White people need to stop saying 'namaste'.

[arkirk]

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

 

[ronburgundy]

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

Or even better, not go out of our ways to try and manufacture conflict by inventing fake offenses out of normal, moral, everyday actions of the sort that everyone engages in.

 

[JonA]

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

Unacceptable.

The more offensive the appropriation, the more intently we must appropriate - to prove that our freedoms to think, grow, and live our lives peaceably as we please do not stop at other people's blown-out-of-proporton feelings.

I will not be a prisoner to someone else's emotions.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

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

Unacceptable.

The more offensive the appropriation*, the more intently we must appropriate - to prove that our freedoms to think, grow, and live our lives peaceably as we please do not stop at other people's blown-out-of-proporton feelings.

I will not be a prisoner to someone else's emotions.

* kitty p0rn

 

[Metaphor]

Mass commercialization is removing all need for thought or understanding,

No, mass commercialisation does not remove the need for thought, but one of the things mass commercialisation can do is remove barriers to widespread uptake. I benefit from canned tuna, because I would never ever buy a tuna and bake it on my own time. Why do you object to this? Must I be forced to catch the tuna, gut the tuna, scale the tuna, and cook the tuna in order to fully appreciate the tuna?

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.

So tell me, how is mass commercialisation of yoga damaging people? Do you think people would benefit from learning about the hocus pocus behind yoga? Why?

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.

First, you have no evidence she did not write the headline. Second, the headline is a sentiment perfectly in keeping with her expressed disdain for white people in the piece itself.

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.

You mean, on a level where a lot of hocus pocus is added to the clearly beneficial physical exercise aspects of yoga. Contemplating fictions about chakras does not make an experience of yoga 'fuller', it makes it longer.

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?

Because she has no right to dictate what people do with their own bodies, that's why. And second, she's absolutely wrong anyway. Commericialised yoga takes the beneficial aspects of yoga (like physical exercise) and removes the hocus pocus, which is factually wrong and bound to be as boring as every other religion. She wants to make the product less desirable and claim that the product has been made more desirable.

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?

Because some people want to do a class of mild and beneficial physical exercise without being converted to Hindu at gunpoint by cultural appropriation mythicists.

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.

The Latin part was not meant to be the focus. The focus was meant to be taking a hymn you don't understand, from a culture that was persecuted multiple times throughout history, and just enjoying the song.

You don't need to believe in Catholic dogma (I don't) to enjoy sacred music (which I do). In fact, Catholicism is boring and stupid and I envy the people who get to enjoy the music without having to have gone through the gobbledygook upbringing. Good for them.

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.

I don't trawl the internet. I don't even use search engines to find articles about a certain topic. I come across these articles in mainstream newspapers.

I don't pretend to understand the cultural appropriation mythicists, because I've thought about the issues they raise and I think the issues they raise are incoherent and they act more entitled than the people they're accusing of appropriation.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

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

Unacceptable.

The more offensive the appropriation, the more intently we must appropriate - to prove that our freedoms to think, grow, and live our lives peaceably as we please do not stop at other people's blown-out-of-proporton feelings.

I will not be a prisoner to someone else's emotions.

What if the someone else is Bruce Banner? It would be a good idea to try and avoid getting him worked up.

 

[ronburgundy]

Unacceptable.

The more offensive the appropriation, the more intently we must appropriate - to prove that our freedoms to think, grow, and live our lives peaceably as we please do not stop at other people's blown-out-of-proporton feelings.

I will not be a prisoner to someone else's emotions.

What if the someone else is Bruce Banner? It would be a good idea to try and avoid getting him worked up.

This raises the question, is Banner bi-racial? Also, when he returns to this non-Hulk state, do the torn pants he is wearing count as an appropriation from Hulk culture?

 

[Arctish]

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.

That's how Metaphor presented her article, 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.

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.

 

[J842P]

As a minority, I implore white people not to assume that most or even many minorities buy into this bullshit. It's the sort of thing born in the minds of upper-class, ivory-tower academics that serves no purpose other than to churn out more cultural studies PhDs. It has unfortunately been swallowed hook, line, and sinker by an alarming amount of young kids going through tertiary education. But please, by all means, eat your American version of tacos! I personally prefer the more authentic versions, but your version is also really tasty! I would be way more offended if you thought I could be offended by you eating Americanized tacos than I could ever actually be offended by you eating them.

 

[Juma]

authentic

"authentic" is the biggest lie of them all.

"Cultures" are prisons.

 

[RavenSky]

The complaint of "cultural appropriation" confuses me as it seems to insist that culture is somehow made static at some magic moment of awareness and even though it changed massively to arrive at that pinpoint of cultural awareness by that one group, they now want to thing, whatever it is, to become completely unchanged forevermore by anyone else who encounters it, owned by a special people.

And I don't get that.

I do get caring a lot about disrespect and disdain of a tradition. BUt I don't get claiming to own it such that no one else can want to do it, honor it, spread it or wear it because they're doing it wrong. They're doing to it exactly what your ancestors did to it (we know that Homo Erectus did not say "namaste," for example, so at some point someone changed the thing that was used before. And Hindi is not a proto-language, it's a morphed and evolved thing like all the others.

So respect, yes. But I think most yoga places are thinking repectfully when they say "namaste" or even when they just say, "hey these Hindu exercises are really very good for the body (we don't believe in souls) (or we feed our souls elsewhere)." Disrespect would be trying to stamp it out.

Montessori schools come in a variety of flavors and adherences to the original, and they just try to carefully disclaim what level of purity they follow.


So yeah, as JayJay says, go ahead and make a "traditional yoga" studio to bring back the perfect. But the others using it aren't stealing from you because you still have everything you had before - which is a knowledge of the kind of yoga you were taught.

Goddammit, have you seen those Indian people wearing blue jeans, after all!? Appropriating American Culture!!!! And Bollywood!? Seriously!

This is where I am on the issue, too. I almost started a separate thread to ask exactly what is the definition of "cultural appropriate", how do we recognize it when it is happening, and why is it necessarily bad?

I can completely understand why various cultures object to disrespect, mocking, trivializing - things like 'black face' or 'sexy geisha'. I can even understand objections to cultural stereotypes being used as mascots.

But why is doing yoga bad?

 

[RavenSky]

I think cultural appropriation arguments of the kind this woman presents are not necessarily as philosophically wrong as much as they are factually wrong.

In my observations, cultural appropriation of this kind serves as an introduction to the more authentic tradition behind it. People don't typically wake up one day and think to themselves, "You know this entirely foreign tradition that plays no part in my everyday life, yeah, I'm going to look into that and practice it authentically." First they encounter the idea in its appropriated form. This peaks their interest, and then they choose to delve deeper into it. It doesn't happen in the reverse order. The appropriated form helps to spread the authentic form.

Again, in my observations, when it comes to Hinduism and Buddhism, the spread of these appropriated ideas is the result of Hindus and Buddhists from the authentic tradition modifying their practices for a Western audience. When they do so, they are typically careful to single out the essential from the non-essential. This is certainly not true of all appropriation, but I think it holds very much for oriental practices like Yoga and Zazen.

Excellent post, and I agree

 

[Metaphor]

That's how Metaphor presented her article,

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.

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'.

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.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

For that matter, just being English Speakers is one massive, constant unending cultural appropriation, isn't it? Every single word we speak was stolen from someone else and the meaning shifted to new glossy modern washed out definitions.

Every. Single. Word.

Again, I have great interest in preventing the extinction of most cultures (I'm okay with FLDS going extinct) and have respect for the existence of other traditions. I don't actually let Disney into my house, so I'm not a part of that. I agree with having respect for the fact of differeing cultures and I absolutely reject the idea of deliberately making cultures die like forcing people to learn a new language or taking children or destroying art.

But saying it's wrong to do yoga because you're not doing it right? I'm not down with that. The religionists try to say that about marriage for gays. Fuck that.

Cwene! Hwæt ðu leásspellung be?^*

Translation:
Harlot! What you false-talking about?

^*Yes you damn Anglo-Saxon speakers, it is not grammatically correct and there is probably a borrowed Viking word in there. SHUT UP!

As a speaker of modern English, I find the oppressive roots of your translation to be highly offensive... Hell, I can't even fake mock outrage about this.

Cultural appropriation people are as worth getting upset about as toddlers who have absconded with a box of cookies. It's annoying but not worth giving much thought to.

 

[Toni]

No, mass commercialisation does not remove the need for thought, but one of the things mass commercialisation can do is remove barriers to widespread uptake. I benefit from canned tuna, because I would never ever buy a tuna and bake it on my own time. Why do you object to this? Must I be forced to catch the tuna, gut the tuna, scale the tuna, and cook the tuna in order to fully appreciate the tuna?

You might be surprised at how different fresh tuna tastes compared with even the best quality canned tuna. It is impossible to tell by the taste that they are from the same animal or even closely related animals. You have to read the can and then trust that the commercial cannery is honest. They may not be. I like both but given a choice, I'll take fresh tuna. Every single time.

BTW, if you ever get a chance at a good piece of fresh tuna, don't bake it. Sear it over a grill. It will bear absolutely no resemblance to the canned stuff you have been eating.

It isn't necessary to fish for it yourself or to catch/clean it yourself, but the freshest caught is definitely superior to canned.

But commercialization certainly does seem to remove the need for thought. It certainly creates a disconnect between a product's origins and how it was grown/harvested/processed/transported/marketed.

I love shrimp. I live far, far away from any place where there are shrimp growing in the water. Unfortunately, shrimp are mostly harvested and processed by people who are virtually or literally enslaved. This is mostly invisible to consumers. Because of mass commercialization, which causes the demand for shrimp and also the demand for 'affordable' shrimp. I am now very choosy about where the shrimp I eat comes from--and frankly I must rely on packaging for accuracy and simply hope for the best. Most people pick by price. I understand that. I understand that I am not poor and can afford to purchase luxury items such as seafood while living in the Midwest and that I can afford to purchase shrimp that is labeled as being fair trade and sustainably harvested which costs more.

But without mass commercialization, I would have eaten shrimp only a few times in my life, when I was near a coast where shrimp is harvested.

So tell me, how is mass commercialisation of yoga damaging people? Do you think people would benefit from learning about the hocus pocus behind yoga? Why?

I always think people are benefited from learning. Why not learn something about the people, the traditions, the meaning of a practice that you are adopting? I feel it makes experiences richer and more meaningful. Why not learn something that helps you develop more understanding of a people or a culture or a tradition? Shouldn't a major focus of our lives be in learning to understand and appreciate one another more?

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.

First, you have no evidence she did not write the headline. Second, the headline is a sentiment perfectly in keeping with her expressed disdain for white people in the piece itself.

My evidence is a)common sense and b) a bit of personal knowledge from time spent writing headlines for other people's work.

Oh, and I actually read the article. I saw no disdain for white people.

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.

You mean, on a level where a lot of hocus pocus is added to the clearly beneficial physical exercise aspects of yoga. Contemplating fictions about chakras does not make an experience of yoga 'fuller', it makes it longer.

I have always enjoyed mythologies from cultures around the world. I find that hearing the stories that people tell to explain the world helps me understand the people themselves, and their perspective, even if the stories come from a culture no longer exist as it was when the myths were first written. It gives me some sense of insight into how people viewed the world, themselves, and their relationship to the world and powers or 'powers.'

The point of yoga is not to do something faster but to do something deliberately, carefully, paying attention to what is happening. Not to get through it as fast as possible, like a Big Mac.

Because she has no right to dictate what people do with their own bodies, that's why.

Fortunately, or maybe unfortunately for your point, that's not what she's doing.

And second, she's absolutely wrong anyway. Commericialised yoga takes the beneficial aspects of yoga (like physical exercise) and removes the hocus pocus, which is factually wrong and bound to be as boring as every other religion. She wants to make the product less desirable and claim that the product has been made more desirable.

What do you know about Hinduism?

If yoga were about only physical exercise, why wouldn't people simply choose to run or use an eliptical machine instead? It's not about going somewhere faster. It's about slowing down.

Because some people want to do a class of mild and beneficial physical exercise without being converted to Hindu at gunpoint by cultural appropriation mythicists.

You know, it's not like in Beetlejuice: if you call someone a cultural appropriation mythicist a certain number of times, they don't just conjure into a mythicist.

You are very dramatically misrepresenting the article and the author. Is it intentional or did you actually bother to read it? Or are you simply being dramatic because it suits your cause du jour?

The Latin part was not meant to be the focus. The focus was meant to be taking a hymn you don't understand, from a culture that was persecuted multiple times throughout history, and just enjoying the song.

Have you ever thought about why it is that you enjoy sacred music? BTW,the culture wasn't persecuted multiple times, but the religion and its practitioners, who belong to numerous cultures, have been at various times. Oh, and have participated in a fair amount of religious persecution themselves.

And yet, there is beautiful music that is uplifting and inspirational. For my part, I find it more inspiring when I understand what is being sung, why the piece was composed, what its purpose was. My hearing is not good and I am basically tone deaf and musically illiterate. My children and husband have had much more musical training than I have and I know that they appreciate things in any piece of music that I simply do not hear--although I am better at it for having listened to them talk about any piece of music. My appreciation is much fuller, deeper, more complete as I know something about it. Extends to rock and jazz, not just classical music. And I understand and hear more and get more out of the music that I like myself because of it.

I don't pretend to understand the cultural appropriation mythicists, because I've thought about the issues they raise and I think the issues they raise are incoherent and they act more entitled than the people they're accusing of appropriation.

That's interesting. I am genuinely not trying to be personally critical of you and not trying to be an asshole but I know this is kind of an asshole thing to say:

It seems to me that you simply don't like hearing that maybe you are wrong or haven't bothered to consider other people; that maybe other people feel a sense of loss as parts of their history and culture become obscured by the mass commercialization of their history and culture. They may be more accessible to YOU but may become so foreign to the people from that culture that they are unrecognizable, having been subsumed by mass commercialization/mainstream blandness/Disneyfication (not just Disney but the whole process.)

I think you are better than that.

 

[Metaphor]

You might be surprised at how different fresh tuna tastes compared with even the best quality canned tuna. It is impossible to tell by the taste that they are from the same animal or even closely related animals. You have to read the can and then trust that the commercial cannery is honest. They may not be. I like both but given a choice, I'll take fresh tuna. Every single time.

BTW, if you ever get a chance at a good piece of fresh tuna, don't bake it. Sear it over a grill. It will bear absolutely no resemblance to the canned stuff you have been eating.

It isn't necessary to fish for it yourself or to catch/clean it yourself, but the freshest caught is definitely superior to canned.

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

But commercialization certainly does seem to remove the need for thought. It certainly creates a disconnect between a product's origins and how it was grown/harvested/processed/transported/marketed.

I love shrimp. I live far, far away from any place where there are shrimp growing in the water. Unfortunately, shrimp are mostly harvested and processed by people who are virtually or literally enslaved. This is mostly invisible to consumers. Because of mass commercialization, which causes the demand for shrimp and also the demand for 'affordable' shrimp. I am now very choosy about where the shrimp I eat comes from--and frankly I must rely on packaging for accuracy and simply hope for the best. Most people pick by price. I understand that. I understand that I am not poor and can afford to purchase luxury items such as seafood while living in the Midwest and that I can afford to purchase shrimp that is labeled as being fair trade and sustainably harvested which costs more.

But without mass commercialization, I would have eaten shrimp only a few times in my life, when I was near a coast where shrimp is harvested.

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

I always think people are benefited from learning. Why not learn something about the people, the traditions, the meaning of a practice that you are adopting?

Because I don't want to? Why should I be forced to learn about something I have no interest in?

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. 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.

I feel it makes experiences richer and more meaningful. Why not learn something that helps you develop more understanding of a people or a culture or a tradition? Shouldn't a major focus of our lives be in learning to understand and appreciate one another more?

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

Oh, and I actually read the article. I saw no disdain for white people.

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

I have always enjoyed mythologies from cultures around the world. I find that hearing the stories that people tell to explain the world helps me understand the people themselves, and their perspective, even if the stories come from a culture no longer exist as it was when the myths were first written. It gives me some sense of insight into how people viewed the world, themselves, and their relationship to the world and powers or 'powers.'

The point of yoga is not to do something faster but to do something deliberately, carefully, paying attention to what is happening. Not to get through it as fast as possible, like a Big Mac.

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

What do you know about Hinduism?

It's a religion with hundreds of millions of adherents. Many Hindus are vegetarian, some merely avoid cow meat, and I'm sure some eat whatever the hell they like. It's a polytheist religion.

Is this a year 8 religious studies exam? It doesn't matter if I know nothing about it or I've got a PhD in its theology.

If yoga were about only physical exercise, why wouldn't people simply choose to run or use an eliptical machine instead? It's not about going somewhere faster. It's about slowing down.

Why don't you let people choose what they want to do? Why is that so hard to comprehend?

You are very dramatically misrepresenting the article and the author. Is it intentional or did you actually bother to read it? Or are you simply being dramatic because it suits your cause du jour?

I presented the entire text of the article without editing or excision of any kind.

Have you ever thought about why it is that you enjoy sacred music? BTW,the culture wasn't persecuted multiple times, but the religion and its practitioners, who belong to numerous cultures, have been at various times. Oh, and have participated in a fair amount of religious persecution themselves.

The point is I don't care! Catholics were persecuted and when they got power they did the persecuting. None of that is relevant to enjoying the harmonies in sacred music.

And I understand and hear more and get more out of the music that I like myself because of it.

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?

It seems to me that you simply don't like hearing that maybe you are wrong or haven't bothered to consider other people;

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.

that maybe other people feel a sense of loss as parts of their history and culture become obscured by the mass commercialization of their history and culture. They may be more accessible to YOU but may become so foreign to the people from that culture that they are unrecognizable, having been subsumed by mass commercialization/mainstream blandness/Disneyfication (not just Disney but the whole process.)

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

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.

 

[JonA]

Everyone in this thread who has unironically used the term 'authentic' is wrong.

They may go home.

They have lost the debate.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

"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.

 

[Metaphor]

"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!

 

[Rhea]

Toni, I really thoroughly disagree with your premise. I realize I'm not going to have the words or any argument persuasive enough to make you change your mind on the issue - I know too many people who are truly convinced that a thing they call cultural appropriation harms our society irrevocably. However, I do hope to explain things sufficiently the help you see another take on this.

I understand the idea of rich deep historical understanding of things. I don't entirely agree that it is a requirement for appreciation, though. I don't agree that one needs to understand catholic history and theology to fully and deeply appreciate a musical piece that was written for worship. Indeed, I would introduce the possibility that a deep theological investment actually harms the musical appreciation and for evidence I submit cheesy christian bands where the presence of theological connection masks the absolute fact that the music is TERRIBLE. One is better off with a music appreciation course than a divinity course in evaluation religious music.

And honestly I have a certain reaction to the christians who tell me that I can't understand the bible because I don't read it "with the spirit" and therefore they should tell me what it says and means (and then try to make me live by it)

I understand and agree with the generally undesirable effect of mass marketing. There are many things that I think are less rich and deep and worthwhile due to the mass marketing strictures of appealing to a huge variety of tastes and the consequent removal of all sharp edges. However, the existence of mass marketing of burgers has absolutely zero effect - ZERO - on the flavors created by me in the burgers I make at home. The existence of mass marketed clothing has zero effect on the designs I create at home, or indeed shop for at boutique. Zero.

And honestly I have a certain reaction to the purists who say pizza must be made a la Palermo or it is a theft of culture and harmful.

I do not understand why a person's cultural investment in a thing, whether it be religion or art or music or food or in this case exercise, should result in chastising others for choosing to do it at a different level of intensity or depth or spirituality.

The idea that yoga "must be slow like its religious intent and that's why people don't go to the basketball court" completely ignores the physiological reasons why slow exercise (see also, Tai Ji) has particular health benefits that fast exercise does not. Yoga can be just as good for the body without the mysticism. Baseball can be just as fun without the superstition (it's rampant), the chewing tobacco, the cheering crowd or the dirt running track.

I hope you can see that not everyone requires an air of "spirituality" and religion to enjoy, really fully enjoy, a method of exercise.

And I hope you can see that in requiring authenticity for yoga to be taught, it would yank away the possibility of any yoga from millions of people, completely violating your stated goal of bringing understanding to the world. Yoga would be gone.

There are two yoga studios in my town. One of them is exercise-based. The other is spirituality based. The owner of the second completely disdains the owner of the first. And yet, the spiritual one would not reach as many people because some of us are not into hocus pocus. So is the better solution "no yoga for you"? I disagree with you and with this author that taking yoga completely out of reach is in any way better for the Hindu culture.

As I mentioned, I take Tae Kwon Do. I won't say I study it, because I'm there for exercise reasons not inner peace. I'm good on the inner peace, thanks. However, the grand master for our collection of schools very much lives the ancestor-worship path-of-lifestyle type study and teaching. He understands that not all of us are going to be masters one day. So he teaches us bits and pieces and meets us where we are. Which is a better understand than we had before joining. So that's positive.

So again, I really completely disagree that one must go deep in order to go at all. I think cultures die faster that way, actually.

And again - blue jeans and Bollywood in India... the Indians don't seem to have any compunctions against cultural appropriation. Like, at all.
Goose meet gander, yah? We all seem to agree.