(no subject)

[mari4212]

Context is this post: http://community.livejournal.com/racism_101/15609.html

Okay, so this is a religious question aimed more at the non-Christian religious members of my flist, which is actually a fair chunk of you.

A recent post in racism_101 is talking about symbols of other cultures and other religions, and where the line is between appreciation and appropriation. One of the other commentors mentioned to me how she minds non-Jews wearing certain Jewish religious symbols, because it strikes her as appropriating the religion.

And the discussion reminded me of something in my church that I've always loved the symbology of, but am now questioning a bit. My church has what we call the Great Window in our sanctuary, it was put in when we remodeled in the 60s. The window is primarily divided into two thematic sections: the city of man below and the city of God set in a circle above.

The city of man section has symbols throughout of various aspects of the city of Dayton and various members of the church at the time. That's something I've always enjoyed, but it's not what's concerning me now.

The city of God section is, however. When the window was made, a conscious choice was made to include symbols of many world religions, not just Christianity. So, for example, we have the Magen David, we have a lotus flower for Buddhism, there's a Yin Yang symbol, the window has the word Islam written out, rather than use an image which might be problematic for Muslims. There might be a few other symbols that I'm not recalling right now/don't have the knowledge to know to which religion they would apply. I've always loved the implicit theology behind the Great Window, the idea that Christians do not own God, and neither do we have the only valid approach to the Divine.

Now, I'm just wondering whether we tripped up in assuming that had the right to use symbols from other religions, even while we were trying to voice our understanding of them as being valid and living religious traditions.

I'm not looking for assurances here, but I would appreciate other perspectives on the matter. I didn't want to hijack the other thread where this came up, and I know I've got a lot of very thoughtful flist members who could perhaps give insight.

Comments

[minisinoo.livejournal.com]

I think some people are more sensitive to this, others less so. I can remember some years back a convo with some devout Christian friends (not Evangelical, but mainline liberal, actually) who were annoyed by pop star Madonna wearing a cross and using the name while touting ideas that are anti-Christian ... and they didn't mean sex, drugs and rock-n-roll, but songs like "Material Girl." The Jesus of Luke would take a rather dim view of that song, methinks. ;>

Because Christianity is the dominant religion, however, I think Christians tend to be less sensitive to appropriation overall because they don't have to be. But even when they do notice, how they react is a sliding scale. The two guys who were complaining about Madonna had a third friend, also Christian, who just rolled his eyes at them and thought they were being over-sensitive.

To me, I think a lot has to do with understanding and respect, as well as proper context. If, for instance, a non-native person were to get his hands on an eagle-father fan but wasn't *given* it and didn't understand the meaning, legality aside, that would be offensive. But a non-native person given an eagle feather by an Elder (and yes, I've known of this happening even though it's technically illegal), and who understands what it means, knows the feather's "story," and treats it with proper care ... that's different.

Appropriation is, to my mind, claiming something either to subvert it, or to show cultural dominance by subsuming. Religious appropriation was common in antiquity in order for one religion to "conquer" another. Christian churches were often built from/on top of Greco-Roman (or other) temples. Then Muslim mosques were built on top of or out of Christian churches. Witness the history of Santa Sophia in Istanbul, or the Mosque of Nebi Daniel in Alexandria. Same thing with symbols. Constantine put Christmas on Dec. 25th in order to trump BOTH Mithraism (Mithra was born on Dec. 25th, in a cave stable, attended by shepherds) and the Saturnalia (gift-giving, etc.).

With your window ... much depends on *intent*. This is where the problems could lie. Is the subtextual message that Christianity "includes" these things ... which could be seen as "trumping" them? Or is the message that all these teachings are equal paths to the City of God? These are two VERY different messages, of course. One would be appropriation -- the other wouldn't. I know a lot of Traditional religions are skeptical of evangelical religions (whether Christianity or Islam) because part of the message of both is that the are the NEW law ... replacing the "old" law. Judaism would feel that sting most strongly, but other Traditional religions do too, I think. It's part of the intrinsic tension between an evangelical religion -- which actively seeks converts because they have "good news" -- and a Traditional religion that, even if there is a method for conversion (like Judaism), does not actively seek to convert new members. Even a religion like Buddhism, which is seen as less aggressive, did not do well in its native India in part because it was a "replacement" for the Vedic/proto-Hinduism, presented as a "better" or "more true" challenger. (In general, Evangelical religions don't do very well in their homeland, even if they're eventually accepted there. Buddhism exploded mostly OUTside the Ganges/India, Christianity exploded in the Greco-Roman world, not the Jewish, and at least initially, Muhammad was chased out of Mecca.)

[mari4212.livejournal.com]

As for the intent of it, I can't say for certain which alternative the designers intended when they came up with the window. Considering the overall attitude of my church, and the fact that we are currently affiliated with The Center for Progressive Christianity (http://www.tcpc.org/about/8points.cfm) which explicitly affirms the idea that there are many valid paths to the divine, Christianity being one of them, the one that we are walking, I would guess that the intent was the second option.

I guess I'm a bit more worried that, regardless of how we intend it to be understood, the usage of another religion's symbols can still cause offense. And at the same time, I personally would dislike leaving other religions out of our concept of the city of God, because that also ends up implying that their beliefs are less valid than ours.

You're giving a lot of good historical examples that do help set up a context for me. (I won't discuss Constantine or 4th Century Christianity much, because every time I do I end up wishing for a handy TARDIS to go back and throttle a few Church Fathers for mucking things up.)

[minisinoo.livejournal.com]

I think one will always face the danger of having things misunderstood. While the issue of appropriation is very real, and deserves attention brought to it, but the same token, there IS such a thing as over-sensitivity. And we've all been guilty of that, too -- something is a trigger.

And yes, I think having some sense of the history of things really helps contextualize a lot ... both to understand where the modern anger is *coming* from, but also for a sense of proportion. IMO, too much modern discussion of this, that or the other thing starts at the "top," not the root, and people wind up discussing "symptoms" of their real disagreement, not the disagreement itself. That's de facto a shallow discussion.

[glacierscout.livejournal.com]

Further commentary on the context of the window. Mari is correct that there are two sections to the window, the "City of Man" at the bottom and the "City of God" above. The City of Man is made up of images of past and present buildings and symbols of Dayton, with a few inside jokes. The very bottom of the window shows the floodwaters of the Dayton Flood of 1913, at the height that hte flood reached. There's a fish in th river - a muskie. No, they aren't in the Great Miami River, but our past rector used to vacation in Wisconsin and Minnesota, where he fished for muskies.

The City of God is also in two parts. The center image is a crown of thorns, with flames representing the Holy Spirit fanning outward. Five flames to one side of the crown of thorns has five Old testament images, Pharoh and the red sea parting, the tablets of the law, the Magen David, Ezekiel in a chariot, and a scroll of the law. These represent the Exodus, the law, the kingdom of Israel, the prophets and the Torah. On the other side are five more flames, with the winged man, ox, lion and eagle and a flaming sword, representing the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John and the writings of Paul.

In the circular center of the crown of thorns are the other images that Mari referred to - the yin-yang, a wrapped torah scroll, the lotus, a Tlingit totem as well as numerous abstract and geometric designs.

The artist's notes on he window (in a handout which parishioners routinely ignore) clearly state that his vision is of a universal divinity, represented by all of the images of the world religions, made manifest through the Old and new testament, and revealed to the world of man. This places it squarely within the message of the Center for Progressive Christianity message, and the way that our parish tries to live.

After all, there are two different churches in our building. We own it, and hold our services upstairs in the sanctuary. The local chapter of the Roman Catholic group Integrity has been holding services in our building for over a decade. When a social program in our basement moved out to larger quarters, we allowed Integrity to take over that space as their own sanctuary. We'd love them to join our community, since we are a gay-friendly parish, but it is important for them to maintain their own identity and traditions. So we let them do so, and charge a nominal rent. We also have an ongoing relationship (along with other Episcopal churches) with a Russian orthodox parish and its ministries in Russia. Both of these relationships are with other Christian traditions, albeit those whose herarchies have been much less inclusive than we have been. So at least so far, we tend to live out what our window preaches.

[sileri.livejournal.com]

I don't know. I think it's a positive thing that Jewish symbols are mainstream and part of the pop culture. Quite a step up from regular periods of exile. Something I've noticed about Jewish indignation is that a lot of assumptions are made. I might not associate with Judaica as religion but I do as culture/heritage. I'm a Catholic because my mother is. My dad's a bad Jew a) for marrying a Catholic, b) for being reform as opposed to conservative or orthodox. How many of those people would be offended that we light a menorah but don't prepare a Seder? You know who insisted we have a Christmas tree for so many years? My dad. He likes decorating them. I can't recall anyone getting pissy about appropriating that symbol. For that matter, my journal has a Ganesha on the cover. I don't go around pretending I'm Hindu, but I'm not going to throw it out just because I'm not a Hindu.

ETA: From my atheist's perspective, a lot of religions appropriate from one another all the time. Art history provides many examples of this. Certain concepts/archetypes are so effective that they're always recycled into more contemporary forms.

[lady-tigerfish.livejournal.com]

I feel as if I'm not in a good position to talk about appropriation--it's a pervasive societal problem that I am still educating myself, and as such, I don't think I'm nearly ready to tell you what is and isn't appropriative. However, I will say that your church's actions have always struck me as inclusive, nonjudgmental, and accepting of a massive range of people from both inside and outside the Christian faith. Intent is by no means the watermark (as this whole RaceFail debate, and anyone who's ever been offended by anything unintentionally offensive can tell you), but I will say that if I saw a religious symbol I identified with in your window, I would not feel appropriated. I would feel gratified by your acknowledgement that no path is the One True Path, an acknowlegdgement too many modern Christians do not seem willing to give.
I think the fact that you didn't use a symbol for Islam is another point in your favor, by the way. It shows that your church actually bothered to educate itself about Muslim practices.
//two cents

[mari4212.livejournal.com]

*cuddles* How is it that you always get inside my brain and get across what I'm struggling with so perfectly?

[cheshire23.livejournal.com]

I don't know. My personal feelings about appropriation are pretty complicated, and I'm not really sure where I'm going with this anyway.

The thread in racism_101 about salwar kameez gave me a lot to think about - I used to have a salwar suit that I bought at Pennsic. I wore it first to chirurgeon at the Woods Battle and then just as a regular part of my wardrobe. I keep meaning to get more because they fit and are comfortable in a way that much standard Western clothing is not for someone of my build (hips 16 inches larger than waist = it's near impossible to find, say, jeans that fit). But I keep feeling not-quite-right about it, and the appropriation thread gave me some insight as to why.

I also am, based on past family experiences and now a social work class, dealing again with what I still believe is an offensive instance of cultural appropriation - Dialectical Behavioral Therapy takes a lot from Buddhism and to me it seems very out of context and bothersome, but mostly people don't seem to understand my objection to that. I'm still trying to find the words.

[pikacharma.livejournal.com]

I think there's a huge difference between making an intelligent, well-thought-out statement about other religions, and some random tard being all like "lulz I'mma wear this sacred holy symbol becuz it looks trendy, even though I got no idea what it means!" The display in your church is treating the symbols in question with reverence and respect, not exploiting them or using them in ignorance. IMHO that's where the distinction lies.

[elvisvf101.livejournal.com]

The context post you linked to actually disturbs me somewhat. Here's why:

The Good
Someone who is not ethnically Indian took it upon themselves to study a Hindu Art form. In doing so, they studied the culture that was behind the art and made some discoveries about Hindu Culture and Religion. The person was so moved that they placed, upon their person, an icon. Iconography is a very essential part of Hinduism.

The Bad
She referred to the vedas as THEIR VEDAS.

This, to me, is where things went wrong. In spite of the study and the exploration and the grappling and the self discovery and the artistic expression, there was still a fundamental distance between this girl and her knowledge.

As a man of Hindu descent, I have no issues with a non-Hindu exploring Hindu culture. Cultural exchange is vital, especially in light of the very destructive Hindu Nationalism that lurks just below the surface in Modern India. Cultural exchange keeps such baser instincts at bay. The recent terrorist attacks in Mumbai, and the modern history of Mumbai tell all the reason. Islamic Terrorism in India is linked to the Kashmiri conflict, yes. But it is also VERY heavily linked to the continued oppression and violence against poor Muslim communities in the slums of cities like Mumbai. Hindu Nationalism is generally a destructive force in India, and perceptions that somehow, Hinduism BELONGS to Hindu Indians only serves no purpose other than to underscore this falacy.

I liken her discomfort explaining her necklace to the waiter to a college chemistry major explaining her homework to someone who works for Dow. This girl had a vested stake in Bharatnatyam. Moreover, she is a STUDENT. Appropriation does not apply in this scenario as the symbols in question here do not BELONG to anyone. Her LEVEL OF EDUCATION prompted her to make use of the symbol. Unless further EDUCATION prompts her not to use such a symbol, it would be inappropriate to not use the symbol anymore.

Furthermore, any attempt to talk about "Hinduism," are a little silly to begin with. Hinduism is a term that covers a variety of ethnic, regional and folk beliefs, that are often only loosely tied by a central set of beliefs. There ARE a very firm set of central beliefs to be sure, but what is covered by therm "Hinduism" is very much akin to ancient Greek beliefs: sets of regional beliefs centralized often by conquest and cultural assimilation. Bharatnatyam can loosely be translated as "Indian Dance," but its importance varies widely throughout the varied and diverse country called Bharat. My family is from Bihar. Can we complain about a white girl learning a dance from Tamil Nadu? Would someone from Tamil Nadu complain about a Bihari attempting to defend the "Indianness" of Bharatnatyam when Bharatnatyam isn't really Indian, it's Tamil? Who's right in that case?

Appropriation is wrong when someone attempts to tell someone else what their culture is. This sense of reverse appropriation is also wrong. It's true that white people can't tell me what it is to be Indian. But can I tell white people what it is to be Indian? That's awfully presumptuous, considering India is a country of a billion people and five thousand years of history.

There is no harm in education and exploration and attempting to let those things come through in expression. There IS a problem if perceived, rather than actual racism STIFFLES such exploration. Education is the only thing that can ever fully eliminate racism, real or imagined. Discouraging such education may be a sin far greater than racism. But that's a whole different debate. I think for the moment, we can agree that both are bad.

[mari4212.livejournal.com]

Appropriation is wrong when someone attempts to tell someone else what their culture is. This sense of reverse appropriation is also wrong. It's true that white people can't tell me what it is to be Indian. But can I tell white people what it is to be Indian? That's awfully presumptuous, considering India is a country of a billion people and five thousand years of history.

That's a really good point. It's something that has been mentioned a few times in other comm discussions, the idea that you can't grab one person's opinion and universalize it out to their entire group.

I would say that, since you do come from an Indian background, you have more of an understanding from within the culture. Your comment here is an example, you're asking a lot of questions that I wouldn't have even thought of, because I don't have the background knowledge that you do. I've had one class on world religions that spent three weeks on Hinduism, and my strongest impression from that class was how little I knew about each religion we covered. But at the same time, you would still, like you said, be speaking from one person's perspective, with all the limitations that are inherent. I'm Christian, but I certainly cannot speak about all Christians' opinions on all matters. Why should we expect someone from any other religion to do that?