White people need to stop saying 'namaste'.

[Metaphor]

You do do it to me. You told me, point blank, that I think whatever the 'white media' tells me to think.

Yes. I did it once, to illustrate the point of how arrogant and unpleasant it is.

If you don't like it, maybe stop treating other posters in a way you find so objectionable when someone does it to you.

P. S. White people in Australia are the colonizers.

"White people" did not colonise anybody. Some people in the past colonised other countries, and 'colonising' was not restricted to "white people" doing the colonising.

Not that it matters (since nobody's responsible for the sins of their ancestors), but my parents were not born in Australia and my parents ancestors did not colonise India or anywhere else.

But I know that you personally cannot see past someone's skin colour, you personally cannot help but categorise people, you personally cannot fathom that opportunities and ideas should not be restricted by race.

I'm sorry for you but I do not share your affliction.

 

[Toni]

Yes. I did it once, to illustrate the point of how arrogant and unpleasant it is.

If you don't like it, maybe stop treating other posters in a way you find so objectionable when someone does it to you.

P. S. White people in Australia are the colonizers.

"White people" did not colonise anybody. Some people in the past colonised other countries, and 'colonising' was not restricted to "white people" doing the colonising.

Not that it matters (since nobody's responsible for the sins of their ancestors), but my parents were not born in Australia and my parents ancestors did not colonise India or anywhere else.

But I know that you personally cannot see past someone's skin colour, you personally cannot help but categorise people, you personally cannot fathom that opportunities and ideas should not be restricted by race.

I'm sorry for you but I do not share your affliction.

Who colonized India?

Who colonized Australia?

I believe it was exactly the same nation.

I also see that you are sticking to your insulting, arrogant behavior and telling me what I think and what I can and cannot do.

I feel very sorry for you.

 

[Metaphor]

Who colonized India?

Britain

Who colonized Australia?

Britain

I believe it was exactly the same nation.

That's correct. Australia was colonised and India was colonised. Australia did not colonise anybody. Australia was the victim of colonisation.

 

[Toni]

Britain

Who colonized Australia?

Britain

I believe it was exactly the same nation.

That's correct. Australia was colonised and India was colonised. Australia did not colonise anybody. Australia was the victim of colonisation.

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.

 

[JonA]

Britain



Britain

I believe it was exactly the same nation.

That's correct. Australia was colonised and India was colonised. Australia did not colonise anybody. Australia was the victim of colonisation.

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.

Wow.

 

[Rhea]

They believe [...] if gay people can get married, then why can't Uncle Harold marry his dog? Because that's the same thing.

This is not the same thing as ridiculing gay people. It may be ridiculous but it is not the same thing as ridiculing gay people.
.

Is that because saying gay people are the same as dogs is not ridicule? Or some other reason that I can't begin to fathom?

 

[Metaphor]

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

Yep. So we're still colonised, and India isn't.

Those white ladies in the yoga class were probably of British descent.

So, if I'm not of British descent (I'm not), do I count as a different kind of non-brown person, or do I share the guilt of the non-brown people in Australia who are probably descended from prisoners?

And who is their queen?

The Sovereign in Australia is the Queen of Australia. (She moonlights as the Queen of a lot of other countries too, but we know where her real loyalties lie).

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

So we have someone from a former colony who has the cajones to come to a still-colonised country and tell the victims of that colonisation that they are oppressing and 'othering' her by doing 'white people' yoga?

Instead of helping Australia shake off its colonial oppressors (speed the day), she wants to blame the victims?

But back to the question at hand: my parents are not British, and none of their ancestors were British.

Am I still a coloniser? Is non-brown skin and Australian citizenship enough?

- - - Updated - - -

They believe [...] if gay people can get married, then why can't Uncle Harold marry his dog? Because that's the same thing.

This is not the same thing as ridiculing gay people. It may be ridiculous but it is not the same thing as ridiculing gay people.
.

Is that because saying gay people are the same as dogs is not ridicule? Or some other reason that I can't being to fathom?

You take a dump in the neighbour's yard and bark at strangers one time and all of a sudden you're called a dog.

 

[Rhea]

You take a dump in the neighbour's yard and bark at strangers one time and all of a sudden you're called a dog. you can't marry Uncle Harry

FIFY

 

[laughing dog]

You've gone off the deep end, Toni. "Reading the media" does not mean "white media" "dictates" what I think. Do you believe and agree with everything you read? How unfortunate for you. I'd try a class on critical thinking and how not be a sheep.

Any critical thinker would know the difference between "mass media" (which is in the post you quote) and "white media" (which is not). Perhaps you need to follow your own advice.

 

[Metaphor]

You've gone off the deep end, Toni. "Reading the media" does not mean "white media" "dictates" what I think. Do you believe and agree with everything you read? How unfortunate for you. I'd try a class on critical thinking and how not be a sheep.

Any critical thinker would know the difference between "mass media" (which is in the post you quote) and "white media" (which is not). Perhaps you need to follow your own advice.

If Toni wrote 'mass media' and I misremembered it as 'white media', that's probably because the article I was quoting mentioned whiteness a number of times and I simply got the terms mixed up.

In any case, if Toni think the mass media tells her what to think and like, she is allowed to make that conclusion for herself but not for me.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

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.

 

[Metaphor]

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.

Of course it has an effect. Everything affects everything else. That isn't the point.

Toni made an accusation that I like what I'm 'told' to like. She simply can't imagine I've thought about situations and sought out information and talked to people and bounced ideas around.

The flip side, of course, is that she herself is above being 'told' what to like. No, Toni is a critical thinker, Toni doesn't allow the 'media' to dictate anything to her.

 

[Juma]

"White people" did not colonise anybody. Some people in the past colonised other countries, and 'colonising' was not restricted to "white people" doing the colonising.

Not that it matters (since nobody's responsible for the sins of their ancestors), but my parents were not born in Australia and my parents ancestors did not colonise India or anywhere else.

But I know that you personally cannot see past someone's skin colour, you personally cannot help but categorise people, you personally cannot fathom that opportunities and ideas should not be restricted by race.

I'm sorry for you but I do not share your affliction.

Who colonized India?

Who colonized Australia?

I believe it was exactly the same nation.

I also see that you are sticking to your insulting, arrogant behavior and telling me what I think and what I can and cannot do.

I feel very sorry for you.

You realize that the ones put there didnt reslay do it by there own will?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

So, if I'm not of British descent (I'm not), do I count as a different kind of non-brown person, or do I share the guilt of the non-brown people in Australia who are probably descended from prisoners?

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?

 

[Arctish]

So, if I'm not of British descent (I'm not), do I count as a different kind of non-brown person, or do I share the guilt of the non-brown people in Australia who are probably descended from prisoners?

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.

 

[Metaphor]

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.

Australia was colonised by British authorities. If there is a 'dominant culture' in Australia is not of the colonists but of the descendants of the prisoners that came here against their will. (That's how prisons work: there are more prisoners than screws, and the prisoners didn't ask to be there).

So the woman in the OP bristles at 'white people' doing yoga. She doesn't care what kind of 'white people' they are. To her, the descendants of the colonists, the descendants of the prisoners brought here against their will, and the descendants of white people from outside Britain (like me) are all the same.

But the fact that white British people colonised Australia is entirely irrelevant to any moral argument. The white people in Australia right now did not colonise India, and indeed the majority of them are probably descendants of the victims of the British government in the 18th century, not descendants of the colonisers.

I'm familiar with the concept of original sin. It's the stain on everyone's soul (except Mary, mother of Jesus) that we have because Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit in a Middle Eastern garden. You have it by virtue of your birth, and if you die unbaptised, you go to limbo because the Christian god is a fucking dick.

I reject the concept of original sin, because it's religious nonsense.

I'm sad that the atheists on this board can't reject the secular equivalent.

 

[Arctish]

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.

Australia was colonised by British authorities. If there is a 'dominant culture' in Australia is not of the colonists but of the descendants of the prisoners that came here against their will. (That's how prisons work: there are more prisoners than screws, and the prisoners didn't ask to be there).

So the woman in the OP bristles at 'white people' doing yoga.

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'.

She is saying that yoga in Australia has been run through the cultural mill and the results have been calibrated to appeal to members of the dominant culture. It's a version of yoga devoid of all but the most superficial Hindu elements, like saying namaste at the end of class, and to her, an actual Hindu, it's off-putting, alienating, and weird.

You ask "why should I care?" and that's a valid question. But "why shouldn't she care?" is also a valid question.

Why shouldn't she care?

 

[bigfield]

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?

 

[Metaphor]

She doesn't bristle at white people doing yoga.

Her many uses of the word 'white' and 'appropriative' seem to indicate she does indeed bristle.

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'.

She is saying that yoga in Australia has been run through the cultural mill and the results have been calibrated to appeal to members of the dominant culture. It's a version of yoga devoid of all but the most superficial Hindu elements, like saying namaste at the end of class, and to her, an actual Hindu, it's off-putting, alienating, and weird.

You ask "why should I care?" and that's a valid question. But "why shouldn't she care?" is also a valid question.

Why shouldn't she care?

She's a religionist. I get it. My family is full of them.

But as a religionist, she appears to be saying "you can't take the elements of my religion that you like and create your own version", which is like asking the 1,000 sects of Christianity to kiss and make up.

She should not care because these white people are not doing anything to her. They did not invite her to the yoga class. They did not claim an 'authentic yoga experience'. They did not storm her home and prevent her doing whatever she feels is 'authentic'.

I also doubt this woman's narrative, frankly speaking. This woman came to Australia 25 years ago, claims to be an adherent of the 'real deal', and this is the first time she went to a commercial yoga class in Australia? Why did she go at all if she's such an expert in the craft? Did this woman really expect non-Hindus to be practising whatever she considers an 'authentic' version of yoga?

But, whether she does care that non-brown people have copied ideas she herself has copied, and whether she finds it unsettling that some of these people are descendants of prisoners that were forced into British colonies, does not mean her hurt feelings should give white people pause about what they are doing.

She calls for white people to 'consider' what their 'appropriation' is doing to her feelings.

The correct response is to evaluate her hurt feelings as racist, self-entitled nonsense, and continue to practise what brings their own bodies benefit and does no harm to anyone else.

 

[Metaphor]

She doesn't bristle at white people doing yoga.

Her many uses of the word 'white' and 'appropriative' seem to indicate she does indeed bristle.

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'.

She is saying that yoga in Australia has been run through the cultural mill and the results have been calibrated to appeal to members of the dominant culture. It's a version of yoga devoid of all but the most superficial Hindu elements, like saying namaste at the end of class, and to her, an actual Hindu, it's off-putting, alienating, and weird.

You ask "why should I care?" and that's a valid question. But "why shouldn't she care?" is also a valid question.

Why shouldn't she care?

She's a religionist. I get it. My family is full of them.

But as a religionist, she appears to be saying "you can't take the elements of my religion that you like and create your own version", which is like asking the 1,000 sects of Christianity to kiss and make up.

She should not care because these white people are not doing anything to her. They did not invite her to the yoga class. They did not claim an 'authentic yoga experience'. They did not storm her home and prevent her doing whatever she feels is 'authentic'.

I also doubt this woman's narrative, frankly speaking. This woman came to Australia 25 years ago, claims to be an adherent of the 'real deal', and this is the first time she went to a commercial yoga class in Australia? Why did she go at all if she's such an expert in the craft? Did this woman really expect non-Hindus to be practising whatever she considers an 'authentic' version of yoga?

But, whether she does care that non-brown people have copied ideas she herself has copied, and whether she finds it unsettling that some of these people are descendants of prisoners that were forced into British colonies, does not mean her hurt feelings should give white people pause about what they are doing.

She calls for white people to 'consider' what their 'appropriation' is doing to her feelings.

The correct response is to evaluate her hurt feelings as racist, self-entitled nonsense, and continue to practise what brings their own bodies benefit and does no harm to anyone else.