I know it can be tempting to make fun of people who abuse the (sex | cis | hetero | race | class)-ist terminology, but I do agree there is something to be said of the topic your facebook friend is complaining about here. Let me share you a story. In undergrad, I lived in a massively shared housing organization. In Berkeley. It was one of the hippiest of the hippie strongholds. I was surrounded by naked yoga on the roof, group meditation sessions, and friends who spent their weekends at the local Thai Buddhist temple. Mostly harmless stuff, as long as you didn't mind the bare flesh. A lot of college students exploring themselves and finding who they wanted to be. But once a year, we had a celebration. A party, meant as a spiritual experience, where members were led from room to room, taking substances and seeing "life" as told from a script of settings. From birth, to your first job, to your first rave, to your parents catching you with drugs, to death. I helped with the retirement home, where I'd let my guests have a moment of quiet while I cheated at scrabble. Trouble was, the event was conceived about a decade ago after a wave of students were kicked out of another house for noise complaints and a death involving a four-story house, a zip line, and the concrete surface next to a pool. Some off the events were, to your present storyteller, perhaps in... poor taste. In the kitchen, you were "mixed" into pizza dough while a man yelled at you in a poor Italian accent. In heaven, you were lathered in lotion, while David Bowie sang to you. And pre-birth, the Guru handed you a baked treat infused with weed butter. One member of the house, who spent much of his childhood in India, took offense to a white person taking on the name of a spirtual leader from a culture they did not understand, and using it as a core element of a college rager. He brought up the fact that most people didn't understand what "guru" meant, its importance in the context of sacred traditions, its differences across Buddhism, Hinduism, and Sikhism, nor the clash between "heaven", eastern religions, and a party that ended with Superstar and Cbat blasting at full volume while a bunch of college students danced naked, drunk, high, and covered in chocolate. He was ignored, brushed aside, and told not to spoil the fun. All this from a house that lauded itself on acceptance of traditions from all over the world. At one of the most liberal institutions in America. From similar groups of people, there were parties involving: a Japanese space wedding and Cinco de Mayo beer fest. Both were received as an insult by people from Japanese and Mexican cultures, but both were also accepted as okay by the dominant white cultures of the house. All three were alienating to anyone from those respective cultures, but justified because "the parties weren't actually meant to make fun of them." I can see why the individuals putting on these events might not see their actions as racist or xenophobic. Most college / American events take some pleasure out of bastardizing some tradition in the name of fun or capitalism. But there's a lot to be said about peoples' willingness to continue these parties even after being told by minorities that they were insulting. You see a lot of similar stuff in the fetishization of eastern religions among college youth: embracing and appropriating cultural elements without an understanding of where they come from. I've seen white yoga instructors give lectures on Buddhism (not bothering to specify which branch, omitting all mention of Jainism, and emphasizing the elements of mysticism) to rooms full of only white participants. Then said participants repeat the few words they remember from the session afterwards, feeling a bit more spiritual and enlightened, but still ignorant of the tenants of those religions and regions. To me, it comes across as deliberate ignorance and deliberate white-washing of foreign cultures. When local: stupid and alienating. When widespread: dehumanizing and, fuck-it, I'll use the word: oppressive. Suddenly, the religion of East Asia becomes "Buddhism", and all other sects, religions, people, languages, and cultures become merged together under the one banner and forgotten.
This is why the whole fucking ecosystem pisses me off. GROUP A: "Hey let's do something awesome and multicultural!" PERSON B: "You are offending my culture." GROUP A: "But we don't mean offense!" PERSON B: "But you are being offensive." GREEK CHORUS: "because he is offended they are offensive" And you know what? It's one thing if I don't know you and you don't know me and it should be pretty f'n obvious that Black Pete is not going to be charming to anyone African American. But you know what you never.fucking.see? GROUP A: "We are being multicultural!" MEMBER OF GROUP A: "You are being offensive. Stop it." REST OF GROUP A: "We do not mean to be offensive!" MEMBER OF GROUP A: "Seeing as I have more of a stake in this culture than you, and a strong affinity for you all, the following ways are options to celebrate my culture without being offensive." ALL OF GROUP A: "We are multicultural and inoffensive!" Know why it doesn't happen? Because fuck multiculturalism. If you are a minority, and there's something that's yours, fuck everybody that isn't a minority that uses it. If you are a minority, and there's something that's yours, nobody else better so much as talk about it. Haft shin, not haft sin. So here's the real undercurrent: GROUP A: "Hey let's do something awesome and multicultural!" EVERYONE THAT ISN'T IN GROUP A: "Fuck you, that's my culture, don't so much as fucking talk about it, eat shit." GROUP A: "Why are you so bent out of shape that we're trying to understand your culture?" EVERYONE THAT ISN'T IN GROUP A: "Because everything in the world belongs to you, this is the only thing in the world that belongs to me." GROUP A: "Never fucking mind then, your kids will forget your language, your stories and your customs and since you're lashing out at us for trying to be nice we won't even feel bad about it." EVERYONE THAT ISN'T IN GROUP A: "And that's why we hate you." GROUP A: "And that's why we invade, rather than colonize." Yay melting pot.
I've got no beef with taking elements from another's culture if it's done with respect and a decent understanding its meaning. The exceptions to that are religious and sacred symbols. It's not the taking that's the offensive part, it's the use of names, foods, and imagery, in a way that bastardizes the original idea that is the offensive part. If I follow a recipe for ghormeh sabzi as part of a dinner on world dishes, that's multicultural and my guests may gain at least a slight appreciation for a food from the Middle East. Maybe in the process they can listen to music from the region or learn about its holidays or history. If I dress up as a Muslim cleric and go around handing out jello shots, my guests have none the more understanding of Islam or the Middle East.
You're arguing it's a matter of degree. To some extent I agree with you. To a greater extent it's about possession. Persians are allowed to argue about the authenticity of Persian restaurants in Los Angeles. They are allowed to support or slag as they see fit. As a white guy, I'm not entitled to an opinion. Buddy of mine isn't either - because only his mom is Persian.
That's my whole point: maybe you got no beef with appropriating cultural elements with respect, but somebody does, and they will be vocal, and they will accuse you of oppression for the simple reason that you're appropriating. Simply put: you are allowed to assist your friends in appreciation only of those elements you are entitled to by birth (not even by blood).
Yeah, unfortunately there is no handbook to culture that anyone can point to and say they are abiding by. I would argue there is zero wrong with enjoying or criticizing a restaurant because it's a restaurant and public criticism or acclaim comes with the business. I can also say a Japanese restaurant might be overpriced or a Mexican place salts their food too much for my liking. Or even that I prefer to avoid all Chinese food because it sits heavy in my stomach. All okay because it's all relative to me: "I don't like this", rather than absolute: "This is bad and a poor representation of True X Food." Then there's the grey area where a white person who has never been to Iran opening up a Kabob joint because they love the food and it's good business. As an also-half-persian, I have no problem with this, but would probably say the politically correct thing to do would be to call it "Kabobs" and not "Persian cuisine". In the former case, you are saying: "I am making this food" rather than "I am representing this culture". Annoyingly, this is a subject where the stakes are unbalanced and if you're right, it's no harm done, and if you're wrong, you're a grade-A asshole. I have the feeling social liberalism and political correctness will eventually settle on a consistent set of rules. But for now, yeah, degrees, possession, and respect.
I think it will always be "I reserve my right to be offended by any attempt you make to reference my culture for the simple reason that it's mine, not yours." And that's why the whole fucking thing bugs me. It really comes down to this: Do you want to be pissed off at me? Well guess what. You're going to find an excuse. Do you not want to be pissed off at me? Well guess what. There are ample reasons to excuse my behavior. But what it really comes down to? The argument that you are somehow justified in shitting on me for multiculturalism because something something birthright. And there's nothing clever about it, there's nothing avoidable about it, and anybody who has 50.0001% of something is gonna get shit on by the guy with 49.9999% of something because that's how we, as humans, do it.
Interesting stuff, and I would agree that just about everything you mentioned was ignorant in some way, though I'd consider a Cinco de Mayo beerfest pretty harmless (don't know what a Japanese space wedding is or could possibly be). But, no, vaguely dismissing the entire free love/hippie/'60s movement as willful oppression of Native Americans indicates to me someone who has so immersed themselves in political correctness that they've melted the common sense synapses in their brain. If anything, the hippies were an homage to what they considered a better lifestyle. In some places I'm sure the movement occasionally crossed the line, whatever that line is, but not to the level of, say, the name "Redskins" -- at least not that I've read about. Honestly this is the first time I've ever seen anyone assert that '60s culture was a racist attempt to belittle Native Americans. Is that a common belief?
Yeah, I'd say your friend has the wrong target there. My experience has been not seeing much mention of Native Americans at all among that culture. Most people seemed to consider a somewhat sad and hopeless topic. But the "other" Indians do get a lot of disrespect from hippies today. Maybe more-so nowadays than in the '60s, but wasn't more than a twinkle in my father's eyes back then, so I can't really comment on that.
Ironically, a lot of leading Buddhist scholars got quite angry with Kerouac and the beats who he introduced to eastern philosophies -- said his interpretation was insincere or insulting (for instance, he was an alcoholic the whole time, which they viewed as hypocrisy). From reading his books, I never got a vibe of disrespect at all, nor exactly one of ignorance... he certainly wasn't malicious or unintelligent. But nonetheless I understand why the scholars were angry. As for hippies today, I have no idea. Hippies today are a pretty sad bunch it seems like.
I can't speak for hippies today, but I certainly was well acquainted with them in the 1990s. I was deep in the midst of hippie culture in Missoula Montana. It was quite possibly one of the leading hippie areas of the US at the time, which was cause for many a cultural collision as most of the state is populated by either Cowboys or Native Americans. The hippies of Missoula in the 1990's were dicks. Uncultured, uninteresting, one-dimensional dicks.
I belong to the above said culture, and I celebrated Christmas for quite a number of years before I understood what it was about. As a kid growing in a normal household in India, we had the cross on our sacred place too (where it share the space along with a number of other idols), and the Bible was considered sacred, along with our own sacred books, even though it was deeply boring, and I could not get through more than a few pages -- much less understand what it was about. Were we wrong to do that without understanding what it meant, the differences (and similarities) between Jews, Christians, and Muslims, and also the sects in Christianity? I would like to give the benefit of doubt to people who are using eastern religious symbols for harmless purposes. I don't see how it harms the cause of these religions (or the culture) if some one does not understand the subtle differences between the different religions (or even neglect to explain them to their audience if they do understand it). You see a lot of similar stuff in the fetishization of eastern religions among college youth: embracing and appropriating cultural elements without an understanding of where they come from. I've seen white yoga instructors give lectures on Buddhism (not bothering to specify which branch, omitting all mention of Jainism, and emphasizing the elements of mysticism) to rooms full of only white participants. Then said participants repeat the few words they remember from the session afterwards, feeling a bit more spiritual and enlightened, but still ignorant of the tenants of those religions and regions.
Why is this bad?
Well, Christmas is a holiday that has already been largely secularized and commercialized. It's a celebration that Christian groups have already long accepted and shared with the masses. The same is true of Easter and a few other of its holidays. Your family's experience seems fairly different from what I've encountered in the past, but in general Christianity gets a bye because it holds a position of power in the western world and it has encouraged its own spread into as many cultures around the world as possible. I think a better comparison would be if people were to take up the ritual of prayer of Islam (Salāt) as a way to inject a time of meditation and spirituality into their day. It wouldn't harm anyone, but it would be a turn-off to other Muslim people who see the ritual as belonging to their culture and having meaning there. If Americans were engage in this hypothetical act, chances are much of the meaning to that act would be diluted and/or misinterpreted. And as I said: It's when these practices become engrained in a group of people or in institutions that they become acceptable as a way to re-tell the story of another culture. How many Americans have you met that have proclaimed that Buddhists are peaceful and happy?When local: stupid and alienating. When widespread: dehumanizing and, fuck-it, I'll use the word: oppressive.
But the same is true for eastern religions too. They have their own power centers, and encourage spread to other parts of the world. Christianity was certainly a minority for us. I am not entirely sure what the difference is, but the difference seems rooted in the different world views. My wife is a Jain, and she loves it when particularities of her religion are coopted by the mainstream. They tend to see it as increasing their influence rather than as being diluted. (As her folks love to point out, the habit of not eating meat in Hinduism has its origin in Jainism, and so does the symbolism of color white for purity. The mainstream hinduism does not interpret these exactly as Jains do, but Jains (at-least those that are visible and vocal) in India seem happy that they are being used at all). However, I have also found that even Indians who come to US seem to want their exclusive identity preserved, and complain about others coopting their identities, which seems rather different from the mainstream approach in India. I will pass on the Islam prayer because I don't understand Islam mainstream even in India well enough to understand their response to some one else using it, but I have celebrated Bakrid, and my friends have always encouraged me to participate.but in general Christianity gets a bye because it holds a position of power in the western world and it has encouraged its own spread into as many cultures around the world as possible.
You're right. I was thinking in the context of the western hemisphere. Your situation is seemingly unconventional to someone who has lived his life in the US. It's each one's own right to interpret the world. Your wife can view it as a positive thing, others may not share that view or link it to negative experiences they have had. The difference I'd like to get at though, with your Bakrid example, is that (I'm assuming) that celebration was put on by people of the Islamic faith. I've been to Holi festival and enjoyed the experience as well. My contention is when these celebrations are mimicked by people who do not understand them. I think we'd both agree that multiculturalism is a positive thing. My asterisk is just *when done Right^TMBut the same is true for eastern religions too. They have their own power centers, and encourage spread to other parts of the world. Christianity was certainly a minority for us.
However, I have also found that even Indians who come to US seem to want their exclusive identity preserved, and complain about others coopting their identities, which seems rather different from the mainstream approach in India.
I suppose the difference I am seeing is simply that, it seems that any mimicking seems to be a bad thing by default unless shown otherwise in U.S, while the opposite seems to be true in India (I think I have seen this view pervasive enough in India to make this claim, though I am not knowledgeable enough with the western and rest of eastern culture to know if this can be extended to them too). I feel that it is rather difficult to get multiculturalism right with the first view point, in that it requires an inordinate knowledge of a culture before a person can start using the symbols of it, and even then you can be accused of misappropriation just on the basis of not belonging to the original culture. It promotes a kind of exclusivity. I wonder if your Indian friend, who took offense to misappropriation of "Guru" would have similarly challenged another Indian with the same level of ignorance of what it means in India (or even in US)? I suspect he wont (Look for word guru in linked pages).I think we'd both agree that multiculturalism is a positive thing. My asterisk is just when done Right
I agree with your assertion, but I feel that we also need enough leeway for a shared experience between the members of the society.
Not quite, and this is something kb was getting at, too. I'm arguing that multiculturalism isn't that if you don't learn anything about a culture in the process. You could go in with that knowledge or go in with the hope of gaining knowledge. If I choose to celebrate Irish culture by following a recipe for an Irish dish, I've gained a tiny slice of understanding, a small memory I can associate with the region. But if I celebrate Irish culture by painting my nose red and getting black-out drunk, I'm reinforcing a false stereotype based on my (America's) ill-conceived notions about the country. You might say that the hippie's stereotype of India is at least a positive one, but my view is that it's still rooted in the same absence of learning. It's not quite the same thing, but there has a similar change in meaning to the word "Shah", which has transitioned from a title for Persian Kings / Emperors (which itself was taken from Sanskrit, iirc) to a surname within Indian and Pakistani culture. Maybe appropriation among distinct cultures, but all keeping within similar meanings of one another. Then there's Shahs of Sunset, which switches its meaning into an insult for pampered Persians. Though honestly, it's hard to take that example seriously because of just how over-the-top ridiculous the show is. Still, we're going back and forth over the same few points, so maybe it's better to agree to disagree on this.in that it requires an inordinate knowledge of a culture before a person can start using the symbols of it, and even then you can be accused of misappropriation just on the basis of not belonging to the original culture.
I have to openly apologize to you. For some reason, in the years I've been here, I didn't start following you til a few weeks ago. It's been a massive mistake, but you consistently post some of the absolute best content around here, and I respect and love you so much for it.
I should say that much of the ideas that I wrote should be attributed to my friend, the person in the story protesting the use of "guru" (and perhaps this is my bias in my criticism of the culture). Thanks though, I originally joined hubski to practice different writing styles, but usually I end up looking back and deciding most of what I post is pretentious and/or dumb.