White people need to stop saying 'namaste'.

[JonA]

Statistically speaking the media has an effect on people. For any particular issue, for any particular person it might not, but that in no way disproves the influence of media. I don't think it is accurate though to say that the media has no influence on Metaphor in particular. His outrage and the frequency of his cultural appropriation and political correctness threads go hand-in-hand with media exposing the issues--the same specific cases even.

I find that hard to believe.

Half the stuff Metaphor posts is stuff I would never have heard about otherwise.

I don't know what media it is that go hand-in-hand with Metaphor's topics, but it sure isn't the ones I consume.

 

[Toni]

And who is the dominant power still in Australia? Don't you still have a queen?

Those white ladies in the yoga class were probably of British descent. And who is their queen?

The same people who colonized India also colonized Australia. But the people in India got rid of the British. Unlike Australia.

Can you even find Australia on a map?

Can people in Australia even read?

British prisoners were not dropped off on the shores of Australia and left to fend for themselves. While the prison colony was the first that the British established, it was not the only one established by the British in Australia. Other, non-penal colonies were established later.

The British colonized Australia, just as they colonized India, just as they colonized America and a bunch of other places. In doing so, they established many of the same cultural traditions, language, system of governance, etc., much of which remains today. Australia still has a queen, I believe, as does Canada. Of course, she is only a ceremonial, but she's still the queen.

 

[JonA]

Toni is absolutely correct that Australia was colonized by white people.

But it's not correct. Some of the people who colonized Australia (one of the many times it was colonized) were white.

She did not say or imply that every single white person in the entire world colonized Australia. Any category errors being made re: white people colonizing Australia aren't her doing.

Unfortunately it is. But if you read her arguments, you'll see it's a necessary part of them: White people have to be an indivisible entity in order for modern white people to share the blame for colonizing done by people in the past who were also white.

 

[Toni]

Ayup. Now, try being an Asian in North America. The race talkers will lump you right in with the white people, which is sort of like a Sikh getting attacked for something a Muslim terrorist somewhere did.

Seriously, Toni, why so racist? Why are you treating "white people" as some combined entity?

She's not. Metaphor is recasting her comments that way, but he's just being hyperbolic (I think).

Toni is absolutely correct that Australia was colonized by white people. She did not say or imply that every single white person in the entire world colonized Australia. Any category errors being made re: white people colonizing Australia aren't her doing.

If you want to argue that Australia wasn't colonized by white people, or that the dominant culture in Australia isn't the culture of the white colonists and their cultural heirs, please do. But if you want to argue against something no one is claiming then this thread is toast.

Thank you.

 

[Rhea]

She doesn't bristle at white people doing yoga. She talks about feeling alienated in yoga class even though yoga is rooted in her native culture because, as she sees it, the yoga being presented has been altered by the dominant culture to the point that she feels white Australians are more at home doing it than she could ever be.

She isn't claiming there in only one, true way to do yoga.

She isn't saying only Hindus can do it 'properly'.

This is such an interesting discussion because when I read that article (me, white woman with a very frequent and detailed immersion into Hindu culture (not by scholarly standards, but a heckuva lot more than a white-man's yoga class), who is frequently considered someone who almost radically supports the underdog, so - me who is unlikely to read this with a bias against minority feelings...that me...) when I read this I see that yes, absolutely and explicitly, no inference required, yes she is indeed claiming these things.

She does bristle at white people doing yoga without context and saying namaste without religion. She does ask them to consider whether they are qualified to do it. She goes so far as to say it can never be a friendly exchange.

And so I'm reading this genuinely surprised that people are reading this sentence of hers, " it can never be a friendly exchange," and claming she is "not bristling."


It's fascinating.

I like very much many things about Indian culture - whether they be Hindu or not, since some of my Indian friends are in fact not Hindu - My children have danced in Holi and Diwali festivals, we've been to an Upanayana and an Indian wedding. We've used the word "namaste" with our friends at these occasions despite being white and also atheist (and they know it). We own several dozens of books describing Hindu religions, customs and folklore. And I say all this not to brag, since all of that is merely a drop in a cultural bucket, but I say it to try to convince you that I am NOT likely to just dismiss this woman's thesis out of anti-minority bias.

And even with what I think to be a most generous and open mind about cultural identity, this woman's blog entry is **NOT** about sharing, education and inclusion. It's about bristling that people shouldn't do this if they can't do it right.

And I think she harmed her cause. Terribly. She could have brought education, information, sharing and insight. Which is what I usually see when I encounter any event from the local India Association - events which are always open to white people, and they'll even loan you a sari. But she did not. She chose to bristle and chastise and complain.

That's her choice of course, she's welcome to write that. But I"m fascinated by the claims that she did not in fact write that.

I see that she did. Without a fig leaf or subtlety at all. And some of you see it different. You can read, " it can never be a friendly exchange," and think, "She isn't saying only Hindus can do it 'properly'." And I'm fascinated by that.



Very interesting.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

You can read, " it can never be a friendly exchange," and think, "She isn't saying only Hindus can do it 'properly'." And I'm fascinated by that.

Personally, I think she's wrong as much as I think Metaphor is wrong. I am intrigued by what she is trying to say in context:

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. In fact, during their colonial rule, the British banned certain practices of yoga which they perceived as threatening and 'less acceptable' Hindu practices. As a policy of conciliation towards some aspects of Indian culture was pursued by the British in the later years of their rule, the Brits promoted a re-appropriated more physical 'modern' yoga which is more akin to the postural yoga taught in many classes in Australia today.

In the first sentence I think she is saying something akin to Indians need to be on equal terms in order for the exchange to be considered friendly. Her assumption is that Indians cannot be not on equal terms if the history of the country involves colonial forces who had once colonized India. I think something she has left out is that Indians are discriminated against in such countries like both the US and Australia and also Metaphor has left it out. The remaining discrimination in these countries is not anywhere near where it used to be. In any case, some particular Indians may feel comfortable with some particular descendants of colonizers and so might perhaps exchange ideas from cultures. So I think the generalization is false.

Somewhere in there she is also mistakenly thinking that yoga as practiced in these countries will always be derived from a warped form of Anglicized or stripped out yoga. I think that again is a generalization and it might also "almost" follow logically if Indians were an oppressed group within such countries because they'd almost have no empowerment to influence the incorrect yoga that was mandated by the discriminatory governments. I think it is a mistake to believe that such yoga will always be derived from the govt mandated yoga introduced into White culture, too. It's another generalization. Since Indians are almost on equal terms they can make their own yoga places (whatever they are called) and influence the not-so-dominant culture.

Just my two cents...

 

[dismal]

Now we can move on to the big question: can Black people* say namaste?

*other than Beyonce, of course.

 

[Arctish]

She doesn't bristle at white people doing yoga. She talks about feeling alienated in yoga class even though yoga is rooted in her native culture because, as she sees it, the yoga being presented has been altered by the dominant culture to the point that she feels white Australians are more at home doing it than she could ever be.

She isn't claiming there in only one, true way to do yoga.

She isn't saying only Hindus can do it 'properly'.

This is such an interesting discussion because when I read that article (me, white woman with a very frequent and detailed immersion into Hindu culture (not by scholarly standards, but a heckuva lot more than a white-man's yoga class), who is frequently considered someone who almost radically supports the underdog, so - me who is unlikely to read this with a bias against minority feelings...that me...) when I read this I see that yes, absolutely and explicitly, no inference required, yes she is indeed claiming these things.

She does bristle at white people doing yoga without context and saying namaste without religion. She does ask them to consider whether they are qualified to do it. She goes so far as to say it can never be a friendly exchange.

And so I'm reading this genuinely surprised that people are reading this sentence of hers, " it can never be a friendly exchange," and claming she is "not bristling."


It's fascinating.

I agree. It's fascinating. I hear a completely different message coming through her article than the one you hear. I guess the parts of the text that resonate with me don't resonate with you, and vice versa.

I like very much many things about Indian culture - whether they be Hindu or not, since some of my Indian friends are in fact not Hindu - My children have danced in Holi and Diwali festivals, we've been to an Upanayana and an Indian wedding. We've used the word "namaste" with our friends at these occasions despite being white and also atheist (and they know it). We own several dozens of books describing Hindu religions, customs and folklore. And I say all this not to brag, since all of that is merely a drop in a cultural bucket, but I say it to try to convince you that I am NOT likely to just dismiss this woman's thesis out of anti-minority bias.

And even with what I think to be a most generous and open mind about cultural identity, this woman's blog entry is **NOT** about sharing, education and inclusion. It's about bristling that people shouldn't do this if they can't do it right.

And I think she harmed her cause. Terribly. She could have brought education, information, sharing and insight. Which is what I usually see when I encounter any event from the local India Association - events which are always open to white people, and they'll even loan you a sari. But she did not. She chose to bristle and chastise and complain.

That's her choice of course, she's welcome to write that. But I"m fascinated by the claims that she did not in fact write that.

I see that she did. Without a fig leaf or subtlety at all. And some of you see it different. You can read, " it can never be a friendly exchange," and think, "She isn't saying only Hindus can do it 'properly'." And I'm fascinated by that.

I hear a woman saying she feels excluded while I think you hear a woman trying to exclude others. It's likely that our difference of opinion is the result of having different personal experiences. You have been welcome into Hindu celebrations and invited to share in Hindu cultural traditions (that's very cool, btw; I'd love to have that experience, too), so you hear her trying to push you out.

I've seen people go through the same feelings alienation the author felt in a place where they should have felt perfectly at home, namely the Catholic Mass in the late 1960s. I hear her saying she feels pushed out.

A little back story: I spent most of my childhood in the Boston area. The Boston Irish, Italian, and Polish Catholic communities were strong and the people devout, especially the Italians. They made grottos in their yards around statues of the Virgin Mary, attended Mass regularly, were ecstatic when an Italian girl was elevated to sainthood (St. Maria Goretti), and did a lot of custodial work in the parishes. For a lot of older Catholics, the church was the center of their community. So it was something of a surprise when the priest started saying the prayers in English, turned to face the congregation during the consecration of the Eucharist, and left out parts of the familiar ritual. But that was nothing compared to their shock the day folk singers showed up with guitars to lead the congregation in Pete Seeger songs.

The Second Vatican Council changed things that hadn't changed in centuries, and the older parishoners felt totally alienated. They didn't recognize the new Mass as their own. In some ways they didn't even recognize their own faith. And that was with changes made by the Vatican. Imagine what they would have felt if non-catholics had been the ones making changes.

AU version of the author's story:

"The Catholic Retreat felt strange. I had somehow gone there in a misguided attempt to connect with what I thought was a part of my identity. Instead, as the retreat went on, I felt like an imposter...."

Disclaimer about not being a Catholic theologian, brief history of Catholic Retreats developed by the founder of the Jesuits, then examples of the weirdness. Spiritual Exercises more like Zumba than anything Ignatius Loyola ever envisioned:

"Left leg - genuflect!
Right leg - genuflect!
Kneel, stand, and raise your hands to Heaven, s-t-r-e-t-c-h..."

Devotions being a discussion of whether a Catholic should always root for the Notre Dame football team or if it was okay to root for Southern Methodist University if your kid was a student there.

Contemplations consisting of an instructor showing a class the miraculous power of a loaf of sprouted grain bread and a tin of sardines to provide all the protein, carbs, and Omega-3 fatty acids to satisfy an entire class for hours.

At the end of the retreat the instructor makes the Sign of the Cross and intones:

"North, south, east, west,
fold your hands across your breast.
Go in peace to love and serve the Lord".

The author claims Catholic ritual has been altered by the commercial organization offering the so-called Catholic Retreats, and says she felt like an outsider there. She says the person conducting the retreat should at least understand what genuflection and the Sign of the Cross are, and why Catholics do it, before doing it herself. She blames the misunderstanding and bastardization of Catholic ritual on the non-Catholic culture that 'sampled' it, reprocessed it, and sold a commercialized version of it.

I think she'd have a valid point. I think it would be perfectly understandable that she cares that, in her view, Catholic spiritual life was being grossly misrepresented. And I don't think it would be fair to call her a bully, a bitch, or a baby for saying so.

But that's just me. YMMV.

 

[Metaphor]

A little back story: I spent most of my childhood in the Boston area. The Boston Irish, Italian, and Polish Catholic communities were strong and the people devout, especially the Italians. They made grottos in their yards around statues of the Virgin Mary, attended Mass regularly, were ecstatic when an Italian girl was elevated to sainthood (St. Maria Goretti), and did a lot of custodial work in the parishes. For a lot of older Catholics, the church was the center of their community. So it was something of a surprise when the priest started saying the prayers in English, turned to face the congregation during the consecration of the Eucharist, and left out parts of the familiar ritual. But that was nothing compared to their shock the day folk singers showed up with guitars to lead the congregation in Pete Seeger songs.

The Second Vatican Council changed things that hadn't changed in centuries, and the older parishoners felt totally alienated. They didn't recognize the new Mass as their own. In some ways they didn't even recognize their own faith. And that was with changes made by the Vatican. Imagine what they would have felt if non-catholics had been the ones making changes.

This analogy fails. First, these people went to Mass every Sunday, probably in the same building and sat in the same pew, for decades. And then it all changes by the recognised leaders of their faith.

This woman had not been attending a 'white woman' yoga class for 25 years, and then all of a sudden they started saying 'namaste' incorrectly and everyone forgot the Hindu significance of things and she was shocked.

No, this woman went to a 'white woman' yoga class once, 25 years after starting to reside in Australia, and actually expects us to believe she's surprised that non-Hindu, non-brown people don't do yoga the exact way she would like it done.

In fact, her narrative beggars belief. I do not believe for a second she thought she'd get 'authentic' yoga in a 'white woman' yoga class. Where was this woman doing yoga for the 25 years she'd been in Australia? Or perhaps she hadn't done yoga in 25 years at all.

Second, outside forces did not change 'her' yoga. 'Her' yoga is what it always has been, and if she can't find a yoga class that matches her 'authentic' yoga, she should start one herself.

Then she can peddle herself as an 'authentic' yoga practitioner (she's got brown skin after all, the #1 qualification) and she can position her product against the 'inauthentic' 'white woman' yoga classes.

If her 'authentic' version is a better product, she ought to be raking it in. And if it isn't a better product, but some people come to the class anyway, then she can be satisfied that she has reached the truly faithful.

 

[JonA]

I've seen people go through the same feelings alienation the author felt in a place where they should have felt perfectly at home, namely the Catholic Mass in the late 1960s.

...

The author claims Catholic ritual has been altered by the commercial organization offering the so-called Catholic Retreats, and says she felt like an outsider there. She says the person conducting the retreat should at least understand what genuflection and the Sign of the Cross are, and why Catholics do it, before doing it herself. She blames the misunderstanding and bastardization of Catholic ritual on the non-Catholic culture that 'sampled' it, reprocessed it, and sold a commercialized version of it.

I think she'd have a valid point. I think it would be perfectly understandable that she cares that, in her view, Catholic spiritual life was being grossly misrepresented. And I don't think it would be fair to call her a bully, a bitch, or a baby for saying so.

But that's just me. YMMV.

*yawn*

If any members of the club are unhappy with how the club is being run, they're free to start their own.

Or just leave.

 

[Rhea]

A little back story: I spent most of my childhood in the Boston area. The Boston Irish, Italian, and Polish Catholic communities were strong and the people devout, especially the Italians. They made grottos in their yards around statues of the Virgin Mary, attended Mass regularly, were ecstatic when an Italian girl was elevated to sainthood (St. Maria Goretti), and did a lot of custodial work in the parishes. For a lot of older Catholics, the church was the center of their community. So it was something of a surprise when the priest started saying the prayers in English, turned to face the congregation during the consecration of the Eucharist, and left out parts of the familiar ritual. But that was nothing compared to their shock the day folk singers showed up with guitars to lead the congregation in Pete Seeger songs.

So... interestingly, me, too.

But... Not all the churches had the folk singers, and if you went Wednesday mornings, while it was English, it was not some festival.

And still, it was your (my) own leadership who changed it. We didn't decide to go to Japan and attend a catholic "mass" put on by street vendors who enjoyed eating little crackers and had no training in catechism.

It was internally changed (as yoga had been, to arrive at the place that blogger thought was the "authentic.") If she was looking for thousand-year-old yoga, I expect she wouldn't have found it in India, either.

The Second Vatican Council changed things that hadn't changed in centuries, and the older parishoners felt totally alienated. They didn't recognize the new Mass as their own. In some ways they didn't even recognize their own faith. And that was with changes made by the Vatican. Imagine what they would have felt if non-catholics had been the ones making changes.

The analogy doesn't work if I have to imagine what it would have been like if it were analogous.

AU version of the author's story:

"The Catholic Retreat felt strange. I had somehow gone there in a misguided attempt to connect with what I thought was a part of my identity. Instead, as the retreat went on, I felt like an imposter...."

cue Martin Luther.....

Disclaimer about not being a Catholic theologian, brief history of Catholic Retreats developed by the founder of the Jesuits, then examples of the weirdness. Spiritual Exercises more like Zumba than anything Ignatius Loyola ever envisioned:

"Left leg - genuflect!
Right leg - genuflect!
Kneel, stand, and raise your hands to Heaven, s-t-r-e-t-c-h..."

http://www.forhimgear.com/
or
http://www.faithfulworkouts.com/

I think she'd have a valid point. I think it would be perfectly understandable that she cares that, in her view, Catholic spiritual life was being grossly misrepresented. And I don't think it would be fair to call her a bully, a bitch, or a baby for saying so.

But that's just me. YMMV.

Note to internets: I did not call her a bully or a bitch or a baby. FTR.
She's being unrealistic and puzzling when she expects a thing to be "authentic" in another country and when the thing has been changing for hundreds of years already.

And just as I consider it unreasonable for Christians to complain about how the rest of us might celebrate "Christmas". They can do it their way, they don't own it, though.

 

[Arctish]

Note to internets: I did not call her a bully or a bitch or a baby. FTR.

I know you didn't. But Metaphor did, and so did a few others.

She's being unrealistic and puzzling when she expects a thing to be "authentic" in another country and when the thing has been changing for hundreds of years already.

And just as I consider it unreasonable for Christians to complain about how the rest of us might celebrate "Christmas". They can do it their way, they don't own it, though.

She says in her piece that not all people practice yoga the same way, and "That isn't to say somehow that yoga belongs only to Hindus or to all Hindus".

She's not saying that white people have to convert to Hinduism before they're allowed to learn yoga or that they need to stop saying namaste, click bait title not withstanding. Her complaint is about seeing part of her culture harvested and processed into a white-centric product with only a thin of veneer of Hinduism remaining.

I agree with her that yoga has been commodified. The yoga classes available to me are bereft of all but the most superficial connections to Hinduism. And I can see her point that this commodification has alienated people like her from a practice that arose out of their own cultural and religious practices.

I would not agree with any proposal to make Hindu traditions and practices off-limits to non-Hindus. Fortunately, the author has not made any. She wants people to be aware of the process of commodification, to question the value of severing the connection between a cultural practice and the culture that produced it, and to understand that marginalized people feel even more marginalized when their spiritual and philosophical traditions are warped into whatever the dominant culture wants them to be: a diet plan, an exercise routine, a hybridized spirituality, whatever.

I think it's really interesting that when she says she feels alienated, people have responded by saying she should just go someplace else. When she says the commodification of yoga marginalizes people like her, their response is to call her names and marginalize her further. I don't know about you, but that strikes me as proving her point rather than refuting it.

She should feel alienated because her kind isn't welcome here. She has been marginalized because no one cares about her silly little culture, our culture is better because we say it's better and who cares what she thinks, anyway?

 

[Toni]

I know you didn't. But Metaphor did, and so did a few others.

She's being unrealistic and puzzling when she expects a thing to be "authentic" in another country and when the thing has been changing for hundreds of years already.

And just as I consider it unreasonable for Christians to complain about how the rest of us might celebrate "Christmas". They can do it their way, they don't own it, though.

She says in her piece that not all people practice yoga the same way, and "That isn't to say somehow that yoga belongs only to Hindus or to all Hindus".

She's not saying that white people have to convert to Hinduism before they're allowed to learn yoga or that they need to stop saying namaste, click bait title not withstanding. Her complaint is about seeing part of her culture harvested and processed into a white-centric product with only a thin of veneer of Hinduism remaining.

I agree with her that yoga has been commodified. The yoga classes available to me are bereft of all but the most superficial connections to Hinduism. And I can see her point that this commodification has alienated people like her from a practice that arose out of their own cultural and religious practices.

I would not agree with any proposal to make Hindu traditions and practices off-limits to non-Hindus. Fortunately, the author has not made any. She wants people to be aware of the process of commodification, to question the value of severing the connection between a cultural practice and the culture that produced it, and to understand that marginalized people feel even more marginalized when their spiritual and philosophical traditions are warped into whatever the dominant culture wants them to be: a diet plan, an exercise routine, a hybridized spirituality, whatever.

I think it's really interesting that when she says she feels alienated, people have responded by saying she should just go someplace else. When she says the commodification of yoga marginalizes people like her, their response is to call her names and marginalize her further. I don't know about you, but that strikes me as proving her point rather than refuting it.

She should feel alienated because her kind isn't welcome here. She has been marginalized because no one cares about her silly little culture, our culture is better because we say it's better and who cares what she thinks, anyway?

Again, thank you for saying it much better than I did.

- - - Updated - - -

I know you didn't. But Metaphor did, and so did a few others.

She's being unrealistic and puzzling when she expects a thing to be "authentic" in another country and when the thing has been changing for hundreds of years already.

And just as I consider it unreasonable for Christians to complain about how the rest of us might celebrate "Christmas". They can do it their way, they don't own it, though.

She says in her piece that not all people practice yoga the same way, and "That isn't to say somehow that yoga belongs only to Hindus or to all Hindus".

She's not saying that white people have to convert to Hinduism before they're allowed to learn yoga or that they need to stop saying namaste, click bait title not withstanding. Her complaint is about seeing part of her culture harvested and processed into a white-centric product with only a thin of veneer of Hinduism remaining.

I agree with her that yoga has been commodified. The yoga classes available to me are bereft of all but the most superficial connections to Hinduism. And I can see her point that this commodification has alienated people like her from a practice that arose out of their own cultural and religious practices.

I would not agree with any proposal to make Hindu traditions and practices off-limits to non-Hindus. Fortunately, the author has not made any. She wants people to be aware of the process of commodification, to question the value of severing the connection between a cultural practice and the culture that produced it, and to understand that marginalized people feel even more marginalized when their spiritual and philosophical traditions are warped into whatever the dominant culture wants them to be: a diet plan, an exercise routine, a hybridized spirituality, whatever.

I think it's really interesting that when she says she feels alienated, people have responded by saying she should just go someplace else. When she says the commodification of yoga marginalizes people like her, their response is to call her names and marginalize her further. I don't know about you, but that strikes me as proving her point rather than refuting it.

She should feel alienated because her kind isn't welcome here. She has been marginalized because no one cares about her silly little culture, our culture is better because we say it's better and who cares what she thinks, anyway?

Again, thank you for saying it much better than I did.

 

[laughing dog]

Statistically speaking the media has an effect on people. For any particular issue, for any particular person it might not, but that in no way disproves the influence of media. I don't think it is accurate though to say that the media has no influence on Metaphor in particular. His outrage and the frequency of his cultural appropriation and political correctness threads go hand-in-hand with media exposing the issues--the same specific cases even.

I find that hard to believe.

Half the stuff Metaphor posts is stuff I would never have heard about otherwise.

I don't know what media it is that go hand-in-hand with Metaphor's topics, but it sure isn't the ones I consume.

That response is only relevant if one takes "mass media" refers to the exact same outlets and issues everywhere and for everyone - a ridiculous assumption.

 

[tantric]

i say 'namaste' - i believe most buddhists in america do, regardless of extraction. i say it to other buddhists and south asians, to acknowledge a shared cultural heritage. and i specifically asked an indian muslim if it were offensive and was told 'no, it's just 'hello''. in any case, i probably know more about yoga than the average south asian. am i not supposed to speak spanish to spanish-speakers? i have a mayan jaguar tattoo'd on my leg, little late for that and i did in fact sit down at a table in prison with a guy who had '13' tatt'd on his forehead in blueink (meaning he was MS-13 and a stone cold killer). he liked my tat and thought i was funny i could read the mayan. maybe now i should just say 'namaste' to everyone?

 

[dismal]

i say 'namaste' - i believe most buddhists in america do, regardless of extraction. i say it to other buddhists and south asians, to acknowledge a shared cultural heritage. and i specifically asked an indian muslim if it were offensive and was told 'no, it's just 'hello''. in any case, i probably know more about yoga than the average south asian. am i not supposed to speak spanish to spanish-speakers? i have a mayan jaguar tattoo'd on my leg, little late for that and i did in fact sit down at a table in prison with a guy who had '13' tatt'd on his forehead in blueink (meaning he was MS-13 and a stone cold killer). he liked my tat and thought i was funny i could read the mayan. maybe now i should just say 'namaste' to everyone?

Depends on whether you are white or not.

 

[Rhea]

I think it's really interesting that when she says she feels alienated, people have responded by saying she should just go someplace else. When she says the commodification of yoga marginalizes people like her, their response is to call her names and marginalize her further. I don't know about you, but that strikes me as proving her point rather than refuting it.

She should feel alienated because her kind isn't welcome here. She has been marginalized because no one cares about her silly little culture, our culture is better because we say it's better and who cares what she thinks, anyway?

Correction.

When she said she felt alienated, I suggested that she bring in educational materials and offer to give a seminar on history and culture for the practice.
And I said I'm surprised that wasn't her FIRST thought, instead of writing an article chastising people who start up yoga shops for doing it wrong and asking them to consider whether they should do it at all, since "it CANNOT be a friendly exchange" when they do.

So I would say it is incorrect for you to claim that the complaint here is that she says she feels alienated and she shouldn't say that. That's not the complaint here. That's a strawman. We've been very careful to say what _IS_ our complaint. I know I have. And many of the others as well. She should go somewhere else IF she is unwilling to bring education with her instead of just complaints.

An even bigger strawman is the idea that "her kind isn't welcome there" No one said that. Come on, really. No one said she isn't welcome EXCEPT HER. They asked why is she surprised that it isn't authentic? They asked why does she think her version is not also an appropriation of a previous version of yoga? They asked, why does she think no one else is allowed to do yoga besides her people? And they said, if she can't reconcile any of those questions perhaps she should find a place that _does_ match her expectations when choosing to patronize a business.

People care a LOT about her culture. It's incorrect for you to say they don't. They've said so. I've said so! Clearly!

Some people said "yoga is better for me without the hocus pocus" but that doesn't mean they think her culture is silly, just the practice of exercising with religion.

As I said, in my town there are two yoga studios. One with religion, one without. People choose which one they want to attend. Going to the one without religion is NOT saying that Indian culture is silly.

Come on.

 

[Rhea]

I keep looking back on these posts saying, "she's not saying only Hindus should do yoga! She's NOT!"
and I can't help but ask,

Then what on earth was the point of her blog?
Really, tell me, what, for the love of reason, WAS THE POINT?
I felt unwelcome, but no one should do anything about that. I just want everyone to know I felt unwelcome. Don't stop, of course, you're fine doing that. I'm not saying you should stop, and I don't want to have to go to a different practitioner, I just want the whole internet world to know I felt unwelcome and commodified and appropriated, but don't stop just because you made me feel that way. I'm not asking you to change anything.


WOT?
If her message was NOT "white people should stop saying Namaste," what was her message? Just slather on some guilt and end with, "but don't mind me," like a Catholic grandmother? ( <= note finely tuned mocking of religion)

I gave her the benefit of the doubt that she wanted to make a point and not just complain.
So if I got her action pitch line wrong, then what was her action pitch?

 

[bigfield]

I keep looking back on these posts saying, "she's not saying only Hindus should do yoga! She's NOT!"
and I can't help but ask,

Then what on earth was the point of her blog?
Really, tell me, what, for the love of reason, WAS THE POINT?
I felt unwelcome, but no one should do anything about that. I just want everyone to know I felt unwelcome. Don't stop, of course, you're fine doing that. I'm not saying you should stop, and I don't want to have to go to a different practitioner, I just want the whole internet world to know I felt unwelcome and commodified and appropriated, but don't stop just because you made me feel that way. I'm not asking you to change anything.


WOT?
If her message was NOT "white people should stop saying Namaste," what was her message? Just slather on some guilt and end with, "but don't mind me," like a Catholic grandmother?

I gave her the benefit of the doubt that she wanted to make a point and not just complain.
So if I got her action pitch line wrong, then what was her action pitch?

Maybe she's a self-absorbed twit who just wants attention?

 

[Horatio Parker]

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.

It's about considering whether you can practise yoga without spiritually harvesting a culture and religion that is not yours when you have no deeper understanding, or desire to understand, the historical and social roots of the culture yoga comes from.

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 asking for consideration, no?