5 ms·
"Chen: What we see is the erasure of Buddhism as a religion or tradition that Asians or Asian Americans can claim or identify with." She writes from a race-ess
by pc2g4d 4y ago
"Chen: What we see is the erasure of Buddhism as a religion or tradition that Asians or Asian Americans can claim or identify with."
She writes from a race-essentialist framing to a degree and that drives me crazy.
"white Americans" "white Westerners" x6
There's a sort of cultural appropriation shame being layered here---as if it's bad to have light skin and be interested in Buddhism, or adapt Buddhism to your existing worldview.
If it were non-white people who predominantly led this movement in the US, she would be praising their adaptability as they syncretized a religion to meet their needs.
And are there really no black or latino or asian practitioners of this kind of Buddhism? Of course there are.
There's a "cool" factor of foregrounding race these days and I don't think it's healthy. Westernized Buddhism isn't exclusive to any race, nor is being "Western". Why reinforce the lines between racial categories like this, further reifying them?
That said, I appreciate the critique of corporation-as-organized-religion. The decline in institutional religion in America has left exactly the void that is being filled here, but with probably more fucked up motives than your typical church. At least when you would leave your employment, you wouldn't get kicked out of your congregation. But if your employment _is_ your "congregation"...
Separation of church and work might not be a bad principle.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- esics6A 4y agoJokes on the writer because Buddhism originated in India and evolved from Hinduism and spread as far as Southern Russia and Central Asia in addition to East Asia and Southeast Asia where it become popular. Ignorant people everywhere these days get to write articles who don't have basic history lessons. We learned this in high school also about Ashoka and how the Indian emperor spread Buddhism literally everywhere in the world. But whatever racists aren't known for their learning, understanding or intelligence.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- neitsab 4y agoBuddhism did not evolve from Hinduism, nor even from its predecessor Brahmanism (calling the place it came from India is a also a bit of a stretch, but to a lesser degree): * it may have actually been reacting first to Zoroastrianism and its idea that the absolute Truth and Lie can be known: https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691176321/greek-buddha https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691176321/gr... * even if not, then it was either a reaction against Brahmanism (https://ahandfulofleaves.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/how-buddhism-began_gombrich.pdf https://ahandfulofleaves.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/how-bud... (PDF)), or at the very least an independent development: https://www.academia.edu/63732680/Early_Buddhism_and_its_Relation_to_Brahmanism_A_Comparative_and_Doctrinal_Investigation https://www.academia.edu/63732680/Early_Buddhism_and_its_Rel... > We come to the conclusion that early Buddhism as a whole has developed independently from Brahmanism, with selective influences from Brahmanism and non-Vedic spiritual movements, altering and utilizing these influences for its own growth against its religious competition.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- thisiscorrect 4y agoSomehow these arguments about cultural appropriation only ever go one way. I've never heard anyone claim that it's cultural appropriation when non-Westerners adopt -- and benefit from -- various Western schools of thought. I've never felt the urge to gate-keep, say, the germ theory of disease from non-Westerners. What right do I have to do that? What right does the author have to gate-keep Buddhism? Why do people do this? Is it insecurity?
- standardUser 4y agoThere's about 500 years of history that thoroughly explain why it is not considered appropriation when non-Western people adopt Western practices. Lots of things only "go one way" when we are dealing with massive power imbalances.
- thisiscorrect 4y agoThis is a really vague answer. Can you elaborate? What happened 500 years ago that explains why the authors are right in their attempt to ban certain ethnic groups from certain ideas?
- standardUser 4y agoThe West violently occupied most of the non-Western world and forced its culture on to those peoples.
- messe 4y agoSo, if I'm from a western country that was occupied, colonised and had a foreign culture forced upon it, it would not be considered appropriation if I were to adopt non-western schools of thought?
- standardUser 4y agoIf that hypothetical makes you happy, sure. But I think most people can easily tell the difference between the widespread colonization that occurred for hundreds of years and whatever historical anomalies you have in mind with that leading question.
- kar5pt 4y agoI don't think she's claiming that there's anything wrong with "white buddhism". In fact, she seems to explicitly deny that view >I want to clarify, by the way, that I’m not necessarily critical of American Buddhist entrepreneurs. The problem is if you mistake this white American Buddhism for all Buddhism, or claim that this is the “right” or “only” way to practice Buddhism. The idea that American Buddhism has been divided between Asian immigrants and white converts has been mainstream in buddhist studies for at least a decade or two now (and anyone who practices Buddhism in the US will see this divide immediately). This isn't anything Chen came up with on her own.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]