The N-word -- it's not a sacred image, but it is an example of how the acceptability of a word, whether in common usage, the media or commercial contexts, depends entirely on who's saying it and why. As most Americans have agreed, the N-word's usage is not okay for Caucasians, at times accepted between African Americans, and yet debates continue amongst African Americans over its acceptability. We, as a society, have agreed to differing, essentially race-based "rules" of discourse that are neither based on notions of logic nor fairness. But given the history, connotations and relevance of the N-word to African Americans, today it is primarily African Americans, the affected group, who get to set those rules.
One would assume then that a similar understanding would be afforded vis a vis Western appropriations of Hindu imagery -- allowing Hindus to set the rules as to what is and isn't okay. After all, there has certainly been intense emotion and eventually deference accorded to imagery associated with the Quran and the Prophet Muhammed. In stark contrast, the Hindu American Foundation (HAF) heard a shrill, yet typical accusation of "Hypocrisy!" and even the scholarly equivalent of "take a chill pill" emerging from corners of academia and media when FOX News carried HAF's reaction to a Newsweek cover depicting President Obama in the likeness of the Hindu God, Nataraja. The cover featured Obama with multiple arms, balancing several policy issues while raising his left leg mimicking the cosmic dance of the Hindu deity that is considered a manifestation of Lord Shiva.
'Hindus don't respect their own icons so why the big deal over Newsweek' was the rumbling of some. One need only take a quick stroll through the aisles of an Indian grocery store anywhere in America and, especially throughout India, to find Lakshmi brand flour, Ganesh brand rice or Saraswati brand camphor (all brands named after Hindu Gods). These are but a few examples of the infinite commercial invocations of sacred images seen throughout the Indian, majority Hindu context. Why then should Hindu Americans be upset by the Newsweek cover or even Burger King's placement of the Goddess Lakshmi on a burger?
The answer is simple -- it matters who is using the image, and even more importantly, why. For decades, we've watched Hinduism's sacred images plastered on advertising, packaging and billboards on an ever-increasing variety of consumer products throughout India. Indeed, not every Indian or Hindu use is done with a nod to the sacred, but one will often sense an inside understanding -- even reverence -- in its use. Manufacturing companies in the Hindu world also use images of Hindu deities to invoke God's blessings for the success of their endeavor, or it may be that the business is a family business with a family name that has religious connotations.
In the West, however, Hindu Americans have grown accustomed to a "come discover and take what works best for you," cafeteria-style taking when it comes to the gifts of our tradition. Yoga, meditation and Ayurvedic ancient healing arts -- all are part of the Western landscape but often divorced from their Hindu roots -- are an entirely different conversation. The commercial misappropriation of Hindu iconography, however, raises different concerns.
The Newsweek cover is actually one of the more benign caricatures of Hindu imagery. Nearly every week, the HAF receives requests from its members to consider addressing the use of Hindu icons on items being sold by American companies that range from t-shirts to beer steins, underwear to flip flops and even toilet seats -- yes, even toilet seats. These products may simply display a Hindu deity, but many times, the manufacturers have chosen to take not-so-respectful, even perverted liberties with them -- contorting them or photoshopping them for an end to which we are uncertain, except that it ultimately exoticizes and defiles that which is not theirs. All this is not to suggest that any and every Western use of Hindu imagery is offensive or wrong. One simply need to peruse the $6 billion strong yoga industry where, on the whole, we find respectful and contextually correct commerical uses of Om's, Hindu deities and Sanskrit mantras (though they may not acknowledge the images as Hindu).
As to the criticism that Hindus should not be so reactive because 'after all its only the media' -- perhaps my perspective is different here on the ground than that from the lofty ivory tower. In a time when "google" has become a verb and more Americans own computers than encyclopedias, we cannot underestimate the power (and failings) of mass media, online or otherwise. It goes without saying that Hinduism acknowledges the existence of multiple paths, so too must we, as advocates for the Hindu American community, acknowledge the multitude of perspectives. We understand that what may be offensive to one Hindu is not offensive to another. But at least for what appears to many to be "misuses", Hindus should and must assert the right to rule-making that others have asserted before us.
Hindu iconography - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Newsweek Depiction of Obama as Lord Shiva Upsets Some Indian ...
Newsweek cover: Obama is the god of all things | IHateTheMedia.com
Barack Obama To Write Newsweek Cover Story On Haiti
Hindu Gods and Hindu Goddesses : overview of the gods and ...
If we are to do this right, I suggest that we all begin to compile our lists of things we find offensive. Something directed at a smaller group or an individual is certainly no less offensive than things targeting large groups. It is simply that smaller groups and individuals lack the power to coerce.
If we are to acknowledge the right of any group to forbid those things it finds offensive, we must extend this right also to small groups and individuals.
1 min youtube video of above: http://youtu.be/PkEhCtKEXi4
The following phrase comes to mind: "Those living in a glass house should not throw stones".
I also disagree that the use of gods' images is always bad - when it's done with "the R word" - respect - it's okay. But I agree that maybe a Lakshmi hamburger is taking it too far.
In short, I just don't agree with the "all or nothing" feel of this article.
Mutual respect can't be that hard. Just because it's not your religion doesn't mean it can be on the table for chopping and dicing.
Who and why are important.
Let's say an American reads a bunch of books on Hinduism, goes to the temple even and pronounces himself a Hindu... btw, I don't know if there is a certificate issuing authority which one could approach to become a Hindu, or its just a matter of deciding that one is a Hindu. Would such a person qualify as a "who", and thus escape the clause stipulating who can make the placemats? Does one have to be of Indian origin to qualify as a who? What about a Indian born Hindu, but who professes atheism, reads Dawkins... can he still qualify as a who?
As to why: what if the placemat maker, within the above confusion, says that Ganesha on placemats enables a being closer to God while even having dinner... would this be a good enough "why"?
It devolves into a living version of Monty Python's "Life of Brian". A current example from Pakistan and Islam: A doctor was recently arrested for throwing a business card in the waste, because the card belonged to a Mr. Mohammed somebody... now that was Life of Brian come to life. I wonder if Hindus might go towards that direction as they decide what is and isn't respectful use. Some people are pretty strict in these things, others not so much. How might HAF make these decisions? What would the committee look like? Its all very unworkable, except to take things on, one by one as they arise.
India asks for super computer knowledge from usa - answer is 'NO', India asks nasa's space mission help for ISRO - a clear cut 'NO NO' - when all these things are NO what right and a straight face does usa and rest of world have to ask for free usage policy of shapes of Indian Hindu Gods.
For a matter - if you have invented it, we are not asking it -
FYI - Indian God's images are not under GNU public license for anyone to use.
Reg. gcarl - if you read my above example, you will know who is acting extremely.
The only mistake of me from a western american's eye is I am a black Hindu - thats what making them feel they could take anything from me giving back insults and making me feel bad - but I would not even take a grain of uranium for my country's power generation.
america and the west never wanted India to become a developed nation - so why bother using their spiritual knowledge alone.
@sandalwood - your ideas are ridiculous - you are having this 'Gandhian' period notion of winning everything by sidelining with the other party - do you mean to say tomorrow, the same images will be used saying jesus is son of shiva and parvati and day after tomorrow, shiva and parvati become only mere angels at
The solution you are pointing to is unworkable in the context of the West and its ways and laws, and more importantly could lead to abuses by an unhinged and offended minority towards the silencing of criticism which might be valuable, as we are often blind to our own faults.
When commercial use of Hindu iconography in India extends to the use of Khajuraho imagery in selling condoms, what right do Western Hindus have to ask that the same be prevented by the force of law in the West? If you can answer the last question, that would take the discussion towards a useful direction.
My question to you would be - is the images of Kajuraho displayed in the condom that of Gods or is it of humans? Kamasutra was the first misconceived book in the west - while there are several chapters in the book that deal with the righteous conduct of a man towards his wife, to his house and to his society, and wishful thinking ( kama ) to reach the divine, only one part of it explains the 63 positions - but if you see any book on that name in the west - they all will have the amorous part and never mention the good parts.
Indians have also gone to greatest heights in pleasure and the end result is kama sutra. No one is asking people to stop sex in Hinduism do they???
can we expect you not to read anything written in a western language, not use medicines developed in the west, not take a train or plane or ride in an automobile? when do you renounce electricity?
i doubt that anyone here would know or care about the color of your skin. please point to one insult that anyone has made about you. each of the examples where purported india has not asked for help comes from the west--the IP of the west. we are all interconnected, we in the west use a number system from india and carried to the west. many of us speak a language that may have roots among the indo-aryans. but none of this makes anyone here superior to anyone else.
christ is already the 10th avatar of vishnu, so what are you writing? ttp://www.sanskritmantra.com/vishnu.htm
if you cannot recognize the brotherhood (and sisterhood) of humanity, i fear hatred will always be knocking at your door.
My disputes for your article:
1) The site pointed by you doesn't work in the first place - when I went to www.sanskritmantra.com - it seems to be some personal site which gives the views of some unknown person - who has no authority of having knowledge of Vedas or Hindu canonical texts.
2) The views expressed are the site authors own work - so, how do you expect to believe in this 'MYTH' of jesus being any thing Hindu - forget Avatar of Vishnu.
3) Vishu and Hinduism are for Dharma where in this concept is totally absent in the western abrahamic religions, so, they both are mutually exclusive and could not be compared.
4) What are the Vedic and Puranic texts which say jesus is any Hindu or 'Avatar' of Vishnu?
5) Your devious ways and patronization for jesus's cult and church are blatantly shown by this and your stone hitting episode in Kerala - your aim clearly seems to be to defraud India and its customs by slowly killing Hinduism by assimilating it and vanquishing it by cult of jesus.
Brain Flemming, an Atheist, has clearly pointed with facts and figures, showing that the story of jesus of nazzareth has no real evidence at all.
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-god-who-wasnt-there/
jesus and christianity have come to be showcased as
1) street magician, a hoaxer and a false prophet by jews - who consider him a sign of oppression by their roman colonizers.
2) a conman died in the cross and jesus escaped the conviction with the help of god according to muslims.
3) and for the rest of world, the cult of jesus is just another bundle of lie from already existing religions like mythraism, hinduism, druidism, nordic religions, egyptian religion and greek mythology.
4) paul never met jesus - and he was credited to have created these bundle of lies.
5) the very day of december 25th is the winter solstice and the birthday of mythra which were absorbed and mythraism was outlawed by christianity by the roman church.
6) sandalwood will never realize the same end of mythraism is the end of hinduism if the curch is allowed to continue with its devious paths.
After much thought, discussion and debate I must tell you that I strongly feel that it would be unwise to resort to any "rule making" as it would come into conflict with the right to free speech, which is more precious than offense taken by someone or even everyone.
I will also suggest that even making "guidelines" for what is considered proper or improper use of Hindu iconography is frought with so much difficulty and potential backlash that it would be unwise to go in that direction. It would be best to take things as they come, one by one, and appeal to the party whose action has caused offense to be felt, and also to go to the court of public opinion, rather than engage the legal framework in order to shut down expression, even if extremely offensive. I say all this because I feel it is best for the future standing of Hinduism in the West.
Thanks for writing this blog so that many could take the opportunity provided to think on these issues. I will look forward to your future blogs to see what direction HAF is heading in, and look forward to taking part in future discussions as a human being born into a Hindu family and who feels a duty to guard the teachings of Hinduism as well as its public standing.
God bless.
Dr. O. P. Sudrania
God bless
Dr. O. P. Sudrania
There is age old adage "Look twice before you leap"; I would like to extend it to speech and actions as well. I am calling for a some balance, and you are making it appear as if it has to be either this or that.
First off, what defines the appropriate use of the "N-word" is NOT the word itself...but the INTENTION behind it. What makes it acceptable to use between fellow AA's is our shared history and shared struggle living in a society where we are still not fully accepted or appreciated as a people. On the rare occasion where it is used as an insult and not an expression of camaraderie, its use by another AA makes it clear that that what is being insulted is not race, but attitude or behavior.
So, imo, your use of it as an analogy is not appropriate.
As far as Hindu imagery goes, you must realize that we live in a secular society with free speech. As a result ALL religious imagery is fair game. As a result, I see the Newsweek cover not as a mockery or lampooning of Shiva Nataraj....but instead as...
1. The growing comfort that this country has in multi-culturalism, and facility in the meaning that is behind the sacred images of Indian culture.
2. What was being lampooned was the unrealistic expectations that have come to be put upon the Presidency...and our growing intolerance for the human limitations of our Presidents and our system of government. In that sense the subtle invocation of Shiva was an appropriate one to punctuate our increasing hostility to and disrespect for the processes of the world.
Your paragraph demonstrates precisely why this analogy does work, and work well. Someone with an understanding of the shared history of Hindusim and its abuse at the hands of foreigners for over a thousand years is not something a non-Hindu would understand or appreciate. Just as we don't demonstrate our comfort with iconography of other religions by using them in disrespectful and demeaning ways, we expect our iconography to be also respected.
We too have feelings, we too have suffered, and while we grit out teeth and smile benignly at terms that are sacred to us abused and used inappropriately, and mangled on a daily basis, we too have a tolerance point. There are certain contexts in which using icons is inappropriate and abusive, and racist. It is an insult to our race, our culture, the behavior itself IS exactly the same. If you're reserving the right to be annoyed about a word you and your community seem to use the most, that's your business. Pardon us while we get a little annoyed about our sacred images being disrespected. We don't say much when you mangle and abuse our other words and concepts: Goo-roos, CAR-ma, PUN-dits, turning sutras into porn etc. etc.
You've missed the point entirely.
I simply understand what is being discussed in greater depth than the level at which you want to have this discussion.
1. The bloggers comparison of the "N-word" (an insult so vicious that people won't even write it out for fear of offending with its historical implications) and magazine cover image in (at worst) questionable good taste is like comparing a sprained ankle...to having your leg blown off at the hip.
Yes, there is a superficial analogy...but scope of the differences are so great as to make the analogy of little practical value to anyone who looks beyond the superficial.
2. As a practicing Buddhist, I owe a great deal to Hinduism and the Vedict tradition. So my words are not coming from a standpoint of a lack of sensitivity or respect. It is coming from an understanding of Western society and how it views ALL religions.
Which means if you want to be a fully-intergrated into American society, then that means being willing to accept that other citizens will at times appropriate the sacred imagery of your tradition in order to symbolize other things. Christians do it every day with their own sacred images. Some people (usually conservative Catholics and Protestant fundamentalists) get offended....others simply take it in stride.
What was being satirized was NOT Shiva....but rather American expectation that our President have "god-like" powers. That campaign promises are "divine covenants"...and that the human limitations and the limitations imposed by our system of government and the political process are no longer acceptable reasons for not delivering on those promises.
What was being lampooned was not Indian Culture, but American culture...and our absurd belief that all processes should be under our control through sheer force of will...and that any failure to control those processes is simply due to a "lack of committment".
As such the use of Shiva to make this point was not only respectful of that aspect of Hindu belief and culture...but it emphatically drives home the point of just how absurd this aspect of American culture is.
We are led by fallible men of limited powers. Not avatars...and our expectations of them have become so unreasonable that they verge on the self-caricature.