The singular invocation they were chanting during their Brooklyn rehearsal began, “Oh lordy, please say it’s not broken, please say she was kidding,” before diverging into specifics: “And please send me a hot guy who’s young and athletic and not married or secretly gay.” “But lord, what do I have to do to get a new job and my credit card approved?” “Am I truly a bad person because I wish my upstairs neighbor would get hit by a truck or struck by lighting every now and then?”
from the New York Times
And you know what? I’m fine with that. I know it sounds strange to hear them and see them, but …religions do get appropriated, they’re not the property of one \’race’. Furthermore, what they’re doing is consistent what Saraswati stands for; these are artists invoking the goddess of the arts. This is a very different case from the Buddha bar, or british sandals with the word OM on them (!!) or toilet seats with Hindu gods on them, etc. Still, as desi culture spreads, religious symbology will be used by \’outsiders’ and people are gonna be uncomfortable with it … (but for some reason, they’re fine with all the profanation in the homeland, go figure!)
Actually, the dancers in the first picture are African American. Perhaps for once my mother’s designation of “American girls” would be more appropriate. I think Mom would be OK with this sort of thing — she wasn’t too freaked out when we went to a one-woman show that invoked Kali — but she dislikes the merchandising of Hinduism. We were in a shop in New Orleans once that sold lunchboxes picturing Ganesh, and she walked out when she saw those.
I think that’s a principled distinction. It’s one thing to be using concepts from Hinduism to explore one’s own ideas; it’s another to slap an OM on a sandal to show one’s alleged multiculturalism. Or to put Ganesh heads on topless dancers…
Thanks for your feedback, PG! If you look at the second photo, the one of the performance, you’ll see that most of the people involved are of the pinker persuasion. But you’re right that I’m using a convenient, and not wholly accurate term, nonetheless.
Religions can be studied and followed by anybody. But this is not a question of whether other people have a right to relate in some way to aspects of Hindu tradition or practice.
It’s very simple – if you’re dealing with symbols which are part of someone’s religion, you have to respect that and not put them on toilet seats or whatever.
Who says?
You are sharing the planet with atheists and others for whom religious symbolism doesn’t mean a damn thing.
Sorry, they are not obliged to respect your’s or anyone else’s religion.
Sorry, they are not obliged to respect your’s or anyone else’s religion.
of course no one is obliged to do anything. But even an atheist can respect another person’s religious symbolism, as they are showing respect for the fact that it means something to someone.
It’s like me putting the picture of the atheists mother on a toilet seat. and claiming “I don’t have to respect so and so’s mother, I don’t believe in her capacity to love, raise children, etc..”