Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Buddhist 'People Of Color Sanghas,' Diversity Efforts Address Conflicts About Race Among Meditators!
DaltheJigsaw
Mountain View Veteran
Comments
I do not agree with the idea of Sanghas for different races.
Buddhism is/should be taught and explained with absolutely no regard, deference, or bias for skin color. None.
To expect "special" groups, special accommodations or race specific teachers is (IMO) completely contradictory to the principles of Buddhism in the recognition and detachment from self and ego.
I agree with "beginner" groups and meditation classes... for sure. Because it's normal for many people who are new to groups, or meeting new people under new circumstances or in unfamiliar surroundings to feel a little shy, awkward or uncomfortable. SOME may even perceive these feelings as feeling "unwelcome". So to have beginner classes/meditations makes sense until a person no longer feels like a "beginner".
But racially specialized classes? I call that ridiculous.
Then a few students came to me wanting to start a Korean Club. I refused, but another teacher started one for them. Then some students wanted to start a Vietnamese Club. I refused. Another teacher consented. And then some students wanted to start a Black Club. And that's when the shit hit the fan and people finally started realizing that they were encouraging separation of the races and ethnicity.
But after some thought, I realized that was my limited view speaking and I wasn't looking at it from their point of view. We do have a big problem with Western Buddhism being mostly white folk. A person of color doesn't have to have a reason to feel uncomfortable when walking into a room full of white folks. It's hard enough for a white person to walk into a room full of strangers, people who are familiar with what's going on and each other. Who am I to say the black person should just trust that their looks don't matter? They live a life where they're reminded it does matter, every day.
So I wish them the best, if that's what it takes to expose them to the Dharma. As the article states, we can hope as these groups become familiar with the Dharma, they give us an opportunity to show we walk the walk. And maybe they will have something to teach us when all this bears fruit.
And this whole issue goes back to the often written about "most segregated hour of American life" is church.
So, Let's say I have an interest in wood carving. I join a wood carving beginner's class in order to learn the basics; learn the different kinds of wood, how to use the tools, and to start working with wood, etc.
I attend the first class, and look- I'm the only woman there. The men there smiled, said hello, but other than that, no one went out of their way to welcome me or acknowledge that I was the only woman in the class... however, no one was rude or anything.
After a couple of classes I still felt uncomfortable. I felt too 'different' to relax and open up, or ask questions. I really stuck out like a sore thumb in this class.
Now who's problem is this? Is the class or teacher doing anything wrong or anything to make me feel uncomfortable? No.
What is it that I expected? Several other women in the class?
Or deep down, did I now expect to be treated "special" - being as how I'm the only woman in the class?
Would I feel less uncomfortable if some of the men there made a fuss over me- giving me extra help, or paying a little extra attention to me because I am the only woman there? How do /did I expect them to react? Is this why I'm feeling "unwelcome"?
I mean come on... these are MY issues. Not the teacher's or the class'.
No one is doing anything to me.
So now I get the idea of starting an All-female wood carving class... after all, if *I* feel this way, ALL women must feel this way in wood carving classes everywhere.
And guess what? I'm not allowing ANY men in. There, that'll show 'em.
I mean, seriously, where's the maturity in that?
What makes that the 'right' thing to do?
Well, to me, this is exactly what is going on with this all-African/Native American Buddhist sangha.
My first knee jerk reaction was "Yes! Nothing wrong with accommodating their needs and wants as African /Native-Americans studying Buddhism and meditation ... Why shouldn't they start their own Sangha?"
Then I thought about it more. Now I feel differently. I believe it's counter-productive and a completely ego-based reaction.
I don't feel comfortable staying in the same hotel as a Negro.
I don't feel comfortable having a Negro swim in the same pool.
I don't feel comfortable having a Negro drink out of our water fountain.
I don't feel comfortable having a Negro use the same restroom.
I don't feel comfortable having a Negro eat at the same restaurant or lunch counter.
Either that principle is "right", or it's not.
Are student groups based on race illegal or somehow immoral? The Native American student union, the Black student union, the Chicano association at universities--no one objects to those. Why isn't there a White student union? Because it's not necessary. The other groups form because they've always been shut out. They need to organize for mutual support and to give themselves a voice in a system that tends to turn a deaf ear to their concerns.
I really don't see a problem. Why should we crash their party? Because it irks us to be excluded, when we're used to calling the shots? :wtf:
I would hope after a certain amount of time, like a child growing up and leaving it's mother's apron strings, that these people feel secure enough to integrate into mainstream A.A., but I can see the value and need for minority groups like this.
I think things are rarely so black and white with regards to a principle being either 'right' or 'not right'. It depends on the circumstances.
They are just perpetuating the problem.
Perhaps we should burn books in order to get a bigger library.
"as one woman in the article phrased it, and if that's what it takes to spread the Dharma, then so be it. I'm happy Buddhists of color have sanghas where they're happy. We haven't walked in their shoes, so we can't fully understand what their issues are. Why can't we be supportive of their process? Why can't they organize around their needs without judgment or "approval" from us? "
One reason, as I see it, is because the end does not always justify the means.
Another reason is because there need not be a Dharma; From the African American POV class. Nor a Dharma; from the Native American POV class; nor a 'woman's point of view...' nor a Teen's POV, etc.
The Dharma is the Dharma is the Dharma is the Dharma.
Why should we take (one of) the most basic ideas of the Dharma, that it leads to a universal "truth" and connectedness, throw it out the window so we can turn that truth and connectedness into All About Me - and those just like me?
I'm telling you, the more I think about it and the more I read the article again (to make sure I read it with somewhat different eyes each time), Sala comes off as insulting and eyeball deep in her own racial issues, and her segregation can't be justified as simply a means to "bringing the Dharma to POC". I call BS on that.
Sala also says: "We walked into this room and there were 60 white people. No black people. No people of color,” she said. “I did not want to stay … We had been there only five or 10 minutes, and a woman in the group began asking a question and talking about how she had transcended her body, and was looking at herself from the outside. It was way too 'out-there,' for me and it just seemed to reflect a whole different outlook on meditation than what I was used to.
It was what I stereotyped white sanghas as, you know, a little hippie, a little self-involved."
What? Self involved?? Because a white woman asked a question SHE wouldn't have asked, from a point of view SHE may not have understood or experienced.... so BAM! The entire sangha became a "stereotypical WHITE sangha... " (you know- all hippie-ish and shit).
Seriously, no one else finds that petty and insulting, no matter what color your skin? Should that mindset be coddled and encouraged as any sort of right speech or right thinking? Why? Because these few POC live in a predominantly white city every single thing they do must always be politicized and racially adapted because they don't want to BE the minority in a group setting like meditation classes, etc?
Again, any way you slice it, it's segregation /separatism and this just doesn't seem right.
We're not talking about art classes, creative writing classes, or poetry classes, (where it is all about US and our experiences/ POV) we're talking about BUDDHIST sanghas and meditation. And Sala claims to be meditating for 20 yrs .... but apparently she has not gotten over or advanced to the point of setting aside her attachment to her own skin color and the self-importance she assigns it. So what are her qualifications for teaching meditation to anyone else?
Let me point out one other thing. I believe if the word "Buddhist" was taken out of the article completely, (and out of Sala's quotes) and this was strictly a story about "learning to meditate" and using meditation as a means of self-management and de-stressing...
I would have absolutely NO ISSUE with classes being all black, all white, all green or all men. No issue at all.
But as soon as someone starts claiming this is BUDDHISM... that I have a huge issue with.
OK, I won't say any more. I probably come off angry, but I promise I'm not. Just feel pretty strongly about this. And please don't assume it's because I'm white. I am soooo not into that and have experienced plenty of prejudice and bias in my lifetime for many other reasons. This isn't about "not getting" their issue. I get it just fine.
Without variety we risk only being like what we already hold. There is no one to challenge our views and expand our horizons, and to really understand Buddhism, IMO, that is necessary. When you take your perceptions and beliefs and only choose to be around people of the same beliefs, then where is the need to investigate your perceptions and challenge and in time, change them? Will they learn to practice compassion for the people that challenge them if they just segregate themselves from them? Sometimes, segregation just happens. But to specifically cause it to happen just really rubs me the wrong way.
I do also think that white people tend to be really sensitive at anything that insinuates that we make others feel uncomfortable. Racism still is alive and well in this country, unfortunately (and most others as well) but there are a lot of us who really do believe in equality, and hearing that people of other races seem to assume that all white people make them uncomfortable makes us uncomfortable. We want to welcome them, but they don't want to be welcomed, and sometimes that's a hard pill to swallow.
White people think they understand but they don't - they sympathise at best.
There is a certain corrosive quality to systemic discrimination and genocide - issues that continue to manifest and perpetuate to this very day.
Overall, I am happy that they are studying and practicing at all. But I hope they will use their practice to investigate why they feel unwelcome and uncomfortable, because it is not that they are being *made* to feel so. They are choosing to feel that way. I absolutely get that the issues go far deeper than I can ever appreciate. I have a very good friend who is First Nations and the depth of her pain over what happened to her ancestors is something I'll never understand on her level. But even she agrees it is her choice whether to move on and improve things for herself and further generations. Progress can only be made in going forward, not in staying the same. I hope that creating a Sangha is a step forward and that it continues for them.
The ban remained - but for good reason no doubt (I should also say that I am assured that Lincoln keeps the door open for repenters!)
My point is loosely around this - a community regulates its membership - there have been people in this community who have been judged unsuitable - this may have been because they consistently cause offence or troll - an attribute or other that is viewed by the community as a whole (or by proxy through its management) as undesirable.
So someone who is out to annoy you is banned.
What about someone who represents a race that wiped out your race's culture and heritage?
I guess it really depends on what 'race' means to you.
Choosing /made to feel... I dont know... it's tough one - on one level it is a choice (as everything is) but on another it is a major established and pervading facet of a person's reality - so yes, their response may not be the most conducive to harmonious resolution but that said, it is their response to the particular stimulus.
I find it challenging seeing how, as a society, we can move forward when there has not been justice for historical issues and even today, the horror continue unabated.
I share your sentiment that practice is better than no practice and your wish that these steps lead to foundations of a permanent resolution to such issues.
I do agree that it's very difficult to move forward, for all of us, when the issues have not been righted. Decades after atrocities, apologies only mean so much.
As someone who has been refused entry to two temples (so far) I am well aware of the exclusive and restrictive nature of the dharma politzie.
Buddhism is open to be practiced by the constipated, the free and open and the spiritually insane (that would be me).
It is a wonderful thing to accept that people need to feel selected, tulkus, advanced practitioners, true believers or some other form of separation.
My Buddhism is based on Rumi
Come, come, whoever you are.
Wanderer, worshiper, lover of leaving — it doesn't matter,
Ours is not a caravan of despair.
Come, even if you have broken your vow a hundred times,
Come, come again, come.
As well as drive through temples and sangha on a revolving pedestal, I believe Buddhism has much to offer the downtrodden, terminally superior and anyone able to say or think OM MANI PEME HUM
But I have also seen student "cultural groups" which become mouthpieces for slandering other groups to the point that their are frequent fights and the atmosphere becomes gang-like.
I take your point on many years ago / causal link... that said, the issues are still ongoing, 'white' society is still benefitting, there have not been reparations, noone is held to account, the institutions remain... it is not as overt in some regards but the effects are similar if not the same.
Reading the article itself, the reason for the exclusion seemed to me to be varied, institutionalised and more subtle than 'just because they can':
e.g.
"They feel anxiety, stress and a sense of being rejected by white Buddhists or are unable to find a connection to the established sanghas"
"Being an American Indian woman, I am judged all the time. I just feel more accepted if it's not white people telling me what to do, how to meditate,"
Could this be akin to a 'same sex' situation? comfort of kin?
You're quite correct that it is a matter of personal perception and choice - that said, there are I suppose only so many cheeks to turn.
I find great difficulty in imagining even a hypothetical resolution - human beings by their nature are xenophobic, fatally competitive and vicious.
It's terribly sad that minorities seek refuge within their own race.
Also terribly sad that 'white' people who genuinely care about the issues feel ostracised...
Rambling thoughts... no solution - lots of deletes and retypes...
For my part, I would be put off by an organisation that excludes in this way - that's just my personal choice though - I seek the dream even if it's not attainable in my lifetime - not sure how else to approach it.
I knew nothing about Buddhism the first year (about 1986) that I went to Thailand on a vacation. But of course, one of the things that you do sightseeing in Thailand is visit Buddhist temples. And for the first 10 days I was on my own and was the typical tourist outsider. I went into the touristy temples and enjoyed the architecture and the beauty. Then, my Thai roommate in America had arranged for me to spend a week in Chiang Mai, where his family would spend some time with me. On our first day of sightseeing, we went to one of the most famous Buddhist temples on the mountain that overlooks Chiang Mai. They spent about an hour sharing with me many of the traditions and things Buddhists do at temples. Not in an effort to convert, but just in an effort to share. It opened a whole new world to me. I quickly found I could walk into any Thai Buddhist temple, and if they sensed I was genuinely interested, I would be included in any activity that was going on. Once a Thai friend and I walked into a temple in the northeast plateau and were so welcomed, even though there was a ceremony going on. I was treated like an honored guest. I had no idea what the ceremony was because of the language barrier, but I was fascinated. After it was over I asked my Thai friend what kind of ceremony it was. It was a funeral! Yet, I was welcomed in. Another year I happened to visit one of the most important temples in Bangkok when there was an ordination ceremony. There were no other Westerners there that day, and I was watching from the doorway. Several lay people, and then one of the senior monks led me into the ubosot and had me sit with the men who were about to be ordained. And that's what I always found in Thai Buddhist temples (including here in the States) -- come right in and be a part.
On the other hand, as I traveled through Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, and Indonesia, I was just as interested in learning about the Muslim culture. I recall when touring the Andaman Islands and stopping at one of the islands for lunch, seeing a small Muslim Mosque and walking over to it to go inside. There was a sign on the outside that actually said: "Non-Muslims may not enter, but you may give money." Yeah...right.
Then in Kuala Lumpur I went down to the main historic mosque. I dressed very conservatively, didn't carry my camera, and got to the front gate. One sign on the gate said "No Visitors". Next to it a sign said "Open to visitors" and gave the times. So, I walked through the gates. If looks could kill... And still, as I traveled through Malaysia and struck up conversations with locals (and I have heard the same thing here in the States, as well), Muslims would lament that "Americans don't try to understand us" or "Americans don't try to understand Islam". Well, duh.
Finally, in Singapore I found a major mosque that was welcoming to visitors and even gawking tourists.
People are forgotten, and it's sad. I understand why they feel how they do. There are no easy answers, for sure. I just wish they could see that not all people are like that, that we aren't uncaring about their problems. But even in the case of being able to donate money to help, much of that money is taken by tribe elders and not given to the people, etc. It makes it difficult to help.
The problems of course aren't limited to Native Americans, it's just what I see more, based on where I live/have lived. Looking at any social statistic out there it's clear to see minority races come up short in basically every area.
It would be wonderful if we all felt comfortable all of the time with everyone. Not all of us do. That is dukkha. It is also a fact of life.
If a far right extremist group started Buddhist meditation classes for whites only, I would be there. Not very likely but even the hell dwellers have to start somewhere. I would bring Jewish foods and develop tanning to gradually acclimatise them to alternative forms of metta.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/09/15/i-cant-believe-im-saying-this-but-im-siding-with-the-kkk-on-this-issue/
I get the reasoning, but if such a group fosters an "us versus them" attitude, then it will likely be counterproductive.
Here's my compromise:
Have a "diversity" sitting group of mostly people of color, and taught by a person of color, but with some small fraction of white students, like 10-25%, (pre-arranged by waiting list). That way, non-whites won't feel threatened, but, at the same time, it won't devolve into a hate-whitey club. And hopefully, whites and non-whites can come away with a positive experience because of the diversity.
Integration, not separation.
If people wish to have practice groups for republicans, bankers, marxists or tibetans only, so what. Go to the universalist practice groups, you will be welcome and so will those who practice in secret, in segregation, in berkas, as nudists, in Gay groups, in new age communes, for mental health etc . . . This is a none issue. It is mind chatter. Oh mind chatterers are welcome at most groups too . . .
Of the states in the Confederacy, 83% went Republican in 2012. So, saying it was an almost perfect match was overstating it. But saying it was "not at all" a match, was not correct either.