I don’t necessarily think the appropriation by popular culture of Hindu icons is always offensive. Any deity on a toilet seat, sure that is offensive, a deity on a t-shirt…I don’t think so.
Anyway, Time Magazine (Asia) recently published an interesting story on Pop culture’s appropriation of Hindu icons and how “the faithful” is up in arms about it. The article is essentially a listing of some of the more recent examples of this, including Roberto Cavalli’s ingenious Holy Bikini and undergarments which made a stir earler this summer, and were subsequently removed from the famed British department store, Harrods.
It’s been five years since the spirituality-seeking Madonna, dressed in a sari and adorned with a tilaka marking on her forehead, sang a self-composed Sanskrit song at the MTV awards before a backdrop of Hindu god images—simultaneously raising the West’s awareness of Hinduism and incurring the ire of the religion’s faith police. Things Indian have only gotten trendier since. But as Madonna discovered, cashing in on Hinduism can be a mixed blessing.
To read the full article, click here.
i’m guessing this phenomenon is restricted to 1st generation desi immigrants. well, this is another manifestation of the rightward shift that hindus have undergone over the last couple of decades. i liked those docile, tolerant hindus of the pre-babri masjid demolition era, not the noisy and touchy bjp-supporting non-resident ones.
PS : personally i don’t see the harm in having a deity on a toilet seat .. whether it’s jesus or krishna or buddha.
It’s about respect. You won’t find a non-ironic Jesus toilet seat in a Christian country (sold in a mainstream store), but you will find a Krishna one, because minority religions aren’t taken seriously and are fair game for mockery. For the designers, the issue often doesn’t even arise in their minds as they don’t know any desi Hindus and aren’t aware there are many in the U.S.
because minority religions aren’t taken seriously and are fair game for mockery
All religions are fair game for mockery:
http://www.cafepress.com/landoverbaptist.3948982
http://www.jesus21.com/poppydixon/product/panties/panties.html
Look up non-ironic.
i doubt the people wearing those things have very much in the way of positive feelings towards christianity. they are not being sensitive by “self-dissing”, as most of them are atheists.
ergo there is no reason that religions practiced by brown people should get protection just because they’re brown. i await “what would allah do” versions as well as “om” tattoos.
Swami vivekananda’s quote “Religion is not in doctrines, nor in dogma nor in intellectual arguments..its being and becoming..its realization..that all religions preach the same.. good values and to be kind and to be tolerant towards fellow human beings” using religion for any good cause is acceptable.. but using religion in spreading hatred/terrorism is really sad. And using religion/religious images for silly things is also sad. Mutual respect and non interference are important.
I think for the second time I agree with GC, all religions should be available for mockery. Does this necessarily mean it’s disrespcectful? No. Consider one case “Lenny Bruce”. Some may know of him already, but he was a comedian in the US (50s-60s) who gained notoriety for engaging in humor that pushed the social boundaries of that time;
Bruce hits his audiences where they live – or think they do – in their religion, their sex lives, their politics, their prejudices and prevarications. And he does this by using many of the same shock techniques of language and behavior that modern writers, artists, and even musicians are using to cut through the crust of custom and apathy. He has become a hero to thousands of young people who want to laugh, but at something more important than Cosby’s money or Hope’s golf score.(http://members.aol.com/dcspohr/lenny/brtrial.htm).
Any community (or even individual) that cannot look at themselves and represses the kinds of insights that individuals like Lenny Bruce brought out, are fated to stagnation — no growth. Some of the anger that I see from people regarding the use or appropriation of religious symbols is almost atavistic. The same people, who if they saw this in India, would not even flinch. I have traveled many times in India, and have seen many instances where religious symbols (or god images) were used on just about anything. I find it more offensive that the very same people that spend thousands and millions of dollars to create temples, wouldn’t spend a dime helping those that actually need it;
Sluggo writes “…all religions should be available for mockery.” Surely that’s true now and in the past. Witness the savage satire found (on both sides) in Hindu vs. Buddhist polemics !
No one disputes the right of mockers to mock. But, equally, the objects of ridicule have a right to protest and try to persuade/argue/ridicule the other side to stop. These sorts of dustups are precisely the stuff of ‘argument’ (in the broad sense) in any society, and should be encouraged.
it’s a free world man fuck nobody can tell me what i can or can’t do im not killing anyone with my deity toilet seats am i? sure its offensive, but this is a capilitalistic society, and the whole MODERN world admires capitalism, there are no rules any more profit rules over everything… even if capitalism does die, open mindedness won’t , there really shouldn’t be any restictions on silly things like this, i like the comment where they should spend more time and money feeding their hungry and needy than bickering
Who’s talking about restrictions by the government? Boycotts are native to capitalism too.