The cover of the upcoming summer issue features a middle class white American woman holding several items that represent work and family life in a multi-armed Hindu deity’s pose. I get the juggling metaphor, and the sour look on her face informs that she’s not too pleased with her conflicting situation. What I’m conflicted and not pleased about is the frequency with which American media and pop culture icons are co-opting South Asian religion to suit their aesthetic fancy.[bitch]
This cover reminds me of the Sotomayor cover that the National Review did (and that Abhi covered here). I’m conflicted in both these covers. On the one hand, neither cover excessively pokes fun at the religion but uses the iconography to express some deeper message they are trying to convey. I believe deeply that art should be given the freedom to express.
But on the other hand, can we really call the Ms. Magazine cover ‘art’? It is the advertising front page of a magazine for commerce. And truthfully, I am discomforted by the fact that Ms. Magazine caters to a middle class liberal white women clientele. Question is, would I have felt different if they had depicted a brown woman in the same image, or if it had been a different magazine? Probably.
It’s completely inappropriate to utilize Hindu iconography in this context, mocks the religion, and diffuses the imagery of its “true” meaning. When a cultural or religious symbol is used for marketing purposes by cultural or religious outsiders that fail to convey respect for and understanding of the intricacies of that culture or religion, it is offensive.[bitch]
What we wind up with is more Orientalist perspectives circulating through movies, magazines and stores, more South Asians having to answer for an entire group of individuals about everything from food to yoga, and more ignoring national, gendered, class and sexual differences within the community…I also find it completely unacceptable for a feminist publication to blatantly marginalize women of color as a result of their appropriation of culture. It is a reminder of the divided nature of the feminist movement, and the continued tendency of white feminists to participate in the exoticization or “Othering” of women of color. [Feministing]
What does your gut tell you when you see this image?
I agree. Accept us as mainstream. But we'll tell you when we whimsically decide that we want to be treated with kid gloves.
Also, somebody needs to inspect the ingredients in that frying pan? Any beef there? Meat? Quick! Somebody call 1-800-RAJANZED!
My gut tells me that you, either as a Muslim, or as a person who may not be in touch with all the SECRET/LoA/New Age/Chopra/Yoga-ization of American culture, are unaware just how much references to Hindu culture and Deities are starting to become mainstream.
I am a Muslim that is very aware of the Yoga-ization of American culture (I have been a South Asian American activist for past 10 years, and writing on this site for 4) and if you look to the history books, new age desi gurus have been making the American circuit catering to the middle class whites since the 1920s. If it was "becoming mainstream" how come gurus, yogis, and new age culture has been around for 90 years now and still being "otherized"?
The question isn't how aware or unaware I am. The question is does it make it right to culturally appropriate to sell products that misinterpret and mock religion and culture. Despite how prevalent in society that religion is.
What does mocking culture mean? Are ironic articles about hipsters taboo now?
And advertising is not art because?
On the other hand does any Hindu believe, literally, that Goddess Laxmi had multiple hands or that Ravana 10 heads, most believe that the 10 heads was a metaphor thar Ravana had the strength of 10 men same with multi tasking Laxmi. If you go by that logic It is not offensive, unless any mainstream depiction of a minority culture is offensive. The lady in the image is shown in 2 caring and nurturing roles (the baby and cooking) plus multiple other roles a modern woman would be involved in her day to day activity, cell phone, pressed for time, a clutch, car keys.
The Sotomayor cover was clearly offensive, the tone was mocking. Her image and facial features were distorted and used her "wise latina" quote out of context.
Taz, I appreciate your sensitivity. But really, I think this is quite benign. It is true that such 'co-options' (to use your term) may result in changing of the meaning and iconography of things others hold sacred but that is in the nature of things.
Blast from the past.
Honestly, my gut feeling just says 'MULTI-TASKING', and nothing else, and I am Hindu.
Help! I don't understand why I'm supposed to be offended. What's being mocked, exactly? I feel left out. :-(
I didn't use "co-opting" - Bitch magazine used it. I quoted from the mag, which is why there are dotted lines down the left side of the places I pulled quotes from.
I was trying to parse this statement of Ms. Mandy van Deven (is that last name suffixed by Verma? I am only asking so I know whether I should be offended by this neo-cultural imperialism where browns are kept down by "others" telling him when and how their anger should be harvested?). Is she complaining about the fact that the clock only goes around to 12, when everybody knows that one god day is equivalent to 7 million* human days (or 1 million dog days, of course. Don't want to exclude the canines).
* 7 million is a rough estimate. Actual values might vary depending on market performance.
Feminists who find this cover offensive need to get in touch with VHP/BJP asap and lay down clearly defined guidelines on the subject. Without their able guidance we are completely lost.
I wouldn't admonish the nice lady so harshly.
YES!
Thanks for posting this Taz. I was reading about it at feministing and came across a link to Ms. Mag's inaugural cover there too. In hindsight, maybe not the best way for them to start off their new magazine. I wasn't offended (by the cover in this post) at first glance, but if Ms. has a history of "catering to a middle class liberal white women clientele" then their use of the imagery is a little disturbing. I want to expect more from a feminist magazine than I do from ads for detergent or hamburgers.
Also, the "Rises up!" headline together with the deity-like multiple arms made me wonder if they might be getting their religious references mixed up (resurrection v. reincarnation). I suppose a more generous interpretation would allow for a "rise" in the "Still I Rise" Maya Angelou sense or some other sense. Does Ms. deserve that kind of generosity or benefit of the doubt? Another jarring thing given the discussion the image has raised on blogs is that this cover also features the name of Audre Lorde, who criticized '60s feminists for a narrow focus on white middle class values.
By the way, that made me think of a Hyphen Magazine cover from the past. Obviously a mag with a different focus and history.
Spot on. Even though I think this is only marginally drawing on Hindu allusions, even if it was, do religions have some special right to have their images protected from co-option, satire or mockery? In this case, there's only co-option and no satire or mockery. But I see nothing wrong with co-option. In no way is anyone being "otherized", any more than if an Indian magazine made a pun on the word "savior" and drew a politician in a mock-Christ pose.
The problem with "othering" is when we see people as stereotypes e.g. connecting all South Asians with Hindu iconography, which simply writes off the group as a soft spiritual bunch without critical faculties. "Othering" is pernicious, but I think it entails much much more than employing allusions from culture or religion. And if the issue is 'respect' for religious iconography (which no one has raised so far) then I would simply echo the quoted post above.
And truthfully, I am discomforted by the fact that Ms. Magazine caters to a middle class liberal white women clientele. Question is, would I have felt different if they had depicted a brown woman in the same image, or if it had been a different magazine? Probably.
Taz, I have noticed that in the last few months you seem make things are alot more racial then they are in some of your thing you have wrote about. I could be wrong though.
You know, as an ardent Buffy fan, that phrase gave me a funny feeling in the pit of my stomach too.
While we're getting all critical, I'm glad that Ms. has its priorities straight. Bloggy tweety mom 2.0 gets an entire cover page, whereas Tiller (Tiller who?) gets relegated to a teeny mention.
But the real reason for feminists to be upset is the crypto-cultural-imperialism of the 8 hands that "blatantly marginalize women of color as a result of their appropriation of culture", perpetuate the "continued tendency of white feminists to participate in the exoticization or othering of women of color", and are "a reminder of the divided nature of the feminist movement"! Way to keep the eye on the, er, eight ball!
that she is one annoyed woman with not enough time to manage everything she needs to do, and wishes she could grow a couple of pairs of more hands.
this hindu iconography appropriation nonsense? give me a break. jeez.it's embarrassing.
Actually, the fact that they haven't represent Muhammad on that cover... isn't that just a crass exploitation of Muslim opposition to iconography for commercial purposes?
I didn't get any feeling actually... [puzzled..]. I wouldn't have guessed a Hindu reference right off the bat. It could be that I hate spiders more than I love my religion, so I saw a very large spider there? Maybe because I just saw Half Blood Prince and the very big, very dead Aragog? Whatev...
Another blast from the past. This is much more direct !
http://top10.wikia.com/wiki/File:Hendrix_poster.jpg
The idea of multiple hands and limbs is not unique to Hinduism anyway. I've seen it in "other" REALLY weird mythologies. Mythologies so arcane and irrelevant that they never make to the cover of a major, mainstream publication. Latvia and Borneo for example.
In fact I've seen many-limbed figures in 19th century American cartoons, and in some of those I'm not even sure if Lakshmi was the inspiration though she might have been.
Everybody feels the need for many hands at times. It's a universal archetype IMHO. Ms. Mag was started by the "demographic" that actually buys the thing. No matter how many articles about or by "women of color", said colorful women are never going to buy Ms. Mag in any numbers and this is something magazines aimed at certain types (none are universally popular) learn the hard way. Even a lot of working class whites have no attraction to it no matter what the cover displays. It doesn't matter what the GOP, for example, does or the fact that Republicans actually founded the NAACP in 1905 (or so I heard.) Browns and blacks are not attracted to the GOP today for reasons so fundamental they're hardly worth arguing, although to be fair--as an Independent formerly Dem -- the GOP is just a tad more inclusive than La Raza.
Look, there are serious reasons to get sensitive about portrayals of desi stuff in the media. But this ain't one of them.
yawn
You're not wrong.
In these curried times
Please allow me to vouch for mine
Oriental taste in my mouth
Spit it out with a rhyme
I’m losing my religion to Ms Magazine
Margaret Sanger
Got my Linga
Edward said crime
LOL.
Linga?
beats Linger
Like, when (male) gods have 8 arms, do they also have 8 lingas?
Manju---hahahahaha---too funny! Thanks for the belly-laugh!
After reading this an ad popped into my head that always gave me that same 'icky' feeling... it was some obnoxious yogurt commercial (since you know we women love yogurt) in which some sort of chocolate yogurt was described (ad libbing here) as 'zen wrapped in chocolate wrapped in karma'. Everytime I saw it, I got the same anger... and wanted to yell at the absurd women depicted in it... "do you even KNOW what zen or karma actually MEAN??"
I guess the misappropriation of religious/cultural terms or symbols is irritating anytime it is used without understanding or used in a way that makes it completely devoid of meaning.
LinZi, Does it upset you when I wear a tie--y'know, a desi co-opting and misappropriating a Croatian symbol (and I cert. don't know, nor care to know) its "true" meaning.
"LinZi, Does it upset you when I wear a tie--y'know, a desi co-opting and misappropriating a Croatian symbol (and I cert. don't know, nor care to know) its "true" meaning."
Not particularly... anyways I didn't mean to say I have amazing knowledge of the terms zen or karma... I just know that applying karma as a descriptive term for chocolate yogurt is kind of like using a tie as a loincloth, you know what I mean?
Not sure I can follow you--if you can articulate a principal as to when "cultural co-option" is OK and when it isn't, maybe I can.
I never said anything about cultural co-option... that must have been a conversation with someone else... I said "icky feeling". It's a very scientific feeling. I think it is more like embarrassment watching people make bevkoofs out of themselves by borrowing symbols and using them ignorantly. I said mis-appropriation. By which I mean, using things incorrectly.
I am assuming you use your tie 'correctly'...
anywyas, thanks for telling me about cravats.. it's good to know my people created the most uncomfortable neck wear available to date, short of the noose. Thanks, ancestors!
Any iconography, if you distill it off its religious and cultural connotations, represents an art form. And art is free to be expressed, adapted or forged (if not for duping). That's how cultures evolve.
Magazine covers are an art form. Any form of advertising is an art form -- but it is one that people DO NOT want to spend time with. It is art made for a commercial purpose. Michelangelo didn't suddenly find artistic possibilities in the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. It was a commissioned work from the Church. Now that's advertising, AND art. Likewise the magazine cover.
And very honestly, and with my whole-hearted love, Taz, I think you are digging too much into this magazine cover. It is frail as a stand-alone picture of a woman with multiple hands (look at the lighting, it comes from all angles on the props) and it is embarassing as a critique on desi sentiments. Let's not be too touchy here, shall we?
As someone who's first gen Indian American and from a Hindu family, this cover to me just seems like Ms. is trying to say 'the woman who's expected to do it all' and therefore convey the unrealistic expectations on the average woman to be a "domestic goddess" and balance so many things and not just be able to live as a normal human being. I don't find it offensive at all, on the contrary it's inclusive and speaks to me. Indian god and goddess imagery has long, long been used in all kinds of art, not just in uber-religious settings but also in everyday household objects - on carpets and wall hangings, on corny annual calendars given away by your local kirana-wala, for India Today magazine covers (e.g. http://churumuri.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/india-today.jpg), to sell event tickets (e.g. http://www.djsandbag.com/images/LA_decom-kundalini-lounge.jpg) etc. etc. - wish I could find more links to put online, but I can't express simply how prevalent the many-handed goddess metaphor is, and how commonly it's accepted. There've been about three million magazine covers in India depicting goddess imagery.
In fact to quote ennis on this very same blog not too long ago, "Hindu iconography has long been used for commercial purposes, is this any different?" (post on Aug 17, 2008, 'Plushy Kali'). No one has a copyright on religious imagery - especially not Hindu religious imagery, and neither is it offensive to use it in a 'fun' context - much like Greek and Roman god/goddess imagery, Hindu religious imagery is a lot more open to interpretation, than, say, Christian imagery or Islamic imagery. And anyone who's ever visited Kolkata during Puja knows that not just is the Goddess used to depcit non-religious stuff, sometimes this non-religious stuff is used while depicting the goddess (e.g. Kali at Hogwarts: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7041863.stm). Hinduism has always been more a philosophy of existence and less a pure, strict religion with taboos and boundaries and official how-to manuals.
And about using Indian art or yoga or Bollywood or food - seriously, even Michael Jackson's Black or White video had a Bharatnatyam dancer all those years ago - and people LOVED the inclusion. Everything Indian or even Hindu is not sacred, neither is it meant to be. The many-handed goddess depiction is a very, very common cliche to show a 'balancing act'. Of course, something like the Burger King Saraswati ad was clearly clueless, and even that wasn't nearly as offensive as they apparently set out to make it, because evidently they forgot that pork isn't as taboo to Hindus as beef would've been.
To me, this just sounds like Jessica Valenti & ilk getting excited about *her* own 'white woman's burden', really, and exercising out her internal politics against NOW and Ms., than a legitimate criticism or a thought-out argument.
Be careful what you wish for.
Hiya,
This cover is not offensive at all. It conveys a hassled Mum that's all. We created our gods and goddesses in our image and it is mere iconography free to be interpreted and used by others. Did not Raja Ravi Varma make our goddesses 'white' and so did teleserials like Mahabharat and Ramayan? As a child I visualised Sita to be brown not fair/white but that is how she is shown as is Draupadi. To me magazine covers are art even if magazines are published for a commercial purpose. Just like record covers of old.
(I write from Auckland, New Zealand.)
Cheers,
Sapna
I have noticed in the past amusingly (sometimes I would be mildly annoyed) over how SP bloggers manage to find a south-asian/desi/brown relevance to issues/articles that have little to do with desis.. I get it. We barely make it into the mainstream and its hard to find interesting topics of discussion.
Occassionally I am also surprised to see some relevant issues, not covered.. I m sure its hard to get them all
But this one takes the cake .. I tried.. I just don't find it offensive nor the image hinting at a Hindu goddess.. (A demon head in one of the hands might do the trick)
As someone put it best, the spider is more appropriate than Durga.. Spiderman fans might take more offense feminizing their hero than Hindus perhaps
i've seen similar covers on indian magazines; the west is not the only one pulling a thought from hinduism to make a point. how come it's not an issue when this happens in india? why the double standard?
how come it's not an issue when this happens in india? why the double standard?
Cause it's a white person doing it. Had this been a black women on the cover of magazine for black women, I don't think this would have been much of issue. Just look at the outrage over Ms.Rich a couple of weeks ago here over her book about talking hindi. I don't think there would have been the same outrage had Ms.Rich been hispanic or black. It's not the PC thing to say, but that the truth.
I just wish that we desi's should be outraged over real important stuff like the male/female birth rate in the west among some desi groups, the 16 year old desi girl from Toronto who was killed by her father about a year ago for wanted to dress like a Canadian girl, the more then 10,000 young women from India who married western desi men who only instead used the women for money to get married and never had any attention to sponser these women over to the west, or desi muslim rape gangs in England who actions will result in major backlash that could lead to racism or even violence against desi's in the west. That is the stuff I'm outraged over.
Oh GOD please stop over-analysing the cover!
Not to bust anyones fantasy, only 4 lingas are supposed to go with 8 arms.
It's interesting that folks are arguing over whether this is offensive or not, and whether Taz is right or not, instead of the larger (and more interesting/nuanced) question, which is: is it right to co-opt or appropriate religious images? The second question is whether it is ok to do this for art, or for commercial purposes (advertising) [I acknowledge there is a whole body of work on whether ads are art, but I'll leave that aside]. We're talking about taking the divine, holy, or deified, and bringing it down to a human level. I think this question gets complicated, or folded over in a way, when we also ask where and how the "art" or "ad" is produced, and whether it comments on society at large, or represents a form of Orientalist appropriation.
These conversations are similar in Native communities, where people roil to see Native spiritual/religious items (e.g., sage, dream catchers, Kokopelli jewelry, kachina dolls) sold with clear Native connotations as commercial oddities, devoid of any religious significance, connotation, or meaning.
Do you remember the backlash against Madonna's Like A Prayer video for its use of Catholic iconography in, what some my have considered, blasphemous ways? There's a legitimate discussion and critique there of whether she was criticizing the institution of the Church, or whether it was artistic free expression, or whether it was blasphemous but legitimate, etc., etc.
This mag cover seems much more akin to selling Native religious articles to hippies than it does to Madonna's video. It is sold, without context, to a consumer population who largely will not get it or find it offensive (or will be delighted/intrigued by the reference to Eastern spirituality). At its core, however, it's a commodification of Durga. It does not comment critically on Hinduism or any of its institutional features or quirks. It just borrows something "cool" and kitschy and recasts it in another light.
Oh, and Suki, I think your second comment is not entirely accurate of Taz. Taz has always covered issues that have a critical ethnic studies and feminist framework or lens applied. Perhaps because she is often very deft and nuanced in her treatment it is easy to think of some of her posts as more obviously dealing with race than others. Nonetheless, I seriously doubt that if this was on a magazine geared towards a POC readership that it would have gotten a free pass -- it may have just taken longer to come to light. Ms. Magazine styles itself as the leading voice for the American feminist movement. It is more obviously in the public eye, and it is more likely that something it has featured that is problematic will come to light before a more radical or specialized magazine (such as Bitch, for example, which also enjoys a predominantly white, middle-class readership but is considered less mainstream).
Not to diminish your statement, but when I saw this cover, I didn't think religious icon - I thought octopus.
not an authority on hindu iconography, but this is benign and i think consistent with the image of hindu gods who (imho) show the multiple arms not in the sense of a multi-limbed freak show but in the sense of their multiple responsibilities; and for that matter the image of jesus nailed to the cross has been used directly and as a subliminal reference in popular media in the representation of the abused anti-hero.
I am more offended by the fact that somehow, as a minority ( I am a cultural Hindu) I am supposed to be treated with kid gloves. Far more offensive is the idea that absolue idiots like Rajan Zed start speaking out for me, or groups like the Hindu janjagruti manch. That is offensive that they take a very olerant, very inclusive system and pour forth their own narrow interpretations. I have seen several such magazine covers in Indian magazines. Seen politicians depicted as religious icons and found all that ironic. Its not "othering". Indeed the insistence to be treated with kid gloves is. Lakshmi on a burger is also a non-issue. Just a Ravi-Varma-esque representation is not essentially Lakshmi and I have seen several calendars of shoe companies among others with deities represented( the same pictures). I understand the need for a composite cultural identity, but I do not understand how getting uber-offended is going to help in becoming accepted people, not types. I agree about there being much more to be offended about- like the male-female birth ratio, like actual discrimination.
Oh, and culture essentially needs to change and be influenced by outside in order to remain culture- the 3000 year old Hindu culture has managed just fine without manufactured outrage so far,
Re. the comment that Ms. caters to a largely white liberal audience, I would ask if the variety of articles in Ms.regarding the global women's movement has been really read?
Book reviews and arts also feature perhaps a majority of women of color.You'll find a number of South Asian women in the bylines.
You mean a hopelessly confused article like this one?
Women, people of South Asian origin, women of SAO, People in truly open relationships etc. etc. Something for everyone — to get irritated about.
As a brown woman, as an Indian, as an artist, as a one-time magazine designer, as a feminist, I feel a funny feeling of complete indifference to this image. Every image in the media is cultural appropriation and irreverent and referential on some level, it is truly wound-seeking to find this particular image offensively disrespectful. With the Sotomayor cover, yes that was supposed to be insulting and it was weird. This is just meh.
pagans :-)
Camille : "is it right to co-opt or appropriate religious images? The second question is whether it is ok to do this for art, or for commercial purposes (advertising) [I acknowledge there is a whole body of work on whether ads are art, but I'll leave that aside]. We're talking about taking the divine, holy, or deified, and bringing it down to a human level."
The deities themselves are a manifestation of various aspects of God. The "appropriation" of these deities and their characteristics are routinely used for art and commercial purposes (see any Indian movie). There are so many God-men and God-women who are routinely worshiped as avatars of God (think saibaba in recent history) in the country. Hence, the question of whether bringing the "divine" to human level is appropriate is kind of moot.
Manufactured outrage indeed.
Who exactly then is outraged? I think some people require Rajan Zed to pop out and make an appearance to prove some point or provide a distraction from world events. Somehow this non-issue mfgered by an Oppression Studies specialist will be laid at the feet of the HAF
jujung, I'm well aware that these religious icons are co-opted/used in other advertising and pop culture frames. I was just tracing the dimensions across which this could be analyzed. It's also not entirely accurate to analyze their use in the Indian context as equivalent to an American appropriation. In India, Hinduism outpaces all other faith communities as the dominant religion, and in many states, as the dominant cultural backdrop. The same cannot be argued for the U.S.
Oh the larger question: Is it right to co-opt religious images. Yes, if it's done with the purpose of making some point rather than expressly to offend. Why not? Would you feel offended if this was a painting in an art gallery? It is however mildly irritating when it's done with no knowledge of the religion being appropriated.
This reminds me of a sculpture in the Art Gallery of Ontario made entirely of used black shoes. Why shoes? It is a copy of an old wooden African sculpture of a woman carrying a child on her back. Imagine making a Ganpati out of used chappals. Footwear is considered disrespectful in most eastern cultures. It was presented to a group of school children I was with, as something wonderful. We were all invited to view both the original and the modern appropriation from an entirely western cultural perspective, even though most of the children in the group were Asian and one was even from Cameroon, where the sculpture originated.
The other question of why it's offensive when whites do it and not so bad if blacks or hispanics do it - it because of the history. Europeans have used the advantages of colonial wealth to study other cultures and observe them and comment on them all from a self-presumed viewpoint of detachment and superiority. Going around observing and reporting on the other has until recently been a luxury afforded mainly by those of European background and that's why we others resent it. We're like the second sex, even when some of us now have the advantages of the dominant group, we're still using their lens to view ourselves.
I seriously doubt that if this was on a magazine geared towards a POC readership that it would have gotten a free pass -- it may have just taken longer to come to light
I don't know about that. It just seems when desi are victims from attacks from POC its seems that there is nowhere near the outrage that if it's a white person doing it.
Look at this rap video which attacks a certain desi group. I hope there is outrage over this despite the background of the people behind the video.
www.averroespress.com/AverroesPress/Main/Entries/2009/7/19_Racist_anti-Pakistani_hate_video_in_Arabic.html
Suki,
Please stop spreading that Zionist, Capitalist propaganda. ;-)
We know Arabs love Pakistanis. Take your "evidence" elsewhere. Yah, yah, yah, I have my fingers in my ears. ;-)
Camille, with all due respect, Taz said the opposite in her original post. See the sentence that begins "And truthfully," and the sentence that follows it.
And if you read the sentence following that - I basically say, "would I feel just as bad if it were a desi person, or another magazine? Probably." Basically, reflecting what Camille was implying.
Thanks Camille.
Uh, people are so uptight. Relax, it is just a visual metaphor. Now, if she had a dildo in each hand, it would be metaphorical porn.
Progressives. Like with racism, they've been moving the goalposts in regards to colonialism...the theory being these systems of domination result in subtle forms of oppression not obvious to those who belong to the dominant group, or perhaps even to the dominated. Suki's observation (about the lack of outrage when blacks appropriate) is I think generally correct. But its justified. Blacks aren't the dominant group and they never colonized India, so they get a pass, unless its really offensive...in which case you can place blame on the larger culture of western domination which no doubt also infiltrates their thought process.
One could of course argue that America never colonized India either, but don't forget , the goalposts have moved. America practices neo-colonialism, has engaged in realpolitik vis a vis the anti-communism and the war on terror, and most disturbingly has opened up her markets to India while exporting jobs there, a form of economic colonialism.
Problematizing this theory, as this thread demonstrates, is that the natives haven't gone along with the outrage...or as I've reported back many times with my patented grandmother test. But that doesn't necessarily mean the progressives are wrong. It just puts them in the uncomfortable postion of being as condescending as the neo-colinailsts they abhor. But i feel their pain. I get outraged over Che Guevara T-shirts but if the Cubans don't mind who am I to complain? I recall speaking with a black south African friend who wasn't too exercised about apartheid. It happens.
Intellectual vanguards exists. Its possible they see things that the rest of us, being victims of an overwhelming social construction that just appears natural, simply can't. Of course, the other possibility is that they're wrong, or themselves brainwashed by an (ironically) western philosophical system. After all, was Edward Said really seeing things thru Palestinian eyes or Martin Heidegger's?
I report, you decide.
I've got a people in my family who would back this view. At the same time they seek to solely identify themselves with white upper middle class Americans - in taste, lifestyle, whom they choose to associate with and marry, career choice, etc.
On the internet they wax eleqount about POC and "othering", much like you, but were their children to marry POC (other than desi) the sh*t would hit the fan.
In matters like this, one should call in the expert on all matters of that could be potentially offensive to religions.
I always found it suspicious that Octopussy was set in India. They fooled us for so long, the bastards.
Suki,
Please stop spreading that Zionist, Capitalist propaganda. ;-)
Oh shoot, I been exposed for what I really am. Hopefully Rob you will still support my Pro-Blago agenda.
heh,heh.
Susan. I feel you are misinformed. I thought that was a bold piece of art. Firstly, the artist is american (not cameroonian), if memory serves me right. He also had a delightful piece made of a bicycle frame and another with a set of used reeboks. if it was presented as something 'wonderful' that's a problem with the educator rather than the artist or the ago. It was slightly subversive in that the casual onlooker would think it was a ho-hum 'authentic' african sculpture and only upon close examination would realize that the medium is very modern despite the traditional rendering. (the royal) We were amused and broke into a smile. The TRULY subversive piece of art at the ago was by kent monkman. What did you think of the rape of daniel boone? For those not in the know, it's a young daniel boone skipping off a canoe without pants, and an erect penis thrust out from a thatch of rust hair. There are two first nations men looking on. what did monkman want to say? is boone committing the rape of sacred land, or is his prance going to be cut short by a warrior's lance. Now THAT is subversive. Imagine the sacred cows that were dispatched in that one painting. I laughed. hahaha. hahaha. hahaha.
They should have raked John, Paul, George and Ringo over the coals for their 60s pop hit, "8 Arms to Hold You Tight." Don't tell me they didn't get that idea from their country's ex-colony.
And George with that damn sitar. No Liverpudlian should have attempted that.
Whoa! You said sacred cows! Is that, um, kosher?
after the bitch magazine saves hinduism, somebody should point them to willie. i dont think he knows he is a victim.
Are you sure he isn't an enabler?
neither an enabler nor an ally old felooda. here's an excerpt from cole's bio.
my personal assessment of his work is independent of the background above; i found his work subversive, alternately mocking the collectors who hold private viewings of the next odd and ugly ebony figurine procured via their allies abroad, and applauding the art in the pieces they collect. I hear him saying, "Hey you! this form that you appreciate, I made out of pieces I picked out of ditches in trenton. this figurine that you hold against your cheek and whose gloss you admire, is recreated in that what was made in a sweat shop in viet nam and purchased at payless. is it still as valued and cherished? Ha! motherfucker. Ha!" No cole isnt an enabler.
I am confused. Since when was the perceived value of art based on the materials it was made of. It's not as if Van Gogh's paintings are so much more appreciated than mine because he used unicorn skin for his canvas.
You are reading too much into this. Why give unwanted publicity to this magazine? Its the first time I have even heard about it...At this time lets remember the words of Blossom Baby Kutty: "Live and let live"- Peace!
This hoopla over religious images reminds me of when Muslims got all violent over the dutch cartoons, its a joke. Since when did indians become so sensitive
Umm...who exactly is outraged beyond the Leftist who wrote the article? Who is protesting in the streets baying for blood? No one....you seem to have a vivid imagination.
Exactly. I'm a proud, teetotolling, lacto-vegetarian, vrat-observing, Hindu (born and partially bred in the cow/hindi belt) and I LIKE seeing the desification of mainstream American culture.
Jai Hind!
Jai Mata Di!
I'm normally sensitive to these things, but this time, I saw nothing but a stressed-out modern mom, a person who seems to have or needs many arms in this day and age.
>>Susan. I feel you are misinformed. I thought that was a bold piece of art. Firstly, the artist is american (not cameroonian)
Koofi, I am not misinformed, perhaps you are. The original piece that the american artist copied was an old wooden sculpture from Cameroon. Both original and black shoe copy are in the gallery museum. The replica was very well made and a lot of thought had gone into it, and I appreciate all that, but I'm just saying what struck me about it and the way it was presented. If you're in Toronto go and have another look.
Yes, the bike sculpures were clever. And yes, there are some very subversive pieces there too, relating to native new worlders such as that Victorian looking costume made of twigs and commemorative saucers for breasts but I don't see what that has to do with this.
I see it as all part of the conspiracy to de-sensitise Americans to all things desi so that America will just slide right into the mergence without a glitch.
I wake up this morning and log onto yahoo to check my email and the headline there is a desi tradition story - http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090720/sc_afp/scienceastronomyeclipseasiatourismsuperstition
I see desi symbols everywhere now, on commercials, in movies, in mags. The words avatar, mantra and pundit are commonspeak. Even some hip hop artist named an album "jagaurnath".
They are getting us ready for the new world order, is all I can think.
At any rate, its now "cool" to be desi so we might as well exploit that in the PUA Game circuit. I know I am!
Rahul - the point on the medium was that much like the henna-mango imagery that is used to sell indian books, i find african art and artifacts marketed in the same breathless tone. hence i felt the cole pieces were wicked.
everything susan. daniel boone is a rugged image in north americn lore - a man's man who mastered beast and land. to portray him as a louche, a prancign wood nymph seemed to me that monkman was co-opting the european settler's icon for his own interpretation. this is subversive, vastly more than the little cover illustration under discussion here - and definitely more agaisnt the grain. a similar piece that i see coming down the pipe [somebody make a note of this] is an african artist making a begging bowl sculpture from consignment boxes. Co-opt and conquer.>>>your earlier comment suggested that it was disrespectful to use shoes for 'African art'. There were so many assumptions that I had to call you out.
What assumptions? If his intention was to mock collectors of African art by making this piece as you suggested, that's even more disrespectful, it looks like he's mocking the original sculpture. but what the hell, why should he be respectful of some piece of carved wood plucked from and another continent and plonked down in a sterile room out of context? Willie Cole's art is pretty cool and sometimes even beautiful but I was hoping there was more to it than just being clever and subversive. I am really tired of looking at art that's just ironic.
Actually khoofi, I think you're wrong about Cole mocking the collectors. He was so appreciative of the stylization that he appropriated it, in the same way that Picasso used African art as inspiration. He's just doing what artists, graphic designers, all creative types do - borrow ideas.Your "odd and ugly" comment makes you sound rather Victorian.
i think it's in poor taste.
ms. magazine could have gone for something better...
Can you cite a "progressive" who makes this argument on a consistent basis? In any case, I agree with #40's first paragraph above - and that it is possible to believe that cultural appropriation and commodification happen and that this is not a good example of the more negative forms of it. Your race baiting is absurd. obviously Black people, White people, Asian people, South Asian people, etc., all participate in cultures that reproduce symbols about different sorts of people. Of course Black people can make racist comments - just like your comment!
Wives/Mothers are often called Griha-Laxmi in Hindu culture. This is just a depiction of that in a western context. Sure there are a couple of extra pair of arms compared to the traditional representation but the idea is sound.
Not only is it non offensive in my view, but also captures the essential concept of Devi quite well.
I think this cover shows the racism and cultural insensitivity that is prevalent throughout the United States. And I'm disappointed that Ms. is perpetrating this type of appropriation. I love Ms., don't get me wrong, and I'm sure the content of this issue is going to be great like always. But using religious iconography to advertise the magazine is kind of disgusting, especially for a feminist magazine.
I write more about the cover at my blog, here is the link.
Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah.
You're joking with us, right?
Are you going to do a geneological background check on everyone who "appropriates" something to see if they have any DNA linked back to the Dutch, the Portugese, the Brits, the Mongols or the Turko-Persian?
Get real!
This is not a big deal. One of the features of an America that is made up of people from so many different cultures is that the products of those cultures are integrated into a cultural mish-mash as people think and imagine and follow the trails of what fascinates them. We've gone through this before with previous groups of immigrants and their cultures. Do you drive a Saturn or a Mercury? Is that offensive to Italians and Greeks? The commercialization of culture is one of the means that many cultures are integrated into modern America. We have a great adventure ahead of us and no one owns cultural products, so we can expect a lot of creative adaptation from every source. And that is a good thing. When people who are of a different backgrounds use your cultural products then that is a good thing because it means that they have found a truth or value in it. This magazine cover may seem trivial, but it is an example of how ideas cross cultural boundaries that used to be firm but are now fluid and creative.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And let me add, I could just as easily say that as a woman, any MAN (reglardless of ethnicity) who wants to stake claim over GODDESS figures, is appropriating MY culture.
How dare any MAN, even an Indian man, try to say that I have no rights to use DEVI iconography to further the cause the of the SISTERHOOD. What cheek to say that a WOMAN or WOMEN'S magazine can mis-appropriate a FEMALE/GODDESS figure!
Talk about the audacity of a dominant group!
Men - back off!
"Blacks aren't the dominant group and they never colonized India, so they get a pass, unless its really offensive...in which case you can place blame on the larger culture of western domination which no doubt also infiltrates their thought process."
well, I supposed it could be Onionesque, but on the possibility you're for real...
how bloody insulting to blacks and everyone else. They can't think for themselves? Somehow "western domination" (read whitey) needs to be repsonsible for anything anybody of any color thinks? Does that include both good and bad or only "imperlialist" thoughts. And for how long? 50 more years? 100? 200? Forever?
Because they've certainly been thinking and fomenting and had access to just as much info as anybody else, so, boys and girls, let's all just make every adult in this country responsible for his or her own "prejudices."
Maybe I'm just a little out of it. The area I live in, a typical metro coastal area, is so full of browns, blacks and yellows, with so few whites, that if that white-colonizer-in-the-sky is still controlling their thoughts and actions, he must have powerful joo-joo.
Never thought I'd say it, but Jeez. get a life.
You mean the central thesis: "the theory being these systems of domination result in subtle forms of oppression not obvious to those who belong to the dominant group, or perhaps even to the dominated."? Yeah, Edward Said wrote in dept about relativity and orientalism, specifically the unknowingness of the Orient to the Westerner. Fanon famously explored how even the dominated group could come to embrace the cultural code of the colonizer (Black Skin, White Masks). More recently, Peggy MacIntosh, one of the earliest users of the term "white privilege", wrote: "I was taught to see racism only in individual acts of meanness, not in invisible systems conferring dominance on my group." The common theme is domination and subjectivity...which of course lends credence to my central thesis.
OK. But how does that conflict with anything I wrote?
I didn't say they didn't. In fact I said they did, and then explained why their appropration doesn't result in the same level of outrage.
Its not that obvious, if you're up on progressive thought. Many progressives will concede, though they may balk at he term "racist", that blacks can be racist by the old goalpost, but not by the new. You see, racism is now a system of group privilege that advantages one race because of the subordinated position of other ones. So for the "others" to be racist is problematic, since being prejudiced, engaging in sterotyping or other activities normally thought racist is not enough. One must have power, or at least belong to the racial group in power. Without power, there's no subordination.
So, for example, a TPM columnist explains to Newt Gingrich why his ataacks on Sotomayer are wrong. ""Reverse Racism" Doesn't Exist And, If It Does, It Isn't Racism," he writes; "We do not, and should not, apply the same standard to the historic victims of hate that we do to those (usually the powerful) who have never suffered from it." In this framework context matters; specifically the context of power and relations of domination. You see this thesis everywhere in this discussion:
1. Our very own Camille, for example, when explaining why appropriation of Hindu symbols may be OK in India but not the US writes: "It's also not entirely accurate to analyze their use in the Indian context as equivalent to an American appropriation. In India, Hinduism outpaces all other faith communities as the dominant religion, and in many states, as the dominant cultural backdrop. The same cannot be argued for the U.S."
2. The Bitch Magazine linked points out: "It's completely inappropriate to utilize Hindu iconography in this context,... Westerners have a history of seeking to eradicate "Other" cultures and religions in favor of their own, and Ms. Magazine's perpetuation of this ethnocentric process is shameful."
3. One of the commentators at Feministing, complains that 2 readers who find no offense are:"analyzing the image itself without the context of an entire history of colonialism and racism that the OP is trying to point out here."
4. Bitch magazine links to a black feminist (well, womanist, "feminism" is deeply entwined with white supremacy in her view) who, answering the objection that the intent was to display multi-taking explains: "I'm sorry, there's just no other way to perfectly express this!" is a tool of the oppressor to preserve their privilege."
So, to sum up, cultural appropriation is about what a dominant culture does to a minority one. This makes black appropriation of Hindu symbols problematic, though not quite off the hook. (but that's a nuance that should be in racism 102, not 101).
Good turn around. But racism and sexiam aren't mutually exclusive. A new term out there is Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza's "Kyriarchy" which captures different levels of oppression. This is a holistic theory that recognizes there are intersecting structures of domination. So while my male privilege may have subconsciously informed my opinion of the Ms cover, your colonized mind, to use Fanon's term, in turn subjected me to white racism...or so the theory goes.
True. But you can't use a moral argument to defeat a metaphysical one. It may be insulting to women to say they are tools of the patriarchy, but that doesn't mean they are not in fact tools. comprendez?
So, where does HBD (human bio-diversity) theory fit into all of this.
According to that, Africans have the most game and are natural PUAs, and Asians have the highest IQs but are the ones most lacking in game.
So, in the world of game and PUArtistry, blacks are the dominant group and yes, they work that to their advantage and totally alpha-ize everyone else right out.
No, I meant the straw man argument that you presented ;)
As such:
Progressives. Like with racism, they've been moving the goalposts in regards to colonialism...the theory being these systems of domination result in subtle forms of oppression not obvious to those who belong to the dominant group, or perhaps even to the dominated. Suki's observation (about the lack of outrage when blacks appropriate) is I think generally correct. But its justified. Blacks aren't the dominant group and they never colonized India, so they get a pass, unless its really offensive...in which case you can place blame on the larger culture of western domination which no doubt also infiltrates their thought process.
There can and often isa conflation of identity and behavior (racist comment vs. racist person), of systems/ideology/structures and people (racist hierarchy vs. people occupying particular positions in those hierarchies, etc.) However, the way that you've read these conflations in order to smear an entire group of people with politics you don't like (through a pretty crass reading - dominant and domianted? it's a spectrum and involves a lot of intersections), and then moved on to attempt to undermine any cultural critiques of racism or imperialism while simultaneously playing on people's racism, is, well, kind of gross. I don't think Said ever did that, and if he did, I would say the same thing about him. Why don't you just let 'progressives' speak for themselves?
;)
duh. It is not hard to say that the same 'standard' should not be applied to people occupying different positions in a racial hierarchy in assessing their actions. When Nas says n*, that's not the same thing as when Robert Byrd's friends used to (see, I through in a Democrat to make you happy;) What it means is that participating in racism is exactly that - it's supporting that which bolsters the racial stratification of people, negative stereotypes and the mode of thinking, and the idea of taxonomizing human beings on the basis of a pseudoscientific construction. But because racism and racist hierarchy exists, we have to deal with this reality by using our judgement (god forbid) rather than an arbitrary set of rules to determine what is and what is not racist. The question with this post is not just WHO (what institution) but WHAT (the image and where it fits in and what message), your own position, the position of the people who made it, the object, etc. All that put together. And then you use your judgement, which always has to be a bit humble, rather than making broad claims about what 'progressives' say about 'blacks.'
However, kudos for finding some evidence to partially back up your racist argument (see definition above of what I mean by racist and see your own words for your full argument rather than your condensed 'thesis') and for learning well how to employ divide and rule tactics. It is a shame that in your critiques of progressive thoguht - which are in fairness sophisticated - you've chosen to engage in the backhanded support of power structures rather than an active critique of them that moves you towards radicalism. i'll leave it at that.
what is an example of my smear?
I touch on intersectionality in 102, but since the numerous quotes I provide don't really go there, I kept this explanantion on one plane.
I didn't move on to undermione the ctitique. I touched on some problems, namely what we're seeing on very thread--the unwillingess of the victim to be offended--but i also pointed out that this doesn't necessarly undermine the critique, just probelmatizes it. But I suppose this is the cruz of the issue with you. Critiques of race theories are racist and you don't really want to debate it, other than to label it racist.
I think its more playing on their anti-racism...the difficulty in critizing the group not in power adn how that could evolve into another form of condescenting racism as others (lamy #98) ponted out.
?Because no one but me really understands what you'e saying
Yeah, thats more or less what i said in answering suki's question.
well my "broad" claim of what progressives say about blacks is precisely what you said in the first sentance: that you have to take into consideration the position of power.
the problem is your definition of racist, "supporting that which bolsters the racial stratification of people" could also trap anti-globalization activists, fidel castro, yourself, and hugo chavez. the point being, identifying that which bolsters racial stratification is not obvious, its open to argument. but conversation with you always begin with premises set in stone. in that sense, you're an ideologue...if i may label you.
thanks. but my critque (which i didn't even offer in any significant way) is sophisticated but my construcion of the progresive argument is a strawman? okaaaay.
Tearing down current evils in favor of new, unknown ones just doesn't seem like smart policy to me, but I suppose for those who care it's all about making things fair rather than making things work.
One would think that kind of utopian adolescent rebellious streak would have resolved itself before the end of your teenage years.
There are more important things to get agitated over than this silliness. Such as the facts that more than half of indians do not have electricity, potable water, sanitation facilities, enough to eat etc etc
Getting agitated and writing blog posts doesn't fix those problems.
Word.
Also, the day Desis become PC is the day the world ends.
Even the PC ones are getting away with statements like: "I only date brown".
Kya bukwus!?
....
All this, attributed to the vague and amorphous group of people called 'Progressives' who seem to be a small group- of postcolonial and postmodernist intellectuals.
To retract from the flame war for a second, to one of the more interesting points you raised, I think that the idea that some people (or really social groups engaged in similar activities) - may have methods that allow them a greater level of accuracy about some aspect of reality is relatively uncontroversial except when it comes to shattering sacred cows. This is in fact why condescension is the LEAST progressive attitude that a member of this group could adopt - at minimum in behaviour and at best in their soul. Just because you're in an intellectual vanguard, that doesn't make your politics different - or to paraphrase the quote i like - you can be two of the following three - intelligent, decent, republican.
To return to the flame war:
This part of the disagreement is my fault. I missed a key sentence in one of your original paragraphs and I ended up believing you were holding a different view than you are. Apologies.
However, the charge of being an ideologue is absurd in my opinion. If I am an ideologue, how exactly are you defining my ideology, because i would like to know waht it is. I just don't think someone else's opinions offered without any substantiation on a blog are evidence. This isn't social science - it's an internet conversation and to the extent that I'm changing my opinions it has to do with how I read the space, the comments from others, etc.. (which is not very progressive to point out, as I noted above, but then, I'm not very progressive sometimes- nobody's perfect).
And yes - any or all of those people may intentionally or unintentionally commit racist actions, among other things - they're human beings in a social world. That's the whole point - beyond self-definition- of all these discussions about what cooption or image or presentation is or is not racist right?
What's confusing about this? To take an extreme example, It's not like Karl Rove is stupid - he's a bit of a genius at short term (emphasize short term) political strategy, or so i hear - but that does't make him a 'progressive' - being politically decent and being intelligent are not synonyms, just like being politically less decent and being stupid are not synonyms. It's probably actually just a classist assumpti0on, actually - and I think at the heart of the false populist argument that was offered about what 'progressives' do or do not do and how they think they constitute an intellectual vanguard. there are, in fact, many organic intellectuals, people with genuinely democratic values, and toher things.
If you were to argue that the group that currently labels itself 'progressive' in the United States can be rightly criticised for a variety of standpoints that it broadly might be said to hold - e.g. a lack of internationalism - then I would agree. But that's not what you've done - you've mounted a critique on the social group that is leftmost in the mainstream in a very rightwing climate, and did so apropos of nothing - which leaves you where? When you attempt to characterise this one group with the equivalent of 'elitist' (okay, you said 'intellectual vanguard' but you didn't seem too averse to putting words in people's mouths) without taking into the context and more importantly the potential, the structural limitations, and the possibilities beyond them, then you end up sliding into a postmodern malaise that deactivates people rather than mobilises them. If you're not in fact engaging in a very very very mild form of redbaiting.
Okay, I admit, that was really good :) But I wouldn't call myself 'progressive' except in a strategically essentialist kind of way. ;)
Attempting to infantilise radicalism and radicals is one of the common strategies that people use. The accusation of lack of realism is also common. But if you actually read someone like Wallerstein or Marx or some parts of the New Testament or try to figure out how to change the world or how it works, you quickly realise that dismissing radicalism - of many varieties - as not serious is a mistake. The only thing that's not serious is lack of seriousness - and this can come just as easily from the IMF or the Obama Administration or Manmo han Singh as it can from Marxists or Christian socialists or Buddhist socialists or whoever.
It's amazing how many people here don't get it.
In the context of Ms. magazine and the feminist community at large, it is inappropriate to flippiantly use a sacred image of a minority community to express a point GIVEN that the feminist movement has largely ignored women of color or treated them as exotic others. Ms. magazine grew out of the second wave of the feminist movement (e.g. gloria steinem) and has been extensively critiqued for focusing on mostly white middle class issues and marginalizing other voices. IN THIS CONTEXT, the image seems ill-advised and ignorant.
When I was in college, I ran a feminist student group (I am a second-gen Indian woman). I was instructed by our national affiliate, a major feminist organization, to recruit students to stand in head to toe burka on campus and hand out literature describing infractions against women in Afghanistan. I was absolutely appalled that they would use their western feminist lens to have a cultural artifact as a stand-in for an entire culture all the while degrading the cultural object. It was ignorance and cultural elitism, and it's rampant in western feminists circles.
I see the same thing in this photo and it makes me sad for how exclusive the feminist movement can be.
Yes, most of the feminist movement (and most minority movements in the US in general) is really bad about using their own self-referential lens to view everything to the exclusion of all others. We have an empathy deficit in this country. We can't fix that by being just as incorrigible though. The shrill ones who run those things will always ignore you, but the vast bulk of half-interested supporters can usually settle on the reasonable middle if you educate them.
Yeah but I'm a minority Indian Hindu feminist woman and I'm not bothered by it. In fact, I think it promotes my culture quite well.
Bija Mantra
Yoga was meant to be shared and spread beyond physical borders. It's a blessing.
well yeah, progressives are as diverse as conservatives but my central thesis represented a fairly common thread, i thought. so much so that i think your comments on this thread more or less fall within this category, although you object to the dominant/dominated binary, prefer more intersectionality, and aren't comfortable with post-modern relativity of the extreme represented by say Said. I really wan't trying to pigeonhole all progressives with a radical thesis but if its more accurate to refer to the offended party as postcolonial postmodenistists, then I'm happy to concede the point
I know. I teach yoga.
well, there's a few things you do, like assuming bad faith in your opponent, that reminds me of the peculiar epistemology that allowed marxism to descend into a closed system of thought. that and a tendency toward Chomskish conspiracy theories. i'll elaboratesome other time with examples.
but on this thread i was struck by the certainty of your views in regards to my arguments being racist. i in turn would balks at calling your views racist becuae they support "that which bolsters the racial stratification of people" even though i think they do because i recognize you don't think that (ie, you're arguing in good faith) and that the point is debatable.
granted, we have to set our premises somewhere but where you set them allows for an unusually narrow spectrum of acceptable opinion.
What's wrong with the picture?.
I have heard this phrase used in English a lot.
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/02/09/f-quantum-computing.html
where the islamic idea of Mecca being the ideal place is appropriated. Is it offensive?. I don't think so.
I guess it has to do with how much free time "politically correct" people have to go and find imaginary offences all over the world.
Mantra, avatar, and pundit are commonspeak in the English language now too.
Let's not forget the popularization of "tantra" and Kama Sutra, two glorious Indic memes that would have been lost to the rest of the world if not for "appropriation"
YO.
NI.
Really? Who would've thought?
I'd say from the Kama Sutra there is not much more than the positions that one can interpret or popularize for contemporary culture, because all of the other stuff is reflective of another era (and specific culture) and doesn't compute nowadays, even in India.
"how bloody insulting to blacks and everyone else." They can't think for themselves?"
Manju: "True. But you can't use a moral argument to defeat a metaphysical one. It may be insulting to women to say they are tools of the patriarchy, but that doesn't mean they are not in fact tools. comprendez?"
i certainly do comprendo, manju. I do now.
But you'd think they make those tools more compliant if the makers are so powerful.
As for Tantra, that's a whole discipline and school of philosophical thought of which lasting longer in bed is a rather minor and ancillary facet.
Yes Kama Sutra is an interesting read. But there's not much in it that is of practical use in today's world other than the positions.
RE: tantra.
Authentic Indic tantra has nothing whatsoever to do with female pleasure or multiple orgasms. In that sense, the Western appropriated "tantra" is much more female friendly and congruent with the times. I think Indian male tantrics would do well to take heed.
The conflation of Tantra with Kama Sutra is another Western fabrication, but again, it bodes well for women so we can't knock it.
Not really. I think that you tend to argue in bad faith, but I don't think everyone does. I also think that American political spaces, including South Asian ones, are to the right of most political spaces in the industrialised world at least, if not the whole world. Which is one of the reasons why my opinions come across as narrow and why my opinions actually are (or at least have been) more narrow than they might otherwise be. However, my perception of this conversation is of a forthrightnbess from you that I haven't perceived in the past - I don't know whether that's from my side or yours, but anyway, thank you or apologies, whichever is more appropriate. To elaborate on my apology above, I missed a key line in your paragraph on the treatment of race and power (where you said you agree with understnading subjective positioning) which is what led me to think you ewre making a much blunter and more bad faith critique than you actually were, so again, apologies.
However, I would suggest that if you're going to make broad characterizations about groups, you do as you did at the end and be very specific about the group of people you're talking about. I need to do the same more often as well (e.g. libertarianism vs. conservative american libertarianism).
Speaking of 'hands' anyone heard of the 'Hindu pushup'?
new balance
Discount Bape Shoes
Bape Shoes sale
In Bengali language, traditionally a matriarch, (a wife, mother of many, daughter in law of, grandmother a large family) known for her graciousness, nurturing qualities and hard work is often referred to as a dasha bhuja, or ten handed one, which is also a name of Durga. Thus the imagery of the superwoman with ten hands is not without any connection to hindu culture. In fact it is part of the language and as such this imagery is not offensive at all. Hindu gods and godesses are part of the vernacular, daily life, intimate in a way Judaic GOD heads are not. The hindu worships the god as a lover (Krishna), baby (gopal), whore (Ramakrishna and the tantrics) illicit lover (radha), terrible awe (Kali). A little magazine cover is nothing to get your dhoti in a knot!
Credit you championing details. It helped me in my responsibility
GHD HAIR STRAIGHTER
GHD hair straightening irons
Website: www.enghd.com
take 60% or more discount and free shipping. The latest style. Refund unconditionally Within 30 days. Free replacement within 365 days. Now or never.