Comments on: Garlands of Shame

By: NellaLou

NellaLou — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 18:58:36 +0000

Dave said: “We define harm ahead of time because allowing everyone to decide that they’ve been “harmed” every time they’re offended by something is both unmanageable and impossible.”

Who is We? Where is this definition?

“you seem to see no problem with South Asians painfully inflicting [suffering] on real human beings.”

Where has it been stated that this is my view? And are not the family in question “real human beings”? What would be your definition of “real human beings”?

What South Asians do in the context in which they live doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with Buddhism. Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, colonialism, poverty, lack of education and resources, racism (both from the developed nations and yes within South Asia itself), casteism, corruption, nationalism, sectarianism, globalization, competition for resources and about a thousand other things also play a role. Just like the thousands of things in the US and elsewhere that bring about violence, injustice and other suffering.

Am happy not to wear Buddhist symbols around you. You are clearly a delicate individual.

By: Dave "Above The Law, Sucka"

Dave "Above The Law, Sucka" — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 17:40:58 +0000

“Dave you are certainly free to say what you want.”

Glad you think so.

“And take whatever consequences of that which may arise.”

Happy to. Though if I’m legally sanctioned for saying it, it would appear I wasn’t free to say ti after all.

“And writing a letter as the family did is hardly forcibly coercing diplomatic channels.”

They were trying to use diplomatic pressure to get Swiss authorities to forcibly remove the display, if the WH article is to be believed. This is coercion no matter which way you squint.

“Who defines the harm-the bystanders, the perpetrator of the act or the victim?”

None of them. We define harm ahead of time because allowing everyone to decide that they’ve been “harmed” every time they’re offended by something is both unmanageable and impossible.

“because you don’t feel victimized or wouldn’t in a similar hypothetical situation doesn’t mean others are similarly numb to such things.”

I’ve been very disturbed by some things I’ve seen and heard. I’ve just never believed I was within my rights to force everyone to see the world as I do.

As for the comment thing, I used to have a blog, and now I don’t.

I do appreciate that I was disabused of my ideas of Buddhism being different from other religions, though. I used to think because Pali scriptures said things like “I teach only suffering and its end” that Buddhism was more concerned with humankind than supernaturalism and repression, but the last few years traditional Buddhists have convinced me that yes, western convert Buddhists are wrong and it’s every bit the superstitious, anti-human twaddle every religion is. Your attitude sums it up perfectly; you criticize a Swiss store for (probably unknowingly) showing a form of disrespect to a statue that you seem to see no problem with South Asians painfully inflicting on real human beings. Incidentally, the store very likely might take down the display if approached in a polite manner, whereas I don’t think we’ll convince rural South Asians to stop meeting out lynch mob justice anytime soon. But yes, Westerners who go to Asia and wear a bathing suit are far more disrespectful than Easterners who come west and angrily try to restrict freedom of speech. You really nailed it.

Incidentally, I find Buddhist criticisms of Carvaka really offensive, so please don’t wear Buddhist symbols around me, I’ll feel victimized if you do and demand that you stop oppressing me.

By: NellaLou

NellaLou — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 19:17:33 +0000

Dave you are certainly free to say what you want. And take whatever consequences of that which may arise. And writing a letter as the family did is hardly forcibly coercing diplomatic channels. They didn’t storm the embassy with assault weapons or the like.

The question arises in your statement “As long as you’re not harming anyone…” Who defines the harm-the bystanders, the perpetrator of the act or the victim? And just because you don’t feel victimized or wouldn’t in a similar hypothetical situation doesn’t mean others are similarly numb to such things.

As for addressing matters here… WH doesn’t allow photos in the comments and such a long post is better presented in this format.

Thanks for your response.

By: dave from the previous discussion

dave from the previous discussion — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 22:10:05 +0000

Howdy
My comment at WH was because I’m tired of people of any stripe trying to dictate to me what I can and can’t say/do based on their religious sensitivities. Religion needs to get it through its collective head that it gets no more automatic protection than any other idea or symbol in a post-theocratic world. Had the people in question not tried to invoke the authorities, I doubt it would have rankled me as much. It’s certainly not a white vs brown issue, as much as one may want to frame it that way for easy points; it’s a fanatics vs freedom issue. Frankly, to frame it that way is so intellectually dishonest as to invalidate much of this message. I’m not under any more obligation to walk on eggshells around “Eastern” Buddhists and Muslims than I am around “Western” Christians or for that matter Western Democrats and Republicans. It certainly falls under the aegis of freedom of speech for these people to complain; when they try to forcibly use diplomatic channels as they did, it becomes coercion. And it falls under freedom of speech for me to be disgusted with their behavior, just as it falls under yours to all address my and other comments here instead of directly at WH.

As for me, you’re free to deface any symbol I’m a fan of. As long as you’re not harming anyone or damaging property that you don’t own, I have no right to stop you. I won’t call the cops either!

By: NellaLou

NellaLou — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 05:59:27 +0000

You know Nathan that hypocrisy in that particular comment was something I noticed as well. It seems to be OK for the swiss to make any statement they please in public but a letter to a government official written by an Indian person is not OK. Another thing that struck me there was the suggestion that someone should go in and talk to the store manager or something quietly. How would that guy feel if some kid wrote an offensive slogan somewhere he came across it. Would he go and speak to the kid quietly and personally or would he call some government representative ie the police?

By: Nathan

Nathan — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 02:53:01 +0000

I can see why the family was shocked – it’s clear the people in the shoe store had no clue. They probably thought the Buddha statue looked “cute” with the shoes. And isn’t it funny how quickly dismissive a few of the folks making comments on the WorstHorse were. And the one even lumping it in with the cartoon protests that occurred not too long ago. Interesting how same guy goes off about freedom of speech and yet doesn’t seem to recognize that their negative reaction to the use of the statue all falls under the category of freedom of speech.

By: NellaLou

NellaLou — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 06:23:42 +0000

Sure Arun. I read the comments over at the Worst Horse and the Times of India and found I had a lot to say.

In Switzerland, like Canada and India but not like the U.S. freedom of expression has certain limitations. It is an agreement among citizens about what is appropriate and respectful. It recognizes the interdependence of cultures as well as individuals. Probably why I like being a socialist.

I am no paragon in terms of curbing my words for sure some times, but ridiculing and debasing other’s beliefs and culture for the fun of it or for some commercial enterprise is unnecessary and cruel.

Some people at the Worst Horse blog thought the Indian folks had over-reacted. In comments it always seems like the Indians, the Asian Buddhists, the Muslims are the ones who over-react but any expression by the financially dominant majority is Okey-Dokey including suggestions that the brown people just sit down and shut up about it so Freedom of Expression (and commerce) can carry on with it’s business as usual.

By: arunlikhati

arunlikhati — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 05:40:44 +0000

Thank you so much for posting this article.