Cultural Appropriation is a Non-Issue

[Matt8800]

@Key Elements @Serotoninluv @Scholar  see below excerpt from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/05/02/white-performer-hindu-chants-creates-controversy-brown

Note: the social justice warriors referenced below were white, just like the social justice warriors on this thread. I bet they  also would claim whites have no right to comment on cultural appropriation......as they are protesting cultural appropriation  

"The usual right-leaning voices decried the protesters for overreaching on what they suggest is a nonissue. “Brown University Students Flip Out After White Person Sings Hindu Chants,” reads one headline from The Daily Caller. “White graduate performs Hindu music, Brown University [social justice warriors] get huffy,” reads another.

That’s more or less as expected, but a number of Hindu practitioners, on campus and off, have also objected to the protest on the grounds that the religion is open to all, regardless of race.

“Color of the person should not matter in devotional singing, and anybody should be able pay respectful homage to Hindu deities through kirtan [a call-and-response Hindu chant] or other forms,” said Rajan Zed Kirtan, president of Universal Society of Hinduism, over the weekend. “Kirtan offered means to connect to the heart, to the divinity that lies within.”

A Hindu student at Brown published an op-ed in the student newspaper arguing a similar point.

“Grossman’s whiteness should not, and cannot, be the single factor that precludes her from expressing genuine artistic and scholarly interest in Hinduism,” writes Anuj Krishnamurthy. “My brownness does not make me a better Hindu -- that’s a self-evidently absurd proposition. By the same token, Grossman’s white skin does not automatically make her a worse, or less deserving, practitioner of Hindu chanting … The visceral association of whiteness with cultural appropriation is both a grave injustice against the welcoming foundations of Hinduism and a significant impediment to intercultural exchange more broadly.” (Although Krishnamurthy does note that cultural appropriation of Hinduism in other forms is “unacceptable.”)

Sohum Chokshi, one of the protest organizers, said critics had misconstrued their objection to the event. The fact that Grossman is white isn’t the problem, he said, it’s that she lacked the authority to demonstrate and educate others about Hinduism.

“Our issues with Carrie Grossman’s event were not about free speech or with the fact that she was white and chanting kirtan,” Chokshi, who is himself Hindu, said. “Our issues were centered on her grossly inaccurate, offensive, racist and misinformed portrayal of Hinduism.”

Chokshi said Grossman offered a shallow, simplified and voyeuristic representation of Hinduism. He pointed to statements on her website where she says she enjoys “pretending to be a Vedic priestess” and that she composes sacred music “spontaneously” as examples and noted that she “presented traditional Hindu practices as traditions that require little rigorous understanding and thus, something she could teach and convey to others, which is also a privileged and inaccurate thing to say.”

Note 2: When Krishnamurthy states some forms of appropriation are unacceptable, he is referring to the same situations I outlined as being inappropriate.

Edited October 27, 2019 by Matt8800

[Key Elements]

@Matt8800 time out here...

I just want to make it clear that I don't participate in any cultural stuff if I have to meet dogma at that level. I'm not sure if you're precieving me as being on one side. Yes, there are ppl who drop me in a category of a particular "religion" or "race." For such ppl in real life, our conversations will not even last for ten seconds. I'm into transcending "religion," "race," or any categories that others think I belong to. I'm not sure what you're trying to say to me when you addressed me. Wait, do you think I'm "white?" ? Hmm..do you think I'm "male?" This is interesting. This is the reason why I don't call or label myself anything on social media. Let's see what others assume.

[Matt8800]

46 minutes ago, Key Elements said:

@Matt8800 time out here...

I just want to make it clear that I don't participate in any cultural stuff if I have to meet dogma at that level. I'm not sure if you're precieving me as being on one side. Yes, there are ppl who drop me in a category of a particular "religion" or "race." For such ppl in real life, our conversations will not even last for ten seconds. I'm into transcending "religion," "race," or any categories that others think I belong to. I'm not sure what you're trying to say to me when you addressed me. Wait, do you think I'm "white?" ? Hmm..do you think I'm "male?" This is interesting. This is the reason why I don't call or label myself anything on social media. Let's see what others assume.

@Key Elements My mistake, I meant to tag @Keyhole

It was in response to: "Even if you don't feel that it is a problem, a lot of people feel that they are effected by it and having an understanding of this subject can be helpful if you end up in a situation where you need to communicate with someone who feels hurt, or if you are learning a spiritual skill from a traditional teacher, researching this subject can help you to not make mistakes."

My point was simply that, if one researches it from the perspective of someone in the "affected" community, it usually reveals that cultural appropriation is not an issue unless there is disrespect to what they consider sacred, which I earlier stated I agree with.

Edited October 27, 2019 by Matt8800

[Forestluv]

@Matt8800 Again, I don’t disagree with that. I’m not saying your perspective is wrong. I’m saying your perspective of cultural appropriation is incomplete. There are other aspects/perspectives available if you want to deepen and broaden your understanding of cultural appropriation.

As you wisely said in another thread: “It is a more nuanced situation than you are presenting”.

[Forestluv]

15 hours ago, Key Elements said:

 

Let's say someone you know has seven little children, and you think that she can't control her children very well. And, you tell her this. She might not like it. She might start to feel uncomfortable and start avoiding you, and wonder, "hey, this dude doesn't have children. What does he know about managing children?" If I was the one telling her that she can't manage her children, I will be the one "at fault." Why? I did not embody some aspects of stage blue. I don't have a large family to manage--no experience. I never took care of seven children at once. Why is it my job to tell her?

If I said, "I've adopted and raised ten children of my own..." that would be stronger communication.

For sure. Direct experience and embodiment is very important for understanding.

15 hours ago, Key Elements said:

It's the same for SD. The ppl who are actually stuck in orange will have to discover it for themselves. And, there is a difference between embodying orange and moving on verses being stuck in it. 

Yes, of course

15 hours ago, Key Elements said:

If someone is speaking with orange aspects, it doesn't mean they're stuck in it. It could mean they've embodied the positives of it and moved on. They say it to reflect on it. 

I think this distinction is really important and is a point I’ve been trying to make. From the perspective of Orange or Green, this distinction will be really hard to see. From the perspective of integrated Yellow, this distinction is super easy to see. 
 

Imagine that Paris is Orange, France is Green and Europe is Yellow. An integrated Yellow understands how the different levels of Paris, France and Europe inter-relate. An integrated yellow could be speaking about  the infrastructure of Paris, city taxes, the city mayor - this is all at the city level of Paris (Orange). However, an integrated Yellow understands the relationship between Paris, France and Europe. If someone asked “How might the upcoming French election impact Paris infrastructure?” and the person said “Huh? I’m talking about Paris. Where is France and what does France have to do with Paris?”. . . It would be clear the person is contracted within Paris and does not understand the inter-relationship between Paris and France.

Another example would be a conversation with Deepak Chopra and Richard Dawkins. Deepak Chopra can discuss Orange level science , yet he is not contracted within the scientific paradigm and this is completely obvious, even when he is talking about the science of genetics and medicine. In contrast, Richard Dawkins is contracted within the scientific paradigm and it is completely obvious. If Chopra and Dawkins we’re discussing the science of genetics and medicine, a Tier2 perspective could easily see Chopra has a broader understanding of context. And it’s not just about intellectual content and knowledge. Obote Orange there are energetic shifts in modes of communication and orientation. Stage Orange is more restricted in mode of communication than integrated Green/Yellow/Turquoise. Tier2 can use intellectual modes, yet also intuitive and empathic modes. As well Tier2 is trans-personal and meta - and prefers not to engage in personal “me vs you” debates. So even if Yellow is using an Orange mode of communication such as science, the essence of Green and Yellow is still apparent from a Tier2 perspective.

These are simplified metaphors to make a point and don’t capture nuances such as people being a mixture of various stages and multiple lines of development.

[Matt8800]

2 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

@Matt8800 Again, I don’t disagree with that. I’m not saying your perspective is wrong. I’m saying your perspective of cultural appropriation is incomplete. There are other aspects/perspectives available if you want to deepen and broaden your understanding of cultural appropriation.

As you wisely said in another thread: “It is a more nuanced situation than you are presenting”.

@Serotoninluv Fair enough, I agree that it is nuanced to some degree. I also agree that there are some instances where cultural appropriation is disrespectful, as I have stated. In my opinion, my claim that one should show respect for the sacred in another culture covers all the reasonable nuances.

I think what I was trying to suss out in the conversation was defining exactly what appropriate cultural appropriation is versus inappropriate. I dont think we can have a meaningful conversation about the issue until we can determine when and where to draw that line. We cannot ask others to not cross the line if we cant describe what the line is or where its at. Until someone can come up with a more reasonable definition, I like my definition that deals with respect for the sacred.

Furthermore, the line needs to be drawn correctly or it will not survive scrutiny - similar to trying to give the message that all drugs should be avoided equally at all times. For example, saying that heroin is as bad as cannabis discredits the entire message. 

Edited October 27, 2019 by Matt8800

[Forestluv]

1 hour ago, Matt8800 said:

@Serotoninluv Fair enough, I agree that it is nuanced to some degree. I also agree that there are some instances where cultural appropriation is disrespectful, as I have stated. In my opinion, my claim that one should show respect for the sacred in another culture covers all the reasonable nuances.

I think what I was trying to suss out in the conversation was defining exactly what appropriate cultural appropriation is versus inappropriate. I dont think we can have a meaningful conversation about the issue until we can determine when and where to draw that line. We cannot ask others to not cross the line if we cant describe what the line is or where its at. Until someone can come up with a more reasonable definition, I like my definition that deals with respect for the sacred.

Furthermore, the line needs to be drawn correctly or it will not survive scrutiny - similar to trying to give the message that all drugs should be avoided equally at all times. For example, saying that heroin is as bad as cannabis discredits the entire message. 

This points to the heart of the issue. Who decides what is “respectful” and “disrespectful”? Who decides what is “appropriate and “inappropriate”? Who decides if the line is “correctly” drawn.

Regarding issues of ethnic/cultural oppression, a problem arises because the majority group has more power in controlling the narrative over what counts as “disrespectful” and “appropriate”. They want to maintain their privilege and power in deciding how the majority can treat oppressed groups.. . White slave owners wanted to control the narrative on how to treat black slaves. This power dynamic has been present throughout human history. This is why it is s important to include BOTH groups in deciding what is appropriate and inappropriate. . . . To me your perspective has value, yet it is limited to a majority perspective. For example, there is value in the concept of “respect” yet it is limited in term of the intent of respect and impact. It is important to consider impact from the perspective of the minority group impacted NOT from the perspective of the majority group doing the impact. . . I spent about a month living with a local family in a Belizean village. One day I was in a small local market in the village. There was a shirt for sale that I that I noticed some of the local men wore. It really captured the history of and essence of their culture. I tried the shirt on and took a photo and sent texted the pic to to my gf to see what she thought (who is black). She responded with two words I hadn’t even considered: “Cultural appropriation?”. . . I had such deep respect or that culture that it blinded me. I looked in the mirror and looked at the locals around. I asked a Belizean woman what she thought of me in the shirt. She paused. I saw the look in her face. There was a sense of sorrow and resistance. There was underlying emotion, empathy, intuition and understanding. This was masked as she submissively and politely replied “I think it looks nice on you”. . . A new “something” was revealed to me about cultural appropriation. I saw through the minority lens. It’s not an intellectual thing. . . .I respectfully took off the shirt, respectfully folded it, respectfully placed it back on the table and respectfully said “thank you” to the Belizean woman. She gave me an important lesson on cultural appropriation. And she knew that I “got it”. I could tell by the way she looked at me and her energetic shift. . . . Context is super important. In this context it was cultural appropriation and the most respectful action I could give to the sacred shirt was to leave it on the table and walk away. At times, the most respectful thing we can do for the sacred is to let be and not take ownership of it.
 

Importantly, what counted as cultural appropriation was not decided by the view of the majority group (me). There were three voices involved. Two of those voices were from the minority group perspective (my black gf ad the Belizean woman). Collectively, this allowed for expansion of my understanding of cultural appropriation. As well, the expansion was not ntellectual.

I think if you immersed yourself in minority perspectives your perspective  would expand. For example, if you took a course on cultural appropriation taught by a Native American professor. Or if you lived in a Guatemalan village and observed the interplay between native Guatemalan locals, white expats and white tourists from developed countries. . . I provided a link that was an entry into this, yet you didn’t seem interested - which is fine. Everyone has their own interests.

[Key Elements]

On 10/27/2019 at 8:40 AM, Matt8800 said:

@Key Elements My mistake, I meant to tag @Keyhole

It was in response to: "Even if you don't feel that it is a problem, a lot of people feel that they are effected by it and having an understanding of this subject can be helpful if you end up in a situation where you need to communicate with someone who feels hurt, or if you are learning a spiritual skill from a traditional teacher, researching this subject can help you to not make mistakes."

My point was simply that, if one researches it from the perspective of someone in the "affected" community, it usually reveals that cultural appropriation is not an issue unless there is disrespect to what they consider sacred, which I earlier stated I agree with.

Ok. This is interesting. I want to address this. I have no problems with the Hindu religion or traditions or the culture. I've been in India for about two decades of my life in all. I've lived there for about a decade straight. And yes, I do consider myself as an Indian. However, for me, after I've immersed myself in a cluture/tradition/religion, it's time to transcend that. So, if I do meetup with a teacher who talks about the religion, he/she can't be immersed with dogma. This teacher will have to hear me out. I would have to be able to describe my awakening to him/her and he/she could tell me how it relates to the Hindu teachings. We can't be playing this label game of who's in what "race" or "religion." And also, no games of who has more knowledge of what religion. However, if you make journeys like these in your life, you will automatically run into teachers and non-duality in your life. If you integrate, things will start falling into place in your life. The teacher doesn't have to be a guru, sage, or monk.

(Btw, Happy Diwali Everyone ????)

So, my answer to the topic question is...

You could call it whatever you want, cultural appropriation or not. Whatever culture you're in, if you want to "master" ("nail") this life, you're going to have to transcend culture sooner or later. Yes, it does help to fully understand/embody at least two different cultures to be very clear at what needs to be transcended. Why is it clearer to embody at least two different cultures? If you are a fish, you don't know that you're living in water. Water represents culture. 

Here's another aspect of culture:

Culture is broader than religion. It includes religion. For example, I'm so much more attracted to a guy who understands both arranged marriages, and marriages where you choose your spouse completely on your own (love marriages). To me, this is an indication of well-roundedness. Does he understand why arranged marriages work, and why it doesn't work? Does he understand why love marriages work, and why it doesn't work? Does he understand how both could be combined, and it works? Or, does he just pass off arranged marriages as dogma without giving it a second thought? This last question, to me, isn't well-rounded if the answer is yes with a shallow explanation.

One more thing...

The Indian culture overseas is different than the Indian culture in the US. What is the culture there anyway? They have at least 72 different languages and many religions. Going from one state to another is like visiting another country. They are very diverse. You can meet ppl from all over the world there. So, you'll be meeting many types of ppl there than if you stayed in the US.

[Matt8800]

On 10/27/2019 at 1:29 PM, Serotoninluv said:

This points to the heart of the issue. Who decides what is “respectful” and “disrespectful”? Who decides what is “appropriate and “inappropriate”? Who decides if the line is “correctly” drawn.

 

@Serotoninluv In my subjective universe, I decide. Who else would decide?

My spiritual path is a massive cultural appropriation of many, many traditions. I take the best of those traditions and I choose to utilize it by integrating it into my being, for my own benefit (and the benefit of those I impact). I do it because I decided that I would. I treat the sacred as sacred, with gratitude, because I choose to for my own reasons. Is there someone specific that I should explain myself to?

By the way, this is not about racism. My other comments, that you referenced, were regarding racist nonsense. I agree that cultural appropriation is nuanced but my subjective interpretation is such that it doesnt conflict with my personal decisions about my cultural appropriation. If there is a problem with someone else's appropriation, then that is about their lack of respect and profanity and the problem is being mislabeled. 

If you try to object to my non-green values, I would ask you who exactly suffered because of my cultural appropriation? The most you could say is that it is "nuanced". The reason that you cant say more than that is because I caused suffering to nobody! There were no negative consequences. Its all in your head, including all the non-specific alleged nuances.

Also, its quite possible you projected your values onto the villager that you thought looked "sad" because you were wearing the wrong t-shirt. Its possible that she didnt think your choice of shirt was quite as horrendous as you are imagining....or thinking about your shirt at all.

Edited October 29, 2019 by Matt8800

[Matt8800]

10 hours ago, Key Elements said:

 

The Indian culture overseas is different than the Indian culture in the US. What is the culture there anyway? They have at least 72 different languages and many religions. Going from one state to another is like visiting another country. They are very diverse. You can meet ppl from all over the world there. So, you'll be meeting many types of ppl there than if you stayed in the US.

@Key Elements Ive always had a lot of affection for Indian people and Indian culture. It is my goal to someday go there.

[Forestluv]

@Matt8800 Sacred is also relative. You hold what you perceive to be sacred as sacred. Yet you don’t hold what you don’t perceive to be sacred as sacred. . . There is a sacrifice to be a person. . . . It has nothing to do with you. 

[Matt8800]

13 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

@Matt8800 Sacred is also relative. You hold what you perceive to be sacred as sacred. Yet you don’t hold what you don’t perceive to be sacred as sacred. . . There is a sacrifice to be a person. . . . It has nothing to do with you. 

@Serotoninluv Again, in my subjective universe, I decide.

I have thought about it and I will do what I will do according to my subjective values. There are no "rules" to break and unless you can tell me who exactly suffered from my actions, and how, I dont care about your imaginary rules. They dont apply to me.

Edited October 29, 2019 by Matt8800

[Forestluv]

3 minutes ago, Matt8800 said:

@Serotoninluv  in my subjective universe, I decide

I have thought about it and I will do what I will do according to my subjective values. There are no "rules" to break.

It isn’t about you.

[Matt8800]

3 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

It isn’t about you.

@Serotoninluv see previous response

Edited October 29, 2019 by Matt8800

[Forestluv]

3 minutes ago, Matt8800 said:

@Serotoninluv see previous response

I did.

It sounds like you are content in the place you dwell. Enjoy. ❤️ ? 

[JustThinkingAloud]

Let’s put relativity to test. Who says that using only part of someone’s culture means disrespecting the “sacred”. When you flip it, it could actually be a wonderful compliment showing that this part of the culture is very valuable and is worth adopting therefore showing a big respect by adopting it. Of course, it’s not authentic and it can never be fully authentic as I wasn’t born in that culture but it’s surely a sign of respect. Talking bad about and destroying other people’s culture is wrong but adopting it could be a big compliment if you’re willing to see the positive side of it.

[JustThinkingAloud]

Also, people will do what they want to do, can we really stop them? Isn't it better to let them openly use other people's culture and call it appropriately so the culture still gets the credit. Once we start prosecuting them, they will still use other people's culture while they'll give it a different name so not to get prosecuted. This can lead to "death" of the culture as people will stop giving the credit where it should be given.

[Matt8800]

@Serotoninluv I think the disconnect is that we are different paths. I am on the Tantric path. A Tantrika does not consider social rules, shoulds or shouldnts when choosing their conduct.

For example, a Tantrika would NEVER show kindness because he/she is supposed to be kind. A Tantrika will be kind because THEY, and only they, choose to act with mindful kindness. It is their choice and only their choice. Essentially, it is all "about" them because it is only their choice that they consider but they know exactly why they chose.

We have different philosophical viewpoints, therefore we disagree on who says what it is "about". Tantra is as far away from herd mentality, morality and ethics as it could possibly be.

And, yes, I am content where I am at because i see no need to be discontent

Edited October 29, 2019 by Matt8800

[Forestluv]

@Matt8800 Thank you for sharing about your path and perspective. It helps clarify.

[Key Elements]

Just a note here...

If you get tattoos of Chinese characters on you, make sure you are fully aware of what they mean. Someone told me that they saw someone wearing a tattoo that means Pokemon.