Well, Christmas is a holiday that has already been largely secularized and commercialized. It's a celebration that Christian groups have already long accepted and shared with the masses. The same is true of Easter and a few other of its holidays. Your family's experience seems fairly different from what I've encountered in the past, but in general Christianity gets a bye because it holds a position of power in the western world and it has encouraged its own spread into as many cultures around the world as possible. I think a better comparison would be if people were to take up the ritual of prayer of Islam (Salāt) as a way to inject a time of meditation and spirituality into their day. It wouldn't harm anyone, but it would be a turn-off to other Muslim people who see the ritual as belonging to their culture and having meaning there. If Americans were engage in this hypothetical act, chances are much of the meaning to that act would be diluted and/or misinterpreted. And as I said: It's when these practices become engrained in a group of people or in institutions that they become acceptable as a way to re-tell the story of another culture. How many Americans have you met that have proclaimed that Buddhists are peaceful and happy?When local: stupid and alienating. When widespread: dehumanizing and, fuck-it, I'll use the word: oppressive.
But the same is true for eastern religions too. They have their own power centers, and encourage spread to other parts of the world. Christianity was certainly a minority for us. I am not entirely sure what the difference is, but the difference seems rooted in the different world views. My wife is a Jain, and she loves it when particularities of her religion are coopted by the mainstream. They tend to see it as increasing their influence rather than as being diluted. (As her folks love to point out, the habit of not eating meat in Hinduism has its origin in Jainism, and so does the symbolism of color white for purity. The mainstream hinduism does not interpret these exactly as Jains do, but Jains (at-least those that are visible and vocal) in India seem happy that they are being used at all). However, I have also found that even Indians who come to US seem to want their exclusive identity preserved, and complain about others coopting their identities, which seems rather different from the mainstream approach in India. I will pass on the Islam prayer because I don't understand Islam mainstream even in India well enough to understand their response to some one else using it, but I have celebrated Bakrid, and my friends have always encouraged me to participate.but in general Christianity gets a bye because it holds a position of power in the western world and it has encouraged its own spread into as many cultures around the world as possible.
You're right. I was thinking in the context of the western hemisphere. Your situation is seemingly unconventional to someone who has lived his life in the US. It's each one's own right to interpret the world. Your wife can view it as a positive thing, others may not share that view or link it to negative experiences they have had. The difference I'd like to get at though, with your Bakrid example, is that (I'm assuming) that celebration was put on by people of the Islamic faith. I've been to Holi festival and enjoyed the experience as well. My contention is when these celebrations are mimicked by people who do not understand them. I think we'd both agree that multiculturalism is a positive thing. My asterisk is just *when done Right^TMBut the same is true for eastern religions too. They have their own power centers, and encourage spread to other parts of the world. Christianity was certainly a minority for us.
However, I have also found that even Indians who come to US seem to want their exclusive identity preserved, and complain about others coopting their identities, which seems rather different from the mainstream approach in India.
I suppose the difference I am seeing is simply that, it seems that any mimicking seems to be a bad thing by default unless shown otherwise in U.S, while the opposite seems to be true in India (I think I have seen this view pervasive enough in India to make this claim, though I am not knowledgeable enough with the western and rest of eastern culture to know if this can be extended to them too). I feel that it is rather difficult to get multiculturalism right with the first view point, in that it requires an inordinate knowledge of a culture before a person can start using the symbols of it, and even then you can be accused of misappropriation just on the basis of not belonging to the original culture. It promotes a kind of exclusivity. I wonder if your Indian friend, who took offense to misappropriation of "Guru" would have similarly challenged another Indian with the same level of ignorance of what it means in India (or even in US)? I suspect he wont (Look for word guru in linked pages).I think we'd both agree that multiculturalism is a positive thing. My asterisk is just when done Right
I agree with your assertion, but I feel that we also need enough leeway for a shared experience between the members of the society.
Not quite, and this is something kb was getting at, too. I'm arguing that multiculturalism isn't that if you don't learn anything about a culture in the process. You could go in with that knowledge or go in with the hope of gaining knowledge. If I choose to celebrate Irish culture by following a recipe for an Irish dish, I've gained a tiny slice of understanding, a small memory I can associate with the region. But if I celebrate Irish culture by painting my nose red and getting black-out drunk, I'm reinforcing a false stereotype based on my (America's) ill-conceived notions about the country. You might say that the hippie's stereotype of India is at least a positive one, but my view is that it's still rooted in the same absence of learning. It's not quite the same thing, but there has a similar change in meaning to the word "Shah", which has transitioned from a title for Persian Kings / Emperors (which itself was taken from Sanskrit, iirc) to a surname within Indian and Pakistani culture. Maybe appropriation among distinct cultures, but all keeping within similar meanings of one another. Then there's Shahs of Sunset, which switches its meaning into an insult for pampered Persians. Though honestly, it's hard to take that example seriously because of just how over-the-top ridiculous the show is. Still, we're going back and forth over the same few points, so maybe it's better to agree to disagree on this.in that it requires an inordinate knowledge of a culture before a person can start using the symbols of it, and even then you can be accused of misappropriation just on the basis of not belonging to the original culture.