White people need to stop saying 'namaste'.

[Toni]

And she's not allowed to give any context to her feelings? In terms of which you and Metaphor approve?

What an odd position for those who insist that people should be allowed to do as they wish, express themselves as they wish.

It isn't "context". It is judgement.

Isn't she allowed to express how she perceives this? Doesn't she have a perspective that might be informative?

And she's allowed to make that judgement. And to express her opinion it. Certainly, Metaphor and others have not been the least bit shy about expressing their condemnation of her for expressing her opinion.

But that doesn't make her opinion valid, factually correct or anything more than an opinion that does actually sound rather self-entitled... exactly what she is accusing "white women" of.

I find her opinion to be better informed than many expressed in this thread. And far less judgmental.

I think she makes a few decent points.

I do, as well.

But part of that "treating [her culture] as a mystic and ancient tradition and... magical" is pretending that it is off limits to acquisition and adaptation - which is what she is doing.

She's objecting to it being acquired and adapted by people who do not care at all about the authentic--and who are presenting it as authentic. In the case of yoga, this was done forcefully by the British.

The example of a Chinese restaurant has been brought up previously - the fact that the food is typically americanized and has little resemblance to "authentic" Chinese food - is this "cultural appropriation". The other part that factors in, imho, is that every Chinese restaurant I have ever been into has been owned by a Chinese family. Maybe that's a fluke. I haven't done a study. But if my personal experience is an accurate indication, then it is Chinese people - not white people - who are profiting.

You are fortunate. While there are some Asians who work at the local Chinese restaurants, they are not Chinese.

 

[Rhea]

But yoga in the Hindu tradition IS in fact, a religious practice. What is done now, at least in the US and from what I can tell, in Australia, is more along the lines of something else cobbled together by the British who wished to expunge the inconvenient Hindu aspects. That doesn't make it more pure. It does make it something else entirely. I can see how that would be discomfiting.

And marriage in America, to many, _is_ a religious experience and it's why they object to gays appropriating it. That doesn't make it more pure. It does make it something else entirely. You can see why it would be discomfiting.

 

[laughing dog]

To the OP - with all the real issues in the world, this in our your radar? Really?

 

[Rhea]

It isn't "context". It is judgement.

Isn't she allowed to express how she perceives this? Doesn't she have a perspective that might be informative?

And she's allowed to make that judgement. And to express her opinion it. Certainly, Metaphor and others have not been the least bit shy about expressing their condemnation of her for expressing her opinion.

Do you mean, “isn’t she allowed to look at the actions of a woman in a business and then go on the internet and publish a wide condemnation of that behavior without anyone condemning her for condemning it?”


Ummm, no?
None of us are allowed that.
Not even Trump.

 

[Toni]

And she's not allowed to give any context to her feelings? In terms of which you and Metaphor approve?

What an odd position for those who insist that people should be allowed to do as they wish, express themselves as they wish.

I expect... I don't know this, but I expect... if the article had been a compare and contrast with a "did you know" background section, it would have had only positive and supportive comments.

So minorities must always write and speak in a way that makes white people comfortable?

The "eh, wot?" comments seem to stem entirely and exclusively from the comments that claim, "this should not have happened to me."

I'm confused. I don't see anything remotely ressembling 'this shouldn't have happened to me.'

But "cultural appropriation" is a concept that has some giant holes - like religion does. And this woman's article is a stark example of that. It's got some holes that we've discussed here. Her particular complaints that she was surprised by this, and that it damages the people of the country she left 20 years prior.

Well, that's not an accurate representation of what she wrote:

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.

Presumably, she's writing about other Hindus who have immigrated away from India to western nations.

And of all examples to claim, "I can't stand it that my people are known for this cheesy imitation of a beautiful thing!" she picks yoga? Bollywood doesn't bother her? She wants to fix yoga?

She's not writing about Bollywood. She's writing about yoga as practiced in Australia by white people.

And then there's the fact that so many of us have been hit with this club already. About whether we're "allowed" to have christmas trees. Whether it's inauthentic and therefore wrong to say "happy holidays," whether we can have our fucking birth control (pun intended), Whether it's inauthentic to work at a catholic school and get pregnant and keep your job, whether our daughters can properly go to prom in a dress that does not cover her thighs because she's doing it wrong if she tries and it's jarring and disconcerting to the staff.

I have every support to shut down the mockery or derision of cultural behaviors or the outright crushing of them (speak English only!!). But I think she is just wrong to claim that copying the exercises and peaceful words of a cultural activity is in any way harming Hindus.

But she's not doing that. She's decrying exercises and 'peaceful words'--it's only one, actually, and used incorrectly-- that pretend to be part of a cultural activity--yoga-- as making 'people of South Asian and Hindu identity feel exoticised and misunderstood.' In other words, reducing them and their religious and cultural practices to bad stereotypes.

 

[RavenSky]

It isn't "context". It is judgement.

Isn't she allowed to express how she perceives this? Doesn't she have a perspective that might be informative?

And she's allowed to make that judgement. And to express her opinion it...

I very clearly and specifically stated that she is "allowed" to express her opinion. My point was and remains your characterization of her article as "context". It wasn't just "context". It was mostly her judgement and opinion. Are you acknowledging that now?

 

[Toni]

But yoga in the Hindu tradition IS in fact, a religious practice. What is done now, at least in the US and from what I can tell, in Australia, is more along the lines of something else cobbled together by the British who wished to expunge the inconvenient Hindu aspects. That doesn't make it more pure. It does make it something else entirely. I can see how that would be discomfiting.

And marriage in America, to many, _is_ a religious experience and it's why they object to gays appropriating it. That doesn't make it more pure. It does make it something else entirely. You can see why it would be discomfiting.

I do understand it. I don't ridicule my relatives who object to gay marriage. I don't agree with them. I support equality marriage rights. I do not interpret secular law the same way my Baptist relatives do nor do I interpret the Bible the same way they do. I manage not to ridicule them. I have carefully not pointed out that one cousin's son is gay as the parents seem oblivious to the fact. I even manage to be facebook friends with a couple, although we carefully ignore certain posts made on each other's walls. A couple: I just cannot. I cannot. I drew the line at images of the Confederate flag imposed over the image of the White House.

I have a lot of friends and family from many, many different religious beliefs and traditions and backgrounds. I find it is quite possible to respect them, even where I do not share the belief.

- - - Updated - - -

Isn't she allowed to express how she perceives this? Doesn't she have a perspective that might be informative?

And she's allowed to make that judgement. And to express her opinion it...

I very clearly and specifically stated that she is "allowed" to express her opinion. My point was and remains your characterization of her article as "context". It wasn't just "context". It was mostly her judgement and opinion. Are you acknowledging that now?

Of course it is her opinion, based upon context. Isn't she allowed that? Why isn't that ok?

 

[RavenSky]

But part of that "treating [her culture] as a mystic and ancient tradition and... magical" is pretending that it is off limits to acquisition and adaptation - which is what she is doing.

She's objecting to it being acquired and adapted by people who do not care at all about the authentic--and who are presenting it as authentic. In the case of yoga, this was done forcefully by the British.

I suspect that the "white women" yoga teachers she is objecting to are simply teaching a westernized yoga exercise class - and not trying to represent it as anything other than that.

As someone noted above, there shouldn't have to be a history, culture and religion class at the beginning of every human endeavor.

I'm also pretty sure that the Australian "white women" had nothing to do with British Colonial rule of India, nor does current-day Britain own the yoga studios in Australia

 

[Toni]

Isn't she allowed to express how she perceives this? Doesn't she have a perspective that might be informative?

And she's allowed to make that judgement. And to express her opinion it. Certainly, Metaphor and others have not been the least bit shy about expressing their condemnation of her for expressing her opinion.

Do you mean, “isn’t she allowed to look at the actions of a woman in a business and then go on the internet and publish a wide condemnation of that behavior without anyone condemning her for condemning it?”


Ummm, no?
None of us are allowed that.
Not even Trump.

Wow.

 

[Rhea]

I expect... I don't know this, but I expect... if the article had been a compare and contrast with a "did you know" background section, it would have had only positive and supportive comments.

So minorities must always write and speak in a way that makes white people comfortable?

What? No.?.

I don't care that she made people uncomfortable.
I'm only saying that people are not reacting negatively to her desire to include authentic yoga history, they are reacting negatively to her desire to have this white woman stop and think about whether she's qualified to teach yoga or say the word namaste before she makes the Hindu woman uncomfortable again.

The "eh, wot?" comments seem to stem entirely and exclusively from the comments that claim, "this should not have happened to me."

I'm confused. I don't see anything remotely ressembling 'this shouldn't have happened to me.'

I know. Other people do see it. You don't. So we're discussing that. I've quoted extensively where I see it. You interpret the passages differently.

Well, that's not an accurate representation of what she wrote:

I understand that you think that. I do think her words come off that way.

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.

Presumably, she's writing about other Hindus who have immigrated away from India to western nations.

And she would probably go catatonic if she heard me say, "Jesus H titty-fucking Christ on a crutch!" when I leave town meeting at night after spending two hours with Tea Partiers.

She's decrying exercises and 'peaceful words'--it's only one, actually, and used incorrectly-- that pretend to be part of a cultural activity--yoga-- as making 'people of South Asian and Hindu identity feel exoticised and misunderstood.' In other words, reducing them and their religious and cultural practices to bad stereotypes.

Jesus H titty-fucking Christ on a crutch. Reducing religious practices to bad stereotypes. What a horrible thing to do.

 

[RavenSky]

Isn't she allowed to express how she perceives this? Doesn't she have a perspective that might be informative?

And she's allowed to make that judgement. And to express her opinion it...

I very clearly and specifically stated that she is "allowed" to express her opinion. My point was and remains your characterization of her article as "context". It wasn't just "context". It was mostly her judgement and opinion. Are you acknowledging that now?

Of course it is her opinion, based upon context. Isn't she allowed that? Why isn't that ok?

OK Toni, I like you and don't want to fight with you, so when you decide to address MY posts with me, rather than lashing out because of what you think Metaphor is saying, let me know.

Either that or point out where I have said anything remotely indicating that the OP author is not "allowed" to express her opinion or that it isn't "ok" to do so.

 

[Rhea]

And marriage in America, to many, _is_ a religious experience and it's why they object to gays appropriating it. That doesn't make it more pure. It does make it something else entirely. You can see why it would be discomfiting.

I do understand it. I don't ridicule my relatives who object to gay marriage.

It's them doing the ridiculing. Of gay people. Who want to "appropriate their culture."

I don't agree with them. I support equality marriage rights. I do not interpret secular law the same way my Baptist relatives do nor do I interpret the Bible the same way they do. I manage not to ridicule them.

Sorry. Saying "namaste" without complete authenticity is NOT ridicule.

Isn't she allowed to express how she perceives this? Doesn't she have a perspective that might be informative?

And she's allowed to make that judgement. And to express her opinion it...

I very clearly and specifically stated that she is "allowed" to express her opinion. My point was and remains your characterization of her article as "context". It wasn't just "context". It was mostly her judgement and opinion. Are you acknowledging that now?

Of course it is her opinion, based upon context. Isn't she allowed that? Why isn't that ok?

I don't understand what you mean by "allowed" in this sentence. Who was trying to disallow her from saying anything?

- - - Updated - - -

Do you mean, “isn’t she allowed to look at the actions of a woman in a business and then go on the internet and publish a wide condemnation of that behavior without anyone condemning her for condemning it?”


Ummm, no?
None of us are allowed that.
Not even Trump.

Wow.

Really? Why?

I thought we all agreed that people should be able to say what they want and other people are allowed to reply to it.
None of us have immunity from replies.
I don't understand your comment.

 

[Toni]

I do understand it. I don't ridicule my relatives who object to gay marriage.

It's them doing the ridiculing. Of gay people. Who want to "appropriate their culture."

I don't agree with them. I support equality marriage rights. I do not interpret secular law the same way my Baptist relatives do nor do I interpret the Bible the same way they do. I manage not to ridicule them.

Sorry. Saying "namaste" without complete authenticity is NOT ridicule.

Isn't she allowed to express how she perceives this? Doesn't she have a perspective that might be informative?

And she's allowed to make that judgement. And to express her opinion it...

I very clearly and specifically stated that she is "allowed" to express her opinion. My point was and remains your characterization of her article as "context". It wasn't just "context". It was mostly her judgement and opinion. Are you acknowledging that now?

Of course it is her opinion, based upon context. Isn't she allowed that? Why isn't that ok?

I don't understand what you mean by "allowed" in this sentence. Who was trying to disallow her from saying anything?

- - - Updated - - -

Do you mean, “isn’t she allowed to look at the actions of a woman in a business and then go on the internet and publish a wide condemnation of that behavior without anyone condemning her for condemning it?”


Ummm, no?
None of us are allowed that.
Not even Trump.

Wow.

Really? Why?

I thought we all agreed that people should be able to say what they want and other people are allowed to reply to it.
None of us have immunity from replies.
I don't understand your comment.

Given that the piece was posted on the Internet with a click bait title, I assume replies and comments were expected. With or without you saying they were allowed.

 

[Rhea]

Isn't she allowed to express how she perceives this? Doesn't she have a perspective that might be informative?

And she's allowed to make that judgement. And to express her opinion it. Certainly, Metaphor and others have not been the least bit shy about expressing their condemnation of her for expressing her opinion.

Do you mean, “isn’t she allowed to look at the actions of a woman in a business and then go on the internet and publish a wide condemnation of that behavior without anyone condemning her for condemning it?”


Ummm, no?
None of us are allowed that.
Not even Trump.

Toni, I'm very perplexed by your comments today.
I'm going to just stop participating for now because I'm just plumb flummoxed on how we got to you asking us why we aren't "allowing" her opinions.
I don't see any remark anywhere that even hints narrowly at anyone thinking she was not 'allowed" to do anything (aside from this ironic reply of mine about not being allowed to post things on the internet immune from replies).

So I'm going to just brush the snow off my car and get my glasses checked. I'll see what sits here when I get back.

 

[J842P]

So, what's your time limit on feeling homesick?

What? Are you just asking random questions now? The point is that it is unbelievable that a person who has been in Australia for almost 30 years would expect to find authentic yogic practices in an Australian yoga studio. I am questioning your reading comprehension, not someone's capacity to feel homesick after some period of time, which I can't parse as anything other than a total non-sequitur.

 

[Metaphor]

Yeah, you did 'decry' the change. I remember that thread. You said it would destroy the essence of Hasty Pudding.

Oy vey. "Hasty Pudding" is a real artistic troupe full of real people who get to decide what they are going to do with the fruits of their labours. The essence of Hasty Pudding is all-male burlesque and letting women into the performance space destroys the essence.

I think all-male drag is a valuable product and there's no good reason to get rid of it. If Hasty Pudding wants to do that, though, that's their call.

But Hasty Pudding certainly would have no right at all to tell other artistic troupes "you're not allowed to do drag on stage, and this version of drag where you allow women to play men's roles is especially egregious and it offends me".

Just as the author of this article feels that the essence of yoga has been dramatically altered into the westernized version she witnessed. She found it disconcerting and explained why.

This would be like Hasty Pudding writing an article about how alienating and disappointing and appropriative it is for another artistic troupe to put on mixed-gender drag shows, how 'real' drag is always men playing women, and this other product is fake, fake, fake.

If Hasty Pudding did that, they'd be whiny, entitled, asshole brats. Like this woman.

You called her crazy and entitled.

I think she has something close to a mental illness if she feels marginalised by white people doing 'inauthentic' yoga.

You've never even been to a Hasty Pudding production. You've never set foot on Harvard Campus or in the US.

Wow.

Yes and I've just told you the analogous situation.

When Hasty Pudding writes an opinion piece about how marginalised it makes them feel when an artistic troupe called 'Speedy Custard' puts on a mixed-gender drag show then it'll be analogous. When Hasty Pudding starts ranting and raving about how drag is an all male tradition and the mixed gender drag this other group is doing is a grotesque parody that 'erases' their identity, then it'll be analogous.

Hasty Pudding does not own the concept of drag: they own their own troupe. There's no 'authentic' version of drag and it wouldn't matter anyway, people are entitled to perform however they want.

 

[Metaphor]

To the OP - with all the real issues in the world, this in our your radar? Really?

We've been through this, laughing dog. I don't go into threads you've started and call your concerns and priorities ridiculous.

 

[laughing dog]

To the OP - with all the real issues in the world, this in our your radar? Really?

We've been through this, laughing dog. I don't go into threads you've started and call your concerns and priorities ridiculous.

If you don't want people to comment on your concerns and priorities, then don't post them. Otherwise, that will happen. And when the concerns are ridiculous, people will tend to point that out.

 

[Toni]

Oy vey. "Hasty Pudding" is a real artistic troupe full of real people who get to decide what they are going to do with the fruits of their labours. The essence of Hasty Pudding is all-male burlesque and letting women into the performance space destroys the essence.

And the author feels the anglozized version of yoga has destroyed the essence of the practice.

I think all-male drag is a valuable product and there's no good reason to get rid of it. If Hasty Pudding wants to do that, though, that's their call.

She finds value in yoga as practiced by Hindus, who did not decide to get rid of it. India was colonized by a people who decided to attempt to wipe out the practice and who then, later, brought back their own version, stripped of much or all of the cultural meaning.

But Hasty Pudding certainly would have no right at all to tell other artistic troupes "you're not allowed to do drag on stage, and this version of drag where you allow women to play men's roles is especially egregious and it offends me".

But they would have a point if some other troupe called itself Hasty Pudding. Or claimed to put on productions in the tradition of Hasty Pudding while mounting some other kind of performance altogether.

This would be like Hasty Pudding writing an article about how alienating and disappointing and appropriative it is for another artistic troupe to put on mixed-gender drag shows, how 'real' drag is always men playing women, and this other product is fake, fake, fake.

If Hasty Pudding did that, they'd be whiny, entitled, asshole brats. Like this woman.

Hasty Pudding is not a religious or major cultural feature. It's an extra curricular activity. For an extremely privileged group of white men who are not marginalized in society by any means. So, analogy fails again.

I've yet to see you call a man a whiny, entitled asshole brat, although there are certainly many of them. So, pardon me if I don't take you at your word.

You called her crazy and entitled.

I think she has something close to a mental illness if she feels marginalised by white people doing 'inauthentic' yoga.

Where did you study psychology?

You've never even been to a Hasty Pudding production. You've never set foot on Harvard Campus or in the US.

Wow.

Yes and I've just told you the analogous situation.

Yeah. It's not analogous. You don't do analogies well.

- - - Updated - - -

So, what's your time limit on feeling homesick?

What? Are you just asking random questions now? The point is that it is unbelievable that a person who has been in Australia for almost 30 years would expect to find authentic yogic practices in an Australian yoga studio. I am questioning your reading comprehension, not someone's capacity to feel homesick after some period of time, which I can't parse as anything other than a total non-sequitur.

Because you seemed to be questioning her capacity to feel homesick.

I don't recall her mentioning when this incident took place. I don't know if it took place when she was newly immigrated--or last week.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

(1)

I think all-male drag is a valuable product and there's no good reason to get rid of it.

(2)

But Hasty Pudding certainly would have no right at all to tell other artistic troupes "you're not allowed to do drag on stage, and this version of drag where you allow women to play men's roles is especially egregious and it offends me".

Note the word "allow" in (2).

I think that people can word sentiment like Metaphor has expressed in (1) in such a way that it will be misinterpreted by others (especially those with ideological agendas or underpinnings) to make it sound the opposite to (2).

So, for example, if someone writes or says "White people need to stop saying 'namaste' " it is not in and of itself a statement that "White people should not be allowed to say 'namaste',"

At a minimum it is inclusive of the sentiment expressed by Metaphor in (1). Whether the speaker or author means anything more than that, you'd have to look at the additional context or ask them. Based on the entire article written, it would appear there is no legal or political recommendation to force people or "disallow" them.

Instead there is a case made. Whether you agree with the author or not--and I don't completely agree with absolutely everything myself--it's about sharing a perspective first and trying to persuade the reader to employ empathy to not be insensitive second. It's a flawed personal and persuasive essay as flawed as normal people tend to be when you listen to them talk about politics or religion or feelings. It's not extremist.

There are bigger issues in the world of Hinduism than invalidating this person's feelings, like discrimination in Australia against Indians, like the caste system in India, patriarchy in India, arranged marriages, the conflict between Muslims and Hindus, etc.

- - - Updated - - -

To the OP - with all the real issues in the world, this in our your radar? Really?

We've been through this, laughing dog. I don't go into threads you've started and call your concerns and priorities ridiculous.

Maybe he doesn't make threads that deserve it, but if you want to go after "mythicists" and more concerning issues, please see above.