Here we go again. And by that I’m referring to the Ms. 2009 cover depicting a multi-armed mom. This time, it’s an image of President Obama. Newsweek’s November 22nd, 2010 issue headlined “God of All Things” shows Obama on the cover balancing multiple policy issues and balancing on one leg. The image is of Hindu deity, Shiva, also know as “the destroyer of the world.”
Suhag Shukla of the Washington-based Hindu-American Foundation told FoxNews that her group doesn’t think Newsweek meant to be malicious, but believes ‘the cover was in line with the media’s comfort of utilizing Hindu symbols or deities to symbolize an issue.’
Zed said that Hindus understood that the purpose of Newsweek was not to denigrate Hinduism, but warned casual flirting like this sometimes resulted in pillaging serious spiritual doctrines and revered symbols and hurting the devotees.[dailymail]
In the rest of the world, Hindus are outraged. > Hindus in Malaysia are taking more drastic measures. They are demanding the government remove the issue from all of the country’s newsstands. [abc]
It feels like this is turning into an annual thing, isn’t it? A major magazine anthropomorphizing a Hindu God into a (famous) person and putting it on the cover seems to be an annual occurrence. What may be worse is that they really should have done their research because what had initially been a sympathetic cover of everything the President had to juggle quickly turned into a jab at the President as being a world destroyer. After those 12 stitches to his lips today from a holiday basketball game, it’s pretty clear he’s not invincible.
How offended were you, Mutineers?
UPDATED:
To provide context, the above cover is from the National Review, June 2009. Related blog post at Swami Sotomayor.
The above cover is from Ms. Magazine, July 2009. Related blog post at Keep Your Hands to Yourself.
My question is, why were more people offended by the Ms, and National Review covers (see comments in previous blogs) than they were of the Newsweek cover? How is this different?
I find the attention to Hindu iconography flattering, not offensive.
ok if they’re going to get technical, this is actually the depiction of a version of shiva, known as nataraja: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nataraja
and yes he’s the destroyer, but only as the first step of re-creation of the world. or something along those lines, which here is almost appropriate?
i’m not offended by this kind of appropriation because the intent is almost never to offend. i do get offended by “hindu” groups/orgs being reported as though they represent anybody but specifically their own members.
I’m not offended at all. Freedom of speech must include the license to offend. To advocate censorship of those things that parody or criticize religion is total nonsense.
I’m not offended at all. Freedom of speech must include the license to offend. To advocate censorship of those things that parody or criticize religion is total nonsense.
HAF could only exist by finding this offensive.
The acceptance of this image by many Hindus demonstrates the greater integration with modernity of Hinduism as compared to some other South Asian religion[s] and hence the greater economic success of Hindus.
until they kill someone because they’re offended, hindus are strictly bush-league.
ok, never mind. realized that hindus are not bush-league in india. but american hindus, definitely bush-league 🙂 (which i’m happy about)
Busch. As in what’s ok in Busch League ain’t gonna fly in NASCAR.
Yes, Razib, even your errors show insight–Hindus are kind of like Jews–harmless and valuable in America, but hedgehog-like in a “don’t mess with me” way back in the Old Country! Viva Modi and Sharon, yet vote for Obama, or some such seeming contradiction! >:-)
look, as an atheist who thinks all these higher superstitions are equally ridiculous, it’s pretty obvious: most americans don’t view hinduism as a Very Serious Religion. this has all been covered extensively on this weblog over the years. hindu religious symbols are easily appropriated because 1) most americans aren’t culturally aware of their context, 2) hindus themselves in the USA are a chilled out and civilized bunch who take insensitivity in stride. that being said, as anna pointed out years ago in a post where she recounted a conversation with an american hindu friend who was offended by some appropriation, american hindus are often quite ignorant about the details of their own religion too (the appropriation was actually not culturally out of context as it turned out from what i remember).
with muslim it’s pretty easy as one can argue that their god is the god of the christians and jews. the common abrahamic stuff. with hindus you have to figure out a way to abrahamize the religion, and you’re in. until then, i think this sort of perversion of religious symbolopy is going to continue to happen because the superstition-sensitivity reflex isn’t going to kick in because most americans don’t empathize with hinduism. another way american hindus could get attention is threaten to blow themselves on buses or something muslim style, but i don’t think that would happen.
I would’ve went with Obama as Ganesha, to symbolizes his defacto rebublicaness. maybe have some blue god getting frisked by the tsa while lakshmi walks thru unscathed. That pretty much sums up the state of the nation.
I’m actually in India and just finished doing a little mini pilgrimage in Vrindavan. I’m newly sensitive to the fact that some Hindus just might feel generally raw about non-Hindus trampling over items we hold holy; there’s a controversial bridge being built over the Yamuna and my holiest city is totally and deepl scarred by history’s ravages. BUT this is not offensive to me, anyway. I can’t speak for anyone else. As a Bharat Natyam dancer I don’t think of the Nataraja as being all about destruction so much as creative renewal. And since the image is utterly unIndianized other than the posture itself, it doesn’t feel like that strong an appropriation. It actually feels kinda clever: it would take a god to do all these things, and Obama is obviously not one. Anyway, that’s my pair of pennies.
I have to totally agree with Saheli. with the Nataraja posture all it is trying to convey is that BO has to perform a complex babancing act of tackling all these issues simultaneously – that’s all. I am a born Hindu Brahmin and honor concept of Shiva – at my convinience of course – I am not offended a bit. Case closed.
I’m ok with appropriation of symbols from Hinduism, as long as it doesn’t end up the way the SWASTIKA did. The one above is just amusing because it is a pose from the dance of destruction, and if Rush Limbaugh/Glen Beck knew any Hinduism, they’d have a field day over it.
Whats with HAF?
I mean is this the main issue facing US hindus? I had once written them urging them to support some kind of certificate in hindu studies, cross-affiliating between local temples and educational institutions. They sent me a reply that didnt indicated they took this tarea too seriously. I guess along with Rajan Zed (self-styled “hindu statesman”), this is the kind of bakwaas they like.
Shiva’s dance, as most hindus know, is a source of destruction AND creation. So whats offensive about this?
Yo Dad,
Hindu Brahmin? Why the need to emphasize your caste?
It’s not offensive at all.
As for Rajan Zed, I think the Christian extremists who interrupted his invocation at the US Senate and brought him into the attention of the general public have served their cause pretty well. They’ve created a PR monster. There are still but a few people who’ve actually heard of this guy (certainly almost no one in India has), but it seems like he feels the need to release press releases in response to every damn thing that in any way involves Hindus or Hinduism.
The worst part is when newspapers in turn publish his statements as if they’re representative of Hindus in general. It’s actually kind of funny if you search for him on Google news. It’s just page after page of articles titled along the lines of “Hindus do this..” or “Hindus feel that…”, but the only person they cite is him.
We don’t need a frickin’ Pope speaking for Hindus, god dammit.
an awful dancer depicted like the lord of dance?eswaraaa no end to the stupidity of newsweek!
I can’t wait for Arundhati Roy’s take on this allusion to her title.
Was the Newsweek reporter whose brainchild it is an Indian-American?
I think the problem is that most Hindus are quite relaxed about this sort of stuff. They don’t really see it as offensive because it is not meant to be. However, put Manmohan Singh, for example, on a cross and you have a different issue. Likewise with equating him with Mohammed in Islam. Most other religions would take offence and vehemently so.
My view is that you need someone to push the Hindu cause and to stand up and register displeasure at these kinds of things or else the lack of respect for the religion will continue unchecked. In the face of aggressive, evangelizing and converting religions, Hinduism is likely to get subsumed unless somebody sticks up for it.
So, in sum, it doesn’t offend me either but I’m glad someone’s sticking up for Hinduism.
Not offended on religious grounds by picture. If Obama were an Indian politician, he would have already been deified. 😀 More earnestly, doesn’t really strike me as out of sorts for Hinduism to have a little entertainment.
Am offended that the same standard is sometimes not applicable to other faiths – Christianity and Islam in particular. It’s good not to be a d”£k to people, but at the same time, the standards should be the same for all faiths, granting that different faiths might place different priorities on their religious symbolism.
Am most offended on entertainment grounds that it’s not really clever. It’s hard to get up in arms about schlock graphics from a mainstream American magazine cover 🙂
Huh huh, you said arms.
I agree, but it’s been 500+ years and there’s still no convenient go-to symbol for the Protestant Work Ethic, so we might be waiting a while to see something that easily conveys multi-tasking.
Maybe Pat Robertson will commission one. I bet he’s just as worked up as anyone else about this…
I just did a google images search for “blasphemous images.” Apparently people had been hard at work over the last 500 years…
Maybe he was coining a new usage. As in ‘Wow, that murderous war and lack of investment in infrastructure was so Bush-league!’
😀
Dark humor for dark days!
I mean, if some danish guy can barely get away with drawing a cartoon of mohammad, then how do you think a major American publication can get away with what would only be perceived by the muslim world as a swipe at islam? knowing full well that most of the muslim world perceives anything the western media does as a swipe at islam. You know how it is.
“I think the problem is that most Hindus are quite relaxed about this sort of stuff.”
I don’t get it. I thought this is a selling point of the lifestyle. Whenever I use it I get immediate converts…except among the Rastafarians who appear even more relaxed, for reasons I’m not aware of. Its part of the whole “Hinduism is the most tolerant religion” discovery. Therefore we’re the best and all the rest suck. It really pisses me off that people don’t understand that. I think maybe if we just made an example of one or two of them we could get our point across. Oh, wait…I think I get it now.
“too relaxed” says: “I think the problem is that most Hindus are quite relaxed about this sort of stuff. They don’t really see it as offensive because it is not meant to be. However, put Manmohan Singh, for example, on a cross and you have a different issue. Likewise with equating him with Mohammed in Islam. Most other religions would take offence and vehemently so. My view is that you need someone to push the Hindu cause and to stand up and register displeasure at these kinds of things or else the lack of respect for the religion will continue unchecked. In the face of aggressive, evangelizing and converting religions, Hinduism is likely to get subsumed unless somebody sticks up for it.”
I hope “too relaxed” isn’t saying PM Singh is a Hindu because if he/she is, it will come as a surprise to the PM.
More importantly, the assertion that “most Hindus are quite relaxed about this sort of stuff” is something to be proud of and should not be seen as a disadvantage. What should separate Hindus from the other “aggressive, evangelizing and converting religions” is an ability to NOT react violently when their religion is criticized or portrayed unfavorably. Those groups of people that reside in the margins of any religion who take offense to things that make fun of their religion such that they would demand censorship or even resort to violence show you just how insecure they are; the ability to disregard any “offensive” portrayals of one’s religion is a sign of strength and confidence in his/her own faith.
Obviously, I am not saying that Manmohan Singh is Hindu – my point was that there would be a reaction by Christians to that imagery.
I agree that confidence and faith in one’s beliefs allows one to let these things slide, but how much do you let slide, as I say, in the face of religions/ countries/ regimes which believe in their very heart that you should be of another belief and are willing to kill or coerce or force you into believing their religion?
I stand by my statement that I’m glad that someone is sticking up for Hinduism.
I would let slide magazine covers (including the National Review & Ms ones included above), cartoons, books, etc. Even if they may be viewed as offensive by some, they don’t warrant the calls for censorship or violence.
I don’t deny that there are religions that consider proselytizing as a chief obligation and that there are those willing to go to any extent possible to impose their beliefs on others (poor children as a target first comes to mind). In those particular instances (involving coercion, violence), it is perfectly reasonable to have someone “stick up for Hinduism” or whatever other religion or community is being targeted. But that seems to be outside the scope of this particular post.
I don’t think anyone has advocated violence. I believe Hindus in Malaysia have asked that the magazine be removed from newsstands.
Look, as I said, it doesn’t really offend me either, but if somebody doesn’t at least make an objection heard or known, then the religion will continue to be disrespected and ridiculed. I don’t think there is anything wrong with having enough self-respect and respect for your religion to protest when it is lampooned.
Peaceful protests are fine but demanding magzines to be removed from newsstands just because they contain offensive material is a form of censorship, something I can’t agree with.
“I agree, but it’s been 500+ years and there’s still no convenient go-to symbol for the Protestant Work Ethic”
I use the Star of David.
great post
but at the same time, the standards should be the same for all faiths,
where does it stop? “all faiths” is a big umbrella category, that goes into the thousands. in fact, any visual depiction is probably arguably somehow construable as holy in some obscure religion. so the reality is that “all faiths” means religious systems with a lot of following.
“Am offended that the same standard is sometimes not applicable to other faiths – Christianity and Islam in particular.”
http://www.theothercritic.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Visionary.jpeg
“any visual depiction is probably arguably somehow construable as holy in some obscure religion.”
Well, these are obvious references to Hinduism. In the case of an obscure reference that just happens to offend the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, we can just take intent into consideration and Dr. A’s equal protection clause would still be workable,
Of course, as I remind everyone every time this subject comes up, the rules regarding religion are not designed to make things fair and equal. They’re designed to prevent all hell from breaking loose. After all why should we be allowed to scrutinize Mitt’s Country Club but not his Church?
Because Mitt’s golf buddies are unlikely to fly planes thru our temples of finance or kill our abortion providers. We don’t want to stir the hornets nest. And we also don’t want hold Mitt responsible for his religion because thats just unfair. He’s only a Morman because his parents forced him to do it and all our parents force us to do stupid ass stuff. Then once you’re in a religion all your friends and family are from there too so you can’t leave. Its like the mafia. So its only fair to cut some slack, aside from the fact that if we don’t, we’ll all be sleeping with the fishes.
BTW, per Pew, a good 30% of Americans believe in reincarnation. probably 25m do some form of yoga, so I very much doubt there is so profound a lack of familiarity with non Abrahamic beliefs.
He’s only a Morman because his parents forced him to do it and all our parents force us to do stupid ass stuff. Then once you’re in a religion all your friends and family are from there too so you can’t leave. Its like the mafia. So its only fair to cut some slack, aside from the fact that if we don’t, we’ll all be sleeping with the fishes.
that’s a very south asian perspective. for example, communal religious identity is much weaker among east asians, partly because a much higher percentage are just plain explicitly irreligious.* in fact, it’s pretty weak now among americans too. switching is very common:
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2009/0428/p02s01-ussc.html
(this includes hispanics, who are among 50% catholic among teens)
mormons, are, according to the data a “high churn” group. lots of converts & defections (though a disproportionate number of defections are naturally from converts).
i think the main issue with romney and mornomism is that today it doesn’t have a very strong policy implication. the fact that mitt romney wears weird underwear doesn’t impact his competence as an executive. OTOH, if the republican nominee was a evangelical christian protestant they’d get questions about pre-millennial dispensationalism at some point, as well as evolution, because the assumption is that their religion would make a substantive difference in public policy.
from what i can tell though indian americans, despite their general secularity (in an american, not indian, sense), are like jews in have a strong cultural aversion to religious switching. this has come up in posts, where contributors admit to having a hard time getting why someone would want to convert someone else to their own religion. that’s all fine, but unfortunately indian americans live in a nation where switching is becoming more and more normative, and not taboo at all, and the founding religious tradition is a form of low church confessional protestantism which has even impacted other religious movements in the country to assume its broad outlines.
are like jews in have a strong cultural aversion to religious switching.
also, let me clear: there is a pretty high rate of defection among american jews to irreligiosity, and even christianity. see:
http://www.gc.cuny.edu/faculty/research_studies/ajis.pdf
don’t know the data on hindus or sikhs. in the black muslim community the defection is actually pretty high, though the conversion rate is also high too.
interesting that so many hindu’s were actually offended by what is essentially a clever incorporation of hindu iconography but sometimes it might not so much be the image but the cultural context. In the U.S. most hindu’s would probably find it amusing and clever and actually good in the sense that hinduism is ‘normal’ to the same extent that Judaism is. I’m in line with shalini’s comment to the most part.
however few things to note: i somehow find the hendrix posters of jimi in Viswaroopa annoying- not particularly offensive, but annoying. Possibly because the linking of stoner/drug abuse culture + amazing music = associations to Hinduism, a real, serious, vibrant, fun, living breathing religion bothers me
also if the same image were constructed with an indian politician- would anyone ever blink an eye? Bollywood movies make allusions to ram and krishna ALL the time when referencing the main character- granted generally in romantic or prodigal son contexts; but still.
Finally, it is annoying that other clever religious allusions (regardless of religion) are often met with large scale flip -outs if only the world could just chillax and realize that religion and symbol has been a universal language that people of and not of the religion utilize ALL THE TIME and have been utilizing ALL the time since the HISTORY of time. I find this image of Obama as Nataraja in the same league as say, The Mossacio painting of the Trinity reconfigured to incorporate Bush, Cheney, and Rice. The only thing lacking in the Newsweek image is that had the designer put more thought into it- he would have added something for Obama to stand on (as destroying) and in a ring of ‘fire’ that was reconceptualized to be relevant to the other issues at hand.
HIndus, unlike muslims, will not use violence to expose the cowardice of arrogant liberals and atheists. The only way religious people can get respect from liberals and atheists is to carve up a few liberals and atheists like Theo Van Gogh.
Obama looks cool in the Tandava Shiva Motif.
And what Rajan Zed said makes sense in that while malicious, commercial or intentionally undermining misuse of Hindu themes can be offensive to Hindu believers, that need not be the case when those themes are used in a non-negatively (or positively) creative and cross-cultural sense.
There is some negative stuff being said about Zed in the comments. I find that he usually does make pretty good sense in his statements and posts on various issues related to Hinduism. He recently came out in defense of atheists and other non-believers when Pope Ratzinger mouthed off some bad insinuations against them. Zed also champions the cause of the Roma people who are being subjected to unfair and inhuman treatment that borders on persecution) in many parts of Europe. I was initially skeptical about him, but the guy has earned my respect over time.
Sorry about the messed up links above. Take two: – Rajan Zed’s posts at On Faith. – Award given to Zed for his work to raise awareness of the plight of the Roma people.
There’s no question that those are worthy causes, but it is still irksome when Zed’s opinions or statements are presented as THE opinions or statements of Hindus or a segment of Hindus, or as, really, anything other than the perspective of one person.
Plus, more often than not, the articles you see about him involve him asking various American celebrities, a list which includes, but is not restricted to, Lindsay Lohan, Julia Roberts, Angelina Jolie, Russell Brand, and Katie Perry, to take up Hinduism or Hindu practices. This is not only useless and perhaps actually demeaning to the faith of Hindus, but it just seems like attention-seeking behavior. And it reflects poorly on the rest of us, especially when these opinions are presented as being representative of the Hindu community at large.
I didn’t know much about him until earlier this month, when a religion writer for a local newspaper mentioned him on his blog, essentially complaining that he was being overwhelmed with Zed’s press releases. (http://religion.lohudblogs.com/2010/11/04/hindu-leader-on-lindsay-lohan-russell-brand-julia-roberts-the-vatican-and-diwali/)
Needless to say, this is not the image of Hinduism or Hindus I would prefer presented to my community.
There’s no question that those are worthy causes, but it is still irksome when Zed’s opinions or statements are presented as THE opinions or statements of Hindus or a segment of Hindus, or as, really, anything other than the perspective of one person.
Plus, more often than not, the articles you see about him involve him asking various American celebrities, a list which includes, but is not restricted to, Lindsay Lohan, Julia Roberts, Angelina Jolie, Russell Brand, and Katie Perry, to take up Hinduism or Hindu practices. This is not only useless and perhaps actually demeaning to the faith of Hindus, but it just seems like attention-seeking behavior. And it reflects poorly on the rest of us, especially when these opinions are presented as being representative of the Hindu community at large.
I didn’t know much about him until earlier this month, when a religion writer for my local newspaper mentioned him on his blog, essentially complaining that he was being overwhelmed with Zed’s press releases. (religion.lohudblogs.com/2010/11/04/hindu-leader-on-lindsay-lohan-russell-brand-julia-roberts-the-vatican-and-diwali/) Needless to say, this is not the image of Hinduism or Hindus I would prefer presented to my community.
“This is not only useless and perhaps actually demeaning to the faith of Hindus, but it just seems like attention-seeking behavior. And it reflects poorly on the rest of us, especially when these opinions are presented as being representative of the Hindu community at large.”
It may be useless and demeaning but what can you do about it? We live in a world dominated by fame and influence. If you have it then good if you don’t….then you’re screwed.
Hindus in the US are largely affluent. Their interest lies with their families and language groups Punjabis, Gujus, Marathis etc. They don’t seem to do much in the way of broader community outreach such as the muslims and jews. Maybe they just don’t care?
but it is still irksome when Zed’s opinions or statements are presented as THE opinions or statements of Hindus or a segment of Hindus, or as, really, anything other than the perspective of one person.
sounds like the dude is an american religious entrepreneur in the tradition of william donohue or abe foxman. they do some good, but catholics and jews often complain that these guys regularly conflate their opinions for those of their co-religionists. but it isn’t really so abnormal, look at yo dad’s comments above: “I am a born Hindu Brahmin and honor concept of Shiva – at my convinience of course – I am not offended a bit. Case closed.” really? case closed? as an irreligious person one has to deal with religious person X, Y, Z, etc., regularly “speaking” for religion X, Y, Z. since we think religion is all man-made, it gets a little confusing when religious people have sincere differing opinions.* who do you trust? generally you go with the path of least inconvenience. most muslims won’t go crazy if you depict an imagine of muhammad on your blog, but a small minority will, and then you might have to change your name and go into hiding. who’s going to stand up for you then? people will talk about how it is really unpleasant, and people should be free to express opinions, but they won’t put their neck on the line.
so over time the screamers, self-promoters, agitators, and blusters will reshape the image of a “community” whom they purport to represent. most american jews don’t agree with AIPAC. but most american jews can’t be bothered. until people can be bothered, i assume this zed fellow is going to start being the “go-to-guy” for corporations and institutions who want to mollify hindus. even i heard about him all over the place aside from this weblog.
p.s. i know about zed’s buffoonery thanks to comments on this website. otherwise i’d probably think him to be a much more serious character than he seems to be. as noted above, he does pop up in all sorts of circumstances and situations as a ‘voice for hindus.’
The sad thing is, Obama really is a world-destroyer. Just look at how the North Koreans don’t respect him. He tried to suck up to the Islamic world, but that didn’t work either. No concessions from Iran and they’ve beaten back the Greens, who Obama abandoned. This will all end in tears. Weakness is provocative. If you want peace, prepare for war.
“* from what i have heard and seen not all hindus will defer to the opinions of a born hindu brahmin”
-it is not birth but conduct that determines who one really is (Yudhisthira expressly states this in the Mahabharata) and whether people will defer to him/her. anyone familiar with ND Tiwari’s boudoir adventures knows no one will be deferring to him in this brahmin birth. and trust me, i have “born brahmin” friends who would make caligula look like a sramana.
for the record, i too am not offended by the magazine cover–free speech, artistic license and all that already being touched on ad nauseaum
as for zed, i think he’s being a little misrepresented. i think he is wrong on whether this is offensive, but from what i’ve seen, he doesn’t actually engage in proselytism (will gladly retract if someone can provide a reliable link). Given the interest of actors and actresses (i.e. julia roberts et al) in hinduism, and in many cases, their ostensible conversions to a tradition that does not typically encourage or practice conversion, he is advising celebrities to make them meaningful. His suggestion of yoga and meditation to Lohan (who really could use the latter) does not make him a proselytizer. Would it have been better or more secular if he were a Zen buddhist monk or a shotokan karate sensei suggesting meditation?
Hinduism (and all things india) has become fashionable again. Zed’s point is that it’s not just cool spiritual stuff to show of to your trendy friends and shouldn’t be trivialized (razib’s point about average american’s perception of hinduism as a religion in this case being relevant). The concerns Zed has, are similar to those expressed by haf commentators such as aseem shukla, in that hindu practices are being detached and recategorized as distinct (for commercial purposes, etc) from the very hindu tradition they emerged from (yoga being the case and point). Chopra’s line about yoga emerging from “consciousness” rather than “tribal” hinduism is the most asinine of such efforts. Does or should one have to become hindu to participate in yoga? of course not. But don’t deny its roots in order to partake of its fruits. It is obviously more than just hatha yoga. But at the core of the hindu tradition is self-improvement. If people only want the physical benefits without the philosophy, they are free to ignore it. Pick and choose. But it is important to be aware that the poses do go hand in hand with the philosophy and are the intellectual property of the tradition.
As noted above, Zed has also done some meaningful work on raising awareness of the state of the Roma in the EU. For a continent that loves to chide other parts of the world for human rights, Europe has a condemnable track record on this count.
That said, I disagree with him on the newsweek magazine cover.
As always, very well said Mr Wry.
Not sure where this “born hindu brahmin” nonsense comes from. It is more reminiscent of my grandmothers belief system than anyone else – and she has been dead for 20 years! I have heard that many immigrants carry with them the cultural mindset of the time when they immigrated – I think this remark fits into that category.
One thing that is worth emphasizing is that hinduism does lack for representation of its beliefs in the US. We dont have intelligent people who have put in the time to be able to study and explain our traditions and connect with modernity in an appropriate way. I was hoping that HAF would provide such inputs; sometimes it does but at other times it gets far too involved with trivia (krishna images on chappals, oh no!!).
Zed is a gasbag, but apparently one with some decent instincts. Deepak Chopra is purely a creature of PR and marketing; an astonishing union of indian blather and american hucksterism. I have met him once and within minutes I felt I needed to make sure that my wallet and credit cards were safe.
I think that yo dad is being more tongue-in-cheek than his detractors (“nonsense”) are interpreting him as. Chill peeps–we don’t need to cultivate a war on this topic considering the real war we are facing.
desi magazines like India Today/Outlook have routinely done this with Indian politicos/businessgoons using both Lord Nataraja & Kali Ma so why the fuss when Newsweek does it?
Why do you think?
Presumably we can develop some negotiation based on notions of mutual respect, rather than a fear-bsaed understanding of ‘offending’ or ‘not offending’ people. This goes two ways (i.e. some openness on the part of the viewer/listener to the producer’s ignorance) and should apply to all faiths. Emphasis on the respect part. Common humanity. Etc. So in practice, yes, what you’re saying is true (i.e. the world is not perfectly equal) but the best way to address it is, as i suggested, creating a culture of mutual respect. distinguishing between things like malice and ignorance, attempting to understand other people’s perspectives, showing some grace, being appreciative of things outside your own background, being aware of what’s upsetting about a particular act because of the faith thing and what’s upsetting from preexisting experience or other things. etc.
won’t happen overnight, but it is happening slooooowly? We have a big hole to dig ourselves out of!
Well once someone ramps up a discourse of mutual persecution, it’s easier and easier to slide into it and harder and harder to get out of it. One useful tool is to point out that Pat Robertson, King Abdullah, Ahmedinejad, and Netanyahu are all a$$hats…What I was suggesting was more of a goal, not a legalistic policy. It is perfectly fair to acknowledge that right now, some practices are more or less sacrilegious in some faith traditions (or other cultural enterprises) than in others. As opposed to saying something like ‘well Americans celebrate Easter so all South Asian-Americans should adhere to this norm.’
I’m calling, basically for a more flexible and negotiated solution, but with the understanding that it shouldn’t matter what faith or belief tradition the person’s from in according them respect as a person presenting their faith / belief in a particular situation (i.e. don’t laugh at the Hindu or persecute the atheist or irrationally fear the Muslim etc.)
In similar vein “Karma is a bitch” should be offensive too??