.

What's "authentic," and who gets to define it?

I personally see little point in arguing about whether the facts support this being a "cultural appropriation" given that I reject outright the idea that borrowing from and/or modifying another culture should be considered a bad thing, and moreover whether it is a bad thing depends on the borrower's skin color. I doubt there has ever been a culture that did not borrow heavily from other cultures or have its "authenticity" migrate over time.

However, if there is a side benefit to this particular form of faux grievance we do get to learn a little history.

 

[Toni]

No. You missed the point of the analogy on purpose.

No. I didn't 'miss' anything. I did notice that your tuna analogy was extremely apt in a way that you perhaps did not intend. The fact that you chose an example which illustrated my point better than your own is on you. It is not my job to pretend that your analogy illustrates something that it does not.

You think the 'authentic' yoga is better.

It is extremely rude when you make false assertions about what I think. You are apparently unable to perceive what I think by reading my posts. Instead, you re-imagine my opinions into whatever you personally find convenient for whatever purpose you have. I'd take it much more personally if I didn't watch you do it to the article quoted in the OP, as well as other articles you've posted in the past.

It's one thing to be rude. It's another to be dishonest.

It isn't. The best version of yoga is whatever people want it to be.

Which people? You seem to object vehemently to the author wanting yoga to be something different than what it is in the class she attended.

Words have meaning. Even if you don't like it.

An artist who garners praise from the public surely appreciates the praise. But the praise from an informed person is indeed more gratifying. Who would not wish to have their artistry appreciated by someone who knows what they are talking about vs someone who likes something because the media tells them they are supposed to like it.

'The media' does not tell me what to like. I like what I like.

You are incredibly naive.

No one can make you think, as you have so convincingly demonstrated.

Not toeing the cultural appropriation mythicist line is not congruent with 'not thinking'. Quite the opposite, actually.

What is that called again? Something about embracing whatever the authority (white Australia) tells you to embrace? You are indeed an independent 'thinker.'

You're missing out quite a bit, though, by not knowing anything about Greek mythology.

No, you see, that's where you're wrong. You don't know how much I'd enjoy reading about Greek mythology,

Neither do you.

Mm, her point was that Australia was colonized.

No, her point was to paint Australia as more similar to the colonizers, not the colonized.

Australia was colonized and unlike in India, the indigenous people have been relegated to the periphery while the British established its own culture.

You are free to go to as many fake yoga classes as you like and to call out namaste whenever you like.

I'm glad it's settled.

It was never in question. Not by me and not by the author. Unlike you, I believe the author is just as entitled to express her opinions and her thoughts. I think she did a better job backing hers up than you did yours, but that is my right as well.

Please note: she is not calling people who practice yoga as it is done in classes in Australia wrong or stupid nor is she saying that people aren't allowed to do what they like. She is simply expressing how disconcerting it is to walk into a class that is so vastly different than the yoga she grew up with. She went into the class hoping to connect with part of her culture. She found something else entirely.

I think you have confused 'incoherent' with 'inconvenient.'

I found the author to be much more articulate than any of your arguments.

Of course you did. You were already on her side.

What side is that? That she's entitled to her own perceptions? I am always on the side of a person being entitled to his or her own perceptions.

I enjoy yoga. The very much westernized kind. I realize that it is not the same as yoga practiced by (some) Hindus for many centuries. I can still understand how disconcerting it would be to someone who grew up knowing the authentic practice, surrounded and part of the Hindu culture, to see the watered down, westernized, bastardized practice in a yoga class in Australia.

Yeah, you didn't actually read the article.

Yeah, I did actually read the article several times.

Try it without the massive chips on your shoulders and without those I embrace whatever British/Australian mass media culture tells me to embrace blinders on.

Good to know how mistaken I was. I might have made a right tit of myself.

Finally. Yes, you have.


Oh, just for fun: Did you know that there is a chain (of course it is a chain. This is America dammit) of restaurants that are supposedly Australian-themed?

https://www.outback.com/menu/specials