Comments

1. Azizi wrote:

   Thanks for sharing that blog post.

   Right before the excerpt of that post that you highlighted, Nina Jacinto wrote about “the melting pot component of this sort of globlization”, indicating “By that I mean that dominant cultures view the world as a melting pot, feeling entitled enough to access and appropriate practically any part of another’s culture that they could desire.”

   -snip-

   I found that description of this phenomenon to be quite on target. Another example of melting pot appropriation is the Indian (Native American)
   re-creation camps in Germany and some other European countries. In this May/June 2009 online article from a Canadian source, http://www.utne.com/Spirituality/Germans-weekends-Native-Americans-Indian-Culture.aspx it’s estimated that “some 40,000 German “hobbyists” who spend their weekends trying to live exactly as Indians of the North American plains did over two centuries ago. They recreate tepee encampments, dress in animal skins and furs, and forgo modern tools, using handmade bone knives to cut and prepare food. They address each other by adopted Indian-sounding names such as White Wolf. Many feel an intense spiritual link to Native myths and spirituality, and talk about “feeling” Native on the inside.” The article also mentions that some “hobbyist” in these “Indian re-creation camps” also “re-create” sacred rituals and change those rituals if they see fit to do so, despite strong concerns about this that have been expressed by “real” Native Americans and by non-Native Americans who have studied these cultures.

   I definitely agree with Nina Jacinto that good intentions don’t make any of these appropriations right.

   Posted 08 Oct 2009 at 8:59 am ¶

2. LuLu wrote:

   The broad use of the term Namaste as it has entered into the hegemonic center of Western cultures and been circulated through capitalist outlets strikes me as particularly bothersome. Namaste is an example of and element from the grotesque/marginal/exotic being incorporated into the hegemonic center through various means of control [think contemporary colonial impulse]. Thus, it is not about authentically engaging these cultures at all — but, merely that in the mainstreaming of this term, distancing it from its origins, and commodifying it in multiple ways — the exotic, the grotesque becomes acceptable, becomes safe for the hegemonic center to encounter. It becomes safe to use terms such as these precisely because of the distance that has been established between it and its origins.

   Posted 08 Oct 2009 at 9:36 am ¶

3. Chris wrote:

   THANK YOU!!!! Well said!! I have had this feeling about yoga being apporpriation, especially the end fot he class where the instructor says “Nameste”, and all my friends thought i was crazy. I’m glad you shared this so i can pass a perspective similar to mine along!

   Posted 08 Oct 2009 at 9:42 am ¶

4. Thea wrote:

   This is great. After living on an island of white yogic hippies for several months a few years ago, it now drives me bonkers when anyone uses “Namaste.”

   That’s a pretty extreme response, but after enough times of hearing one blonde dreadlocked hippie say “Namaste” when another blonde dreadlocked hippie passes him the mustard, you develop some rabid prejudices.

   Posted 08 Oct 2009 at 10:00 am ¶

5. nathan wrote:

   I am a white American who has practiced yoga for over a decade. The only time and place I have every used the term “Namaste” is at the end of a yoga class. I completely agree that there has been way too much appropriation and commodification of both yoga and anything associated with it culturally. The level of ignorance around the history of yoga, what yoga actually is, as well as about the history of its origins, is appallingly high.

   I came to practice yoga because of what I see as it’s ability to liberate people from their self-focused, self-destructive views and behaviors. Included in this, if any of us is being honest, is our prejudices and hatreds. For myself, it’s been part of the reason I have been able to remain open to seeing the many ways in which institutional and personal racism, classism, sexism, and heterosexism play out in our society.

   One thing I would like to point out is that Indian yogis have come to the U.S. over the past several decades, have opened schools, and have taught mostly white, American students about yoga. So, it isn’t just that the white,dominant culture has appropriated everything about yoga and made it into their own, with no recognition or awareness of yoga’s roots. There’s also a deliberate cross-pollination going on, which doesn’t negate the many problems presented in the post above and in the other comments, but complicates the picture a bit.

   Posted 08 Oct 2009 at 10:55 am ¶

6. storm wrote:

   The very first time that I was introduced to the word “Namaste” was in an African American Baptist church in Brooklyn, NY. The churh would open and close each service by saying Namaste. My first time at the church, I had to turn to my neighbor and ask what it meant, as I heard never heard the word before. I was told that it meant “the divine in me recognizes and honors the divine in you” or something close to this definition. I thought to myself then, wow…what a beautiful and spiritual way to greet another.

   I do realize now that the word has been co-opted and commodified by those in the business of cashing in on the renewed interest in new ageism, yoga and spirituality.

   Posted 08 Oct 2009 at 11:33 am ¶

7. Beth wrote:

   Thanks for writing about this. While I’m slowly starting to recognize institutional racism and cultural appropriation without it having to be pointed out to me, I never thought about how practices such as yoga fit into that. I went to the wiki article to read more about the use of namaste (as I admit I haven’t heard it used outside of yoga or meditation class). I was very surprised that they chose a picture of a rich white man in a corporate lecture to represent an example of proper use. Then, at the very end of the entry, under the section about “Meanings and Interpretations” There is this gem of a sentence –
   “That said, these are all arguably simply attempts at translating the same concept, which does not have a direct parallel in English, although Aloha would be a good attempt. ”
   Because we all know that Hawaiian and English are the same thing right?

   Posted 08 Oct 2009 at 11:36 am ¶

8. Brooklynfemale wrote:

   i’ve been reading about the Tao and translations of it and a lot of its ideas are resonating deeply with me. I don’t want to be one of those New Age people who sling “catchphrases” around, making a lot of sound and fury and signifying nothing, as it were.

   If I like a concept that originated in a culture other than the one I was raised in, how can I respectfully incorporate that concept into my life without being condescending of the culture it came from?

   Posted 08 Oct 2009 at 1:05 pm ¶

9. usha wrote:

   It creeps me out AND annoys me. Nose rings used to really bother me too, but now the all and sundry has actually superseded my earlier association (that it was ‘elderly and traditional’).
   I mostly look at people funny and say ‘and also in you?’ if I get it outside of yoga class. And DON’T get me started on ‘Ganesha’. Ugh.

   Posted 08 Oct 2009 at 1:19 pm ¶

10. anonymous wrote:

    http://mediarelations.concordia.ca/mediaresources/featuredresearcher/archives/featured/dr_viviane_namaste_1.php

    For years I have struggled to respect Viviane Namaste, a lauded Canadian transsexual activist/author, because she chose Namaste as a last name despite reportedly having no South Asian roots whatsoever. I really want to be a fan of someone who fights for trans and sex worker rights but WHAT’S WITH THE NAME?

    Posted 08 Oct 2009 at 1:47 pm ¶

11. Katie wrote:

    @brooklynfemale – sometimes, you can’t. There’s not necessarily a way to try to practice another culture’s belief/etc. without it being irrevocably changed by being separated from it’s cultural context. And that should be ok.

    The frustration I feel when people ask, well, how CAN I do this respectfully? is that, often, it feels like they want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to change something small that makes it ok for them to continue doing what they meant to do in the first place. I’m not saying you’re coming from that place, but that is what your response evokes in me.

    Sometimes there’s no right way to do something. Sometimes the right thing is not to do it.

    Posted 08 Oct 2009 at 3:15 pm ¶

12. browngirlinthering wrote:

    @brooklynfemale: honestly if you’re actually asking that question, chances are you’re more sensitive to incorporating varying cultural viewpoints into your life respectfully, which places you outside the group of people being addressed in the original article.

    Posted 08 Oct 2009 at 3:39 pm ¶

13. Montclair Mommy wrote:

    Okay, wait a minute. While I agree its annoying to greet a person you do not know with Namaste, because it makes all kinds of assumptions, I do not agree with stating that its “racist” or wrong to use that term. Maybe I’m just being contrary here, because I personally agree that it sounds a little hokey and insincere when its being used by a great many people, but I don’t like the idea of making a type of spirituality/religion exclusive.

    @ Katie, you said “There’s not necessarily a way to try to practice another culture’s belief/etc. without it being irrevocably changed by being separated from it’s cultural context.” But who “owns” a culture? Who decides when it can or cannot be inclusive or exclusive? Do the teachers of yoga or spiritual meditation get to decide? Or do a few people (or even a million) from South Asian countries get to decide that, because it annoys them, its not okay? Or do you take a vote? I am just saying that it is COMPLETELY fine to feel personally irritated, irked, annoyed, whatever…by someone appropriating or misappropriating things that you deem as your culture. But, I don’t think that anyone has the right to tell another person that they can’t have or practice certain spiritual beliefs because it may be offensive to a particular group (South Asians/POC/women). Says who? Who is the spokesperson of POC/women/LBGT individuals/South Asians? I think people need to be treated on an individual basis. Basically, when you use the greeting Namaste, you take the risk of irritating/offending people and making them think you are cliche/trite/a hippie. So, before you use it, you should make sure that it’ll be appreciated (like using it in yoga class). Obviously, every person with South Asian heritage has the right to feel annoyed or offended…but not everyone will. There are probably people who would appreciate it. And no one speaks for their entire culture/religious group/ethnic group. That is one of the problems of racism, as I see it: people are put into categories and everyone assumes that because they know that person’s “category” , they know all sorts of stuff about them.

    Posted 08 Oct 2009 at 4:09 pm ¶

14. Teressa wrote:

    I guess I have always kind of seen Namaste as a spiritual greeting. People of all colors practice yoga and spiritual meditation and, to my mind, people of all colors should be allowed to use that greeting. Yeah, it might personally annoy you, like everyone’s love of tacos annoys me, but its not really my place to say that a particular language, culture, religious practice belongs to me and “my people”. If someone converts and follows Hindu practices or practices spiritual meditation don’t they have some claim to the culture as well? When a woman converts to Islam and chooses to use cover and to use standard Muslim greetings, that is her right as a Muslim. So why can’t a white person follow the spiritual practices of yoga and then use the greeting Namaste without being presumed ignorant/racist/clueless/trite? I don’t think we can basically say that its annoying whenever white people try to expand their cultural horizons. We can’t on one hand tell white people that they are always making their culture seem the standard/only way of doing things and then at the same time accuse them of racism whenever they try to incorporate other cultures into the mainstream.

    Posted 08 Oct 2009 at 4:51 pm ¶

15. Montclair Mommy wrote:

    This reminds me of the book Eat, Pray, Love…which was a semi-decent read but really annoying. Prime example of the above Namaste-using white person. Irritating, but I wouldn’t say she was racist. Just a perpetual seeker searching for a religion that suits her. She has no problem using her white privilege to flit around in various countries in ways that POC would never dream of…and she does all of this without even acknowledging her privilege.

    Posted 08 Oct 2009 at 5:03 pm ¶

16. Lizzie (greeneyedfem wrote:

    Greeting someone with South Asian roots with an unsolicited “Namaste” also assumes that the greeting is a part of their culture — a pretty sweeping assumption, given that many Indians do not use the greeting at all. My partner’s family is Muslim and they’ve never used it, in India or here.

    Posted 08 Oct 2009 at 5:34 pm ¶

17. DreaD wrote:

    @Azizi: ‘…’dominant cultures view the world as a melting pot, feeling entitled enough to access and appropriate practically any part of another’s culture that they could desire’”…this Jacinto quote is SUPER. ON. POINT.

    I would use this to respond to quite a few folks on this post who aren’t interested in respecting the cultural boundaries of POCs, but still want to feel that their interest in other cultures/spiritualities/etc. is innocuous.

    Our individual actions are not divorced from our context. So if I tell someone from X (marginalized) culture that i wish to partake in Y cultural practice, and they express concern/upset…ESPECIALLY in the context of colonization and racism…if before I’ve even heard them I decide that I’m going to do it anyway because it’s my “right”…that’s a problem.

    I suspect that this may be an especially difficult concept for white folks to swallow since their culture is dominant. They have little opportunity to feel what it’s like to have their culture/identity/etc. appropriated and COMMODIFIED, particularly in a culture that offers inequality and little GENUINE appreciation to non-white culture.

    Posted 08 Oct 2009 at 6:30 pm ¶

18. Katie wrote:

    @Montclair Mommy – “I don’t think that anyone has the right to tell another person that they can’t have or practice certain spiritual beliefs because it may be offensive to a particular group.”

    Anyone has the right to tell anyone anything. They certainly don’t have to listen. I don’t understand, though, your implication that it’s somehow worse for the cultural appropriator to deal with people condemning their actions than it is for people to actually have their culture constantly appropriated.

    @Teressa – “We can’t on one hand tell white people that they are always making their culture seem the standard/only way of doing things and then at the same time accuse them of racism whenever they try to incorporate other cultures into the mainstream.”

    This sentence sets up a false binary, and also uses a version of the “race card” argument.

    Also, your characterization of noble white people who are simply trying to bring Asian cultures to the mainstream rings completely false. The complaint here, as I understand it, is the wholesale appropriation of cultural touchstones without any deeper examination or understanding of the context. In short, brown people’s stuff (intellectual property, if you will)….minus the actual brown people.

    Posted 08 Oct 2009 at 6:48 pm ¶

19. Jess wrote:

    I have to agree that it’s annoying… but speaking as one whose culture goes through periods of exotic-ness, I have to say I disagree that it should be treated quite the way the OP does.

    I mean look, Madonna likes Kabbalah. Steven Segal is into Buddhism, supposedly. That has no bearing — none — on how Buddhist anyone else in the world is, or how Jewish I am. Madonna wants to be a highly visible Kabbalah-user? Knock yourself out. The Jews in my neighborhood (New York) treat it as a comic sideshow when we bother to think of it at all.

    Other people may appropriate your religion, but that doesn’t make you and all the other people who practice it disappear, you know? You’re still here. You’re still yourself. I’m still a Jew no matter what Madonna does. We’ll get on with it, thanks.

    And I get sort of uncomfortable with issues of cultural appropriation because no culture is, only, itself, a kind of ur-culture. I mean, take any region of India — it’s so diverse, and people have been there for so long, how “authentic” is anything anybody does? People came from North and South, East and West, and made India the huge funky mix of regions, languages, and religion(s) that it is today. Is an Indian Christian inauthentic? Not really Indian?

    What about a white person (or an American of any ethnicity) who takes up martial arts? There’s a load of stupidity around there, but does that mean no one should do it unless they are Asian? And what blood quantum qualifies you? What about converting to Islam? Buddhism?

    Yiddish words, by the way, are so much a part of American English that we no longer notice. But I can’t get too annoyed if someone says “let’s break up this coffee klatsch” or “It’s not kosher to do X.” Kashrut, is, a deep, important spiritual practice of many Jews.

    None of this is to say that people can’t be annoying about things like this. I honestly thought “Namaste” was “hello” in many languages of the region. That may also be the issue you are running into here — frankly, until I read this, I had no idea that it had any spiritual connotation whatsoever. And I think that may be the issue with many white folks who use it with people of South Asia, and why it gets clumsy, annoying, and yes, a little racist.

    Posted 08 Oct 2009 at 7:14 pm ¶

20. Titanis walleri wrote:

    “They have little opportunity to feel what it’s like to have their culture/identity/etc. appropriated and COMMODIFIED”
    Isn’t the dominant culture commodified by default? Aspects of “Western” culture have been adopted all over the globe…

    Posted 08 Oct 2009 at 7:34 pm ¶

21. Sobia wrote:

    @ Teressa:

    “whenever they try to incorporate other cultures into the mainstream.”

    That. Right there. That to me is one of the main problems. What is mainstream and why? What is other and why? What does it mean to be of the “mainstream” culture and what does it mean to be of the “other” culture? Once these questions are answered then the problem with appropriating greetings like Namaste will hopefully be a little clearer.

    @Usha:

    Nose rings bothered me too!

    @Montclair Mommy:

    So what you’re saying is that if some South Asians are offended by this then that’s fine but as long as we keep quiet about it?

    It’s true that one South Asian person, or even a group of South Asians, do not speak for the whole group, but the fact that some socially conscious South Asians do find this offensive should be enough for appropriators to proceed with caution and to consider the possibility of offending people.

    If appropriators want to appropriate then that’s fine but they should not get upset or offended when those whose culture they are appropriating get offended by their actions.

    Posted 08 Oct 2009 at 7:41 pm ¶

22. Sobia wrote:

    @Titanis walleri:

    “Aspects of “Western” culture have been adopted all over the globe…”

    Adopted or forced upon? Aspects of “Western” culture being “adopted” has A LOT to do with colonization and Western imperialism, in neither of which those “adopting” “Western” culture had much choice.

    Posted 08 Oct 2009 at 8:11 pm ¶

23. Ratrace wrote:

    Ni hao, konichiwa, annyeong, etc… and welcome to the club, one we’d rather all not be a part of. Namaste.

    Posted 08 Oct 2009 at 8:53 pm ¶

24. Nappy Mind wrote:

    @ storm
    I also thought Namaste meant “the divine in me recognizes and honors the divine in you”.

    As an African American, I have accepted that we have no ownership of our cultural expression. Our identity is commonly and consistently co-opted.

    Non-AAs perform blues, jazz, house, hip hop and gospel music. Non-AAs use slang created by AAs and wear styles originally fashioned by AAs. Non-AAs take advantage of equal opportunity laws that resulted from the civil rights movement’s effort to help the descendants of enslaved Africans who were denied access to basic rights.

    I find it annoying that oftentimes AAs don’t benefit from or receive recognition for our accomplishments.

    Posted 08 Oct 2009 at 9:56 pm ¶

25. nathan wrote:

    I think there has to be some recognition of the presence of sincere, aware of the complications border-crossers in this increasingly globalized world. A few examples that come to mind are white Muslim converts, black Muslim converts, as well as Buddhist converts of many racial backgrounds.

    What I read in the original post was commentary on the fluffy, offhand, and commercial use of Namaste by the dominate, white centric “mainstream.” This sentence, in particular, “I’m also perturbed that people assume anything about by my relationship to “Indianness” in the first place” points to how this appropriation plays out on a more insulting scale, where assumptions are made within a racialized framework. Walking up to an Indian-American stranger and saying “Namaste” is an assumption loaded proposition. How do you know if that person even knows what the world “Namaste” means?

    However, this seems different than suggesting that the only people who have a right to practice a particular religious or spiritual path are those who originated it. None of the major religions in the world has stayed exclusively in the region it started in, not a one. The mention of Native Americans also brings to mind the cross-pollination that has occurred in my own state of Minnesota between the Dakota and Ojibwe peoples over a four hundred plus year period. This is very different than Germans appropriating cultural elements and creating faux images to their own liking. But there has to be an awareness that not all cultural exchange is appropriation in the service of marginalizing and/or denigrating minority cultures.

    We can learn every last ounce of bloody history, but the fact still remains that religions and spiritual paths like yoga have practitioners of all different backgrounds. So, how do we collectively deal with this truth? How can we tease out the oppressive behavior and institutional practices, and still respect the migratory reality of the world?

    Posted 08 Oct 2009 at 10:23 pm ¶

26. Bianca wrote:

    Random,

    But I knew this guy (white/American) who’s first name was Namaste.

    He went by Seth.

    Posted 08 Oct 2009 at 11:27 pm ¶

27. ashlynn wrote:

    Could it be said that this is similar to people saying As-Salamu-Alayakum to anyone who looks Middle Eastern? Or the various greetings and phrases African Americans have created? Because on one hand, for the former, sometimes its respectful, others patronizing, and for the latter, usually just patronizing or at best, uncomfortable.

    Posted 08 Oct 2009 at 11:55 pm ¶

28. Katie wrote:

    @nathan – “But there has to be an awareness that not all cultural exchange is appropriation in the service of marginalizing and/or denigrating minority cultures.”

    Where is anyone suggesting otherwise? The original post was VERY clear, I thought about the context in which the criticism was being made. I don’t see that anyone on this thread has condemned cultural cross-pollination outright. To say otherwise is a straw man argument.

    Posted 09 Oct 2009 at 12:17 am ¶

29. atlasien wrote:

    @Katie: “Anyone has the right to tell anyone anything. They certainly don’t have to listen. I don’t understand, though, your implication that it’s somehow worse for the cultural appropriator to deal with people condemning their actions than it is for people to actually have their culture constantly appropriated.”

    Bingo!

    I liked the quote. Jacinto does NOT argue that no one should ever do yoga ever and no one should ever say “namaste” ever. If somene told me that I, as a non-Indian, should not do yoga, I would listen to them, but I probably wouldn’t agree to stop doing yoga.

    I wish, in discussions of appropriation, that people wouldn’t immediately jump into “you’re telling ME I can’t DO SOMETHING.” It’s really not about you… it’s about having respect for other people and being generally more aware about patterns of cultural transmission and how they relate to power.

    Posted 09 Oct 2009 at 7:48 am ¶

30. vcious wrote:

    I’m personally always pretty suspicious about any white person who claims to be Hindu or hugely invested in any sort of yoga-related spirituality. I’m all for freedom of faith but it’s usually a sign of over-exoticization of Indian culture which kind of annoys me, especially when the people who do this sort of thing usually voice these dumb stereotypes like “I wish I was Indian, they’re so spiritual” and “I think I am Indian, you know, on the inside”. WTF?

    But anyway, saying “namaste” if travelling in Delhi would make sense, but to a South Asian person anywhere else, it’s just such huge assumption and just a really weird thing to say. They could speak any Indian language, be of any religion, consider themselves more American than Indian etc..

    Also, I think it’s not very wise to open with that because you’re bringing a language you don’t know into a conversation. I mean, what if you did this with everybody you saw? There’s a change that if you greet a German with “Guten Tag!” they’ll happily reply “Guten Tag, wie geht es mit Ihr?” and get the conversation going. So if you don’t know the language you’re opening with, it might lead to an awkward silence from the person you’re making an assumption on or an awkward silence from yourself because you don’t know the language!

    Posted 09 Oct 2009 at 9:38 am ¶

31. nathan wrote:

    Katie – This came after my comments, but it’s the kind of statement my comments about cross-pollination speaks to.

    Vcious writes: “I’m personally always pretty suspicious about any white person who claims to be Hindu or hugely invested in any sort of yoga-related spirituality.”

    However, I totally agree the original post was very clear, and most of the comments also have stuck to that original set of points. I also misread something DreaD wrote, which led to the original comments being said before anything actually required them to be said.

    Posted 09 Oct 2009 at 1:09 pm ¶

32. Sobia wrote:

    @atlasien:

    “I wish, in discussions of appropriation, that people wouldn’t immediately jump into “you’re telling ME I can’t DO SOMETHING.” It’s really not about you… it’s about having respect for other people and being generally more aware about patterns of cultural transmission and how they relate to power.”

    Co-sign!

    Posted 09 Oct 2009 at 1:46 pm ¶

33. Montclair Mommy wrote:

    @ Katie, “Anyone has the right to tell anyone anything. They certainly don’t have to listen. I don’t understand, though, your implication that it’s somehow worse for the cultural appropriator to deal with people condemning their actions than it is for people to actually have their culture constantly appropriated.”

    When in my post did I ever say or imply that something was “worse” than the other? I simply stated that I, personally, don’t like the idea of spiritual beliefs being exclusive. I didn’t say it wasn’t fair to tell someone that it was offensive. Or that it was wrong for a person to be told something is offensive. In fact, I said that you certainly have a right to feel offended by a person’s use of Namaste … and to tell them so if you want to…but when you say its not right for them to do it, its only your opinion. And I said that they take that risk each time they say it. They take the risk of irritating someone and losing a friend. And if, to them, Namaste is a spiritual thing…they might not care. Then you guys can simply not be friends. That’s fine. I’m simply saying that I don’t think that our color should determine spiritual practice. Personally, I’ve never done yoga, I wouldn’t say Namaste to anyone and I get uncomfortable with people who do. But I don’t agree with making all sorts of assumptions about them based upon their blunders. Not everyone is as educated about race as the writers of this blog. Not an excuse, I know. But it is a fact.

    And are we assuming here that the white people who use this term are misappropriating it just by saying it at all? Is it misappropriating it to say it during a meditation weekend? Or is it misappropriation to use it as a regular old white person on the street to a random person that you are assuming has some cultural background that makes Namaste appropriate? Or does it depend on the situation and the person saying it and their relationship with the person that they are saying it to? IMHO its the later.

    Posted 09 Oct 2009 at 4:53 pm ¶

34. Montclair Mommy wrote:

    @ Sobia: Absolutely not. No one has to keep quiet about anything. Its good to keep feelings in the open. That’s why I said, “I am just saying that it is COMPLETELY fine to feel personally irritated, irked, annoyed, whatever…by someone appropriating or misappropriating things that you deem as your culture.” What I don’t think is fine is for someone to say “You CAN’T practice a particular type of faith or spirituality because you are _____.” Because that assumes you are some kind of authority (unless you are…then I guess exclude away?). I think there is a difference between saying “This is offensive to me and to a lot of people.” and saying “Don’t ever do this. Its offensive, period. You can’t do this without offending everyone.” I don’t think its alright to wholesale exclude someone because of their color.

    And I totally agree with your statement: “It’s true that one South Asian person, or even a group of South Asians, do not speak for the whole group, but the fact that some socially conscious South Asians do find this offensive should be enough for appropriators to proceed with caution and to consider the possibility of offending people. If appropriators want to appropriate then that’s fine but they should not get upset or offended when those whose culture they are appropriating get offended by their actions.” That’s why I said

    “Basically, when you use the greeting Namaste, you take the risk of irritating/offending people and making them think you are cliche/trite/a hippie. So, before you use it, you should make sure that it’ll be appreciated (like using it in yoga class). Obviously, every person with South Asian heritage has the right to feel annoyed or offended…but not everyone will.”

    Because I think that’s true. You take that risk when you say it. Personally, I’d rather not. I suppose I should have said “everyone has the right to feel/say” because that is what I meant. Please, by all means, keep the dialogue open. Some people will hear it and stop saying it. Others won’t. Quel che sara…and that is my culture…so its okay for me to say it.

    Posted 09 Oct 2009 at 5:08 pm ¶

35. nausicaa wrote:

    I find all flippant, fashionable use of serious cultural symbols — especially religious symbols — to be really disrespectful. Those things MEAN something to a lot of people, and to just toss out a “namaste” unthinkingly after yoga, or wear the kaffiya as a cool scarf, or use a crucifix as a necklace…it’s just irritating and uneducated.

    And then, if you add in a little oppression/colonialism, it now becomes just plain offensive – minstrelsy, at its most extreme.

    Posted 09 Oct 2009 at 8:52 pm ¶

36. Julia Su. wrote:

    Those things MEAN something to a lot of people, and to just toss out a “namaste” unthinkingly after yoga, or wear the kaffiya as a cool scarf, or use a crucifix as a necklace…it’s just irritating and uneducated.

    One of those things is not like the other.

    Many very observant Christians wear crucifixes as charms on necklaces. Did you mean “rosary” perhaps?

    Posted 09 Oct 2009 at 10:58 pm ¶

37. DuWayne wrote:

    Teressa @14 -

    I am rather curious, why does people loving tacos bother you? I can totally see and respect that there are certain aspects of one’s culture that should be respected by simply being left alone – I could even see that being applied to certain foods that may have a ritual significance.

    But food in general? Really? Does that mean that we should be relegated to eating only those foods that originated within our culture? My world would be a much darker place if that was the case. It’s not the I don’t like “U. S. American” foods (whatever that actually means) – I do. But I also love Indian, Mediterranean, Ethiopian, Middle Eastern, German, Italian, Guatemalan, Peruvian, Cuban, Japanese, Chinese, Korean, Mexican – I could go on for a while, but I think I have made the point.

    Of course the first and foremost reason I love these foods, is that they just taste good – or at least some of them do. But I also like them because they have something to say about their cultures of origin, from the foods themselves, to their presentation. And they speak of subcultures from within the larger cultural heritage they originate from.

    Take Latin American foods as an example. As a typical Midwestern boy, I grew up with a pretty typical U.S. American view of Latino culture – that is, all of it was pretty much Mexican and all Latinos were pretty much like Mexicans. That changed a little bit through schooling – but not a lot. It wasn’t until I experienced the foods of many different Latino cultures, that the significant differences really sank in – that I really understood that just as there are significant cultural differences between various regions of the U.S., so too are there significant differences – an incredible amount of diversity, that gets thrown under the label “Latino.”

    At the same time, it is wonderful to see the similarities in the foods of very different cultures. I love Greek food and find it very interesting that the very best example of possibly my favorite food ever, the gyro, comes not from a Greek restaurant, but from a Middle Eastern food cart in Portland, OR. Chef Sayid has very exacting standards and uses feta produced in Tillamook by his specifications and yogurt from the same place – which he then “ages” in cheese cloth to produce the richest, thickest yogurt sauce ever. And the lamb is simply exquisite.

    As a lover of great food, I am so very glad to live in a culture that provides so much diversity of cuisine. Food is such a basic and beautiful inroad to understanding, appreciating and coming to love cultures other than ones own – in many ways superior to literature in that regard. Literature limits appreciation to the literate and intellectual. Food transcends all that and provides an opening that most anyone can appreciate and enjoy.

    Posted 10 Oct 2009 at 9:22 am ¶

38. DuWayne wrote:

    MM@34 -

    Not everyone is as educated about race as the writers of this blog. Not an excuse, I know. But it is a fact.

    I think there is a significant difference between not being educated about race and not being willing to be educated about race (or other outgroup issues). One doesn’t become educated about race and identity politics overnight. Nor is it really plausible to take a class and expect to understand. It isn’t about being educated about race – it is all about being willing to listen and learn – even when – especially when it makes one uncomfortable. Because it is also all about accepting that my feelings aren’t somehow more valid than yours, or Latoya’s.

    That doesn’t mean that I am necessarily going to change my behavior – for example, no matter how much it might bother Teressa, I am not going to stop loving tacos. It simply means that I am going to listen, learn a little more and decide then what to do with that information or new understanding. As a general rule, given my position of privilege in the society I live in, I tend to give way in the context of identity issues, because it is easier for me to change my behavior than it is for a member of any outgroup to change their life experience and what upsets them.

    For example, it would be much easier for me to stop saying “Namste,” (if indeed I used the term) than it is for Jacinto to stop being bothered by my using it. As far as I’m concerned, it really is that simple.

    Posted 10 Oct 2009 at 9:45 am ¶

39. nausicaa wrote:

    Many very observant Christians wear crucifixes as charms on necklaces. Did you mean “rosary” perhaps?

    yes!! can you tell it’s been a while since I’ve been to mass…?

    Posted 10 Oct 2009 at 1:44 pm ¶

40. ana wrote:

    Haha. My yoga teacher uses this at the end of the session and we’re all supposed to repeat it. I had no idea what it meant, and when I asked she said it meant that “we honor our inner spirits” or some BS like that.

    Posted 12 Oct 2009 at 2:24 pm ¶

41. Katie wrote:

    Had a racist run-in with some guys who shouted random words in Chinese and Japanese at me last night. I couldn’t help but make the connection to this post.

    Posted 13 Oct 2009 at 6:47 pm ¶