zsc wrote:This is getting amusing.
Johnny Dangerous - Consider the fact that I have already answered your query for concrete steps in the passage you posted. I don't "hope to achieve" anything beyond sharing my experiences. AFAIK, a black person didn't even start this thread so I have no idea why you are implying that "I", as in black people, started this discussion for nothing. We didn't even start it. If you want to be a white ally, then don't expect me or any other poc to hold your hand and do the hard work for you. We're busy enough. As a cis-woman who is a native English-speaking American, I also do not expect trans* people or poc outside of the Anglophone world to hold my hand when it comes to me learning about their issues, nor do I expect them to coddle me as I examine my complicity in systems that oppress them. This is perfectly fine for me.
AlexanderS - The achievements of white people you mentioned have often been accomplished by the exploitation of people of color, either through their bodies, ideas, or their intentional exclusion from privileged spaces. Even despite that, poc basically set down the foundation of math that has made it possible for a lot of those achievements, and we continue to be inventors and innovators. If any white person feels shame, that's not the point. That's not even the purpose. The purpose is for poc to educate themselves so that we can address the issues we face. To make it, yet again, about the voices of white people is just another assertion of white privilege. Edit: It is due to the "naive" idea of fairness that is responsible for, for example, the (recent) admission of women of color like myself into college, even for the recent development. of permitting women to learn to read and write (something that is still being fought for in some areas). I'll take my "naivete" any day.
zsc wrote:the lived experiences of black people mean nothing (specifically, this is what Malcolm is saying, over and over), then I will do my best to address it.
zsc wrote:"Entitled" to your opinion? Yes. Entitled to being told it is accurate? No. We have our experiences defined through ourselves and not white people, for a change.
The most "derogatory" thing I've said about white people is that they are not black.
Once again, the convo is being derailed by the same people, so if anyone has anything specific to discuss beyond trying to convince me that they are able to define the experience of black people, or that the lived experiences of black people mean nothing (specifically, this is what Malcolm is saying, over and over), then I will do my best to address it. Beyond that, I am not interested.
Johnny Dangerous wrote:... That said, i'm really at a loss as to how to differentiate between when something simply isn't for someone, and when they are being kept away due to a kind of soft discrimination….
Zhen Li wrote:I personally wouldn't suggest Ven. Indrajala as an authority on Fo Guang Shan, though he is very learned and a good writer on other matters, one bad experience is enough to paint anyone's glasses rose coloured, Ven. Huifeng I would suggest an authority on FGS.
Essentially, FGS is quite conservative of Chinese culture in a country where it has been by and large replaced by American or Japanese culture.
But by and large I think you'll find it very traditional and conservative if you try to live there, contrasted with living in the cities in Taiwan, which might strike one as a bit more materialistic than those in the west.
Actually truth be told traditional Chinese Buddhism as a living tradition is pretty much dead. Buddhism in China was already on its death bed in China prior to the communist insurrection. The Reds basically decapitated a dying institution. Some intellectuals survived, but most of it was simply killed off. The artistic traditions fell into oblivion. This is why modern Chinese Buddhist art looks so different from what existed in the Qing.
Johnny Dangerous wrote:It seems like the unintended consequences here are that you will be left with a project that has ceased to be Dharma, and is simply political. Ironically enough, there is all kinds of what some posters would call "white Buddhism" that is basically this, Dharma that has morphed into liberal activism with some Buddha images. Personally I think the things Malcolm and others have said are much too dismissive of the legitimate experiences of those who might be shut out..however, it IS worth considering that part of what is he is getting at is that this is Dharma practice, eventually, somehow, you have to do something that is removed from the values and goals of conventional political activism, and that includes the all-important issue of identity. It is not fair, and it seems to make Buddhism a tough row to hoe
for particularly oppressed peoples - but donctrinally, it is true. It is not fair, it IS much easier to do that as white person, but it is still true...Buddhism does not leave much room for identity of the type typically cultivated in this sort of activism..IMO Malcolm has a legitimate point there, no matter how uncomfortable it may be.
Nighthawk wrote:Numbers are still pretty strong. There are about 300 million Buddhists in China last time I checked the stats.
Why was it dying before the communist takeover?
Malcolm wrote:The teaching of karma indicates that what we experience in this life is a result of how we have acted in past lives. If we are oppressed in this life, we can be sure that in a past life we were oppressive, and so on.
The Buddha's teaching is that our current circumstances are not only due to the karma from past lives.
Simon E. wrote:Call me Mr Psycho, but I have not an ounce, not a jot, not the merest scintilla of white guilt or gender guilt.
Indrajala wrote:Simon E. wrote:Call me Mr Psycho, but I have not an ounce, not a jot, not the merest scintilla of white guilt or gender guilt.
Having any kind of emotional reaction to one's genetic makeup or chromosome arrangement is simply self-defeating.
But I will say, it is ironic that you chose to affirm the reality of karma from our past lives while denying other karmic circumstances in which we are born into, such as where we are born...
And yet, my basic recommendation to examine personal complicity (which is woven into your own karmic situation) to see your role in today's social conditions is met with resistance.
Meanwhile, my insistence that how we relate to the dharma (which includes to how we relate to each other) is conditioned by our karmic situations (which includes our experiences due to our race) is met with denial. Neither statement is a concept that is alien to Buddhist thought.
In light of that, race is a fake social construct, to you "there are no black people" but to people who do everything from deny us opportunities to gun us down there certainly are black people. The same "Sunday-only" dharma referenced above that ignores the lived reality of racism that black Buddhists face, and other poc, is unsurprisingly not one that many poc will adopt. Above I have outlined why I believe this isn't Buddhist at all.
Just like with Johnny Dangerous, I would also ask why the solutions of people of color--in your words, a "black power sangha"--must be palatable to you?
Also, it should be clear from history why "white power", an assertion of power by the powerful, is a hate movement, while "black power", a reclamation of agency by systematically oppressed people, is a civil rights movement. Therefore, the two concepts are apples and oranges.
In reality, black people in America have to face racism and frame it in one way or another as a necessity, to make sense of the world, whether publicly or privately.
A lot of black parents dread the eventual "racism talk" they have to have with their young children for their protection. At the same time, I have read white people resenting having to have the same discussion when they were younger if they happened to have committed some social faux paus that could have been misconstrued as racism. Some white people resent having the racism talk as adults. Both ignore the fact that this talk is thought of as "optional" for them because of white privilege, while it is "required" in one way or another, for black people.
Users browsing this forum: BrianG and 3 guests