Remind me again: why are we cherrypicking Eastern philosophies in the West?
Surely this goes beyond mere appropriation. I have a theory as to why.
When I say West (strictly talking about a socio-cultural context, so it includes Australia and NZ)… there are levels to it. What we call “Western culture” really doesn’t have much to do with specific European or American cultures at all (because those cultures are good. They’re not the Empire). Western culture simply means an amalgamation of societal norms considered “universal” (or worse — “common sense” — if you’re with the really really brainwashed crowd) borne out of romanticism for the bygone Roman Empire. Some countries exhibit more glaring signs of adherence to it, whereas other ones just vaguely fit into the umbrella. The elites love it, most people hate it, and there’s a general feeling of powerlessness surrounding it. Almost as if the general population just looked at the status quo here, shrugged and said, “well… It is what it is. Impossible to change or improve upon it at all. I’ll just submit and be a good sheep”. (Christian conditioning definitely “helped” create that false sense of powerlessness in us).
General characteristics include:
- Naturalisation of conformity to arbitrary societal rules. So, although every society has norms, and this is to be expected, our (unspoken, but widely followed) Imperialistic code of societal norms is more pretentious. It disguises itself as “nature”, as if any attempt to change it would be going “against nature”. And that’s a lie. For example, women are considered peacekeepers whereas men are considered bold and assertive “by nature”. Who the fuck said that? Certainly not Science. And yet… We believe it without question, because the Empire wants to be nature in our minds, and we let it. We clearly see Scientists concluding, “guys, this assumption has no basis on evidence at all”, and what do we do? We turn a blind eye and keep repeating the Imperialistic lie like brainwashed idiots. Some outwardly (the right wing with its “tradwife” and “alpha male” fantasy), some more covertly (the left wing with its demure morality discourse which only really applies to women, because men get away with boldness and impulsivity in the Left all the time). The example given was of one small feature of the Empire — the patriarchy. It goes beyond that, but I wanted to show it in practice.
- Pathologising dissidence. The most glaring example is that of Autism, originally considered an illness to be treated, and only recently we learned it’s just a neurodivergence (a matter of diversity and plurality, NOT malfunction). And yet… What do we do to Austistic people? We don’t categorise them, do we? No, instead we “diagnose” them. What is it that we normally diagnose? Illness. Oh, am I overreacting? Why don’t we diagnose babies as boys or girls then? Sure if it’s “just a word” and “Lucy is just being overly sensitive”, you shouldn’t have cringed at my suggestion. Isn’t it? Stop enabling oppression. Things have only improved in theory. In practice, we’re still pathologising dissidence. And don’t get me started on female “hysteria” or non-white people’s “overreactions” and “need to calm down” (because of course no-one is allowed to be more loud, more colorful, more anything, than white people. Or else it’s pathologised).
- Misrepresentation of social inequality as an organic phenomenon. Because suuuuuuurely meritocracy exists now and unearned/inherited privilege is a thing of the past that fell with the Bastille. *Cough cough cough* of course *cough cough* nothing to see here. I mean… look no further than Elon Musk. The truth? He inherited humongous wealth from his parents’ exploitation of African mines. The lie? He’s self-made and a genius (and therefore anyone can get there too). Uh-huh. Keep believing that, puppet. Keep dancing on the Capitalists’ every command, puppet.
- Misrepresentation of Colonialism as “progress”. Do I even need to explain this one? It’s a troll argument people sometimes use — “oh, try living without the innovations brought to us by colonisers”, they say. Yeah, sure… Fair enough. But the objective shouldn’t be supremacy, should it? I don’t think it’s very wise to say, “oh, because this Western thing here was imposed onto me, it has no value”. No. That’s wrong. The imposition was wrong. The thing itself? Probably good and harmless in its own right. And so were the things we already had BEFORE colonisation. All good and harmless! Nothing becomes “bad” before it’s imposed on anyone by force. The problem is the imposing by force; not the objects themselves. God damn it, does Western society COLLECTIVELY not understand object constancy? Is that why we excuse narcissism so much?
- The pursuit of unlimited growth with limited resources. And blaming it on “Economics” when in fact Economics has nothing to do with it. Economics is just there to describe supply and demand phenomena matter-of-factly, it never said “let’s bail the rich and be merciless on the poor so that the same few can stay on top”. Isn’t it? Economics didn’t say that. None of the scholars said that. If you disagree, give me the citation, come on, I dare you. But SOMEHOW, it’s the norm anyway. We bail the rich and tell the poor through shame and guilt to just work harder (we’ll examine this phenomenon better later on. Scroll down to “When Protestant Christianity Wears a Buddhist Mask”). Some blame it on “overpopulation”, oh, INTERESTING, last time I checked we didn’t have 200 billion people in the world (just ONE BILLIONAIRE’S fortune). I mean… Overpopulation sure exists to some extent but it’s not this all-engulfing monster that inequality deniers make it out to be, and it’s certainly NOT the cause of poverty itself. It’s just a strawman to shut people up and deflect attention. When people talk about why the market isn’t free, all they do is shit all over the Left. Well………… What about the Right though? Doesn’t the Right artificially control it too? If we followed Economics by the book, the phenomenon where wealth trickles down would truly happen and we’d all be happier. I don’t see anyone in the Left-wing opposing that idea. Do you? Yeah, funny how that goes!
- Identity politics as a weapon of mass silencing and humiliation. “If you question this thing, you’re a Communist”; “if you question that other thing, you’re a fascist”. Or [insert “loaded” label that unfairly lumps dissident people together with lunatics and dictators of the past because of a vague similarity that… sometimes isn’t even really there]. Because of course, when we can’t pathologise dissidence (there are things even mental health authorities will deny to play into these days, lol) we resort to identity politics instead. If it had another name, it would be “highschool bully antics”. Ya know how bullies go like, “you’re a nerd!” (instead of also acknowledging the good side of a hard-working student), “you’re ugly” (instead of acknowledging that our beauty standards are out of control), etc etc etc. Well… society at large does that to groups of people too. Instead of being fair and weighing both the good and the bad in a dissident person’s existence, no, let’s abjectify them and split them all-bad and slap a derogatory label on them instead. “You commie”, “you Ancap”, “you backwards”, “you retard”, all these childish insults are somehow an excuse we consider satisfactory not to listen to somebody. What’s next? Call their mother a hoe? Pull out their underpants, point and laugh? Let’s grow up for fuck sake! We complain of the clowns and the cowards in power, but who put them there? Where’s our self-awareness as a society, ACROSS the political spectrum? Where’s our maturity, our personal power, our wisdom to know better when we’re nudged towards behaving like total bullies? There’s no need to embrace each other and be all love-and-light, but for heaven’s sake let’s maybe say “no” to fearing labels and people-pleasing to avoid labels so much. If someone calls you this or that, SO WHAT?! Is the world going to explode because someone called you a commie or a backwards man? I’m sure you know it isn’t, you’re no longer a teenager, your prefrontal cortex is completely developed now. I thought we were out of highschool already!
*deep sigh and a big facepalm*
History 101, let’s recap here, real quick: which Empire was famous for the “divide and conquer” strategy? Which one was it? I’m sure you know.
Chances are you agree with some (or all) of my arguments above. You agree in principle… But when push comes to shove, you keep silencing the dissident and applauding the obedient “sheep” (I don’t like that word because of how conspiracy theorists also use it, but really, in this context, it’s a good metaphor. People are being herded. They don’t even agree with what they’re being told to do, and yet…? They do it anyway. That’s what I mean by “being herded”. Or programmed like a robot or whatever your word of choice).
In socio-cultural terms, the opposite of “West” shouldn’t be “East” — but we fall for that automatic conclusion because it’s comfortable.
In other words: anything BUT diversity! Conformity only! Ooga booga!
Sure, there are cultures we can vaguely classify together under an umbrella of “Eastern” but this umbrella is mostly formed by the Western imaginary and has little to do with reality — here’s a handy documentary on what I mean (the examples given are musical but you can extrapolate to other things too).
Before you interject saying “but that makes no sense!” (when in fact, let me guess, what you MEAN is “but that’s not fair” — read it in a child’s voice having a tantrum), allow me to remind you once again: yes, sometimes things are “not fair” (translation: not a perfect mirror-like reflection on one side and the other) because human beings are not perfect either. We fucked up in History several times over, and now we try to forget it when really we should be addressing the legacy of these fuck-ups. One such fuck-up was Western imperialism, started by Rome and continued by a handful of States during the Colonialistic period. It’s not your average, “usual” kind of conquest. It’s worse: it dehumanises and commodifies people. It goes far beyond just saying “hey, get out of here, this land is mine now” (another problematic discourse, but definitely lesser than two evils here); Instead, imperialism goes like, “I’m naturally superior to you. You should naturally bow to me. Wherever you are or whatever you own comes second in importance to this artificial supremacy I just took out of my arse and am now enforcing as Nature and Absolute Truth”.
Such a phenomenon has NOT yet occurred outside what we know as “the West”. Matter of fact. Other Empires were far smaller in comparison and, well, didn’t divide to conquer. They just used force, but none of this psychological programming. That’s why, even though things aren’t all roses beyond the West, at least they get to have diversity. I mean, come on, look at how many alphabets they use. Look how many calendars, religions, systems of music theory, legal systems, cuisines, definitions of modesty, rites of passage, medical conventions, etc, they have… And here in the West we all just somehow “agree” on the same one. We just stick to our good old monolith for all these things, coming straight from Rome.
And then, when we get in contact with all this riches of cultural diversity, we don’t know what to do with it. We’re used to a monolith. So we turn “the East” and “Africa” and “Nativa Americans” into monoliths in their own right too — with the best of intentions I’m sure, because good-role-models monoliths are STILL monoliths. It still removes the human element from these cultures and turns them into some surface-level add-on to OUR culture.
We’re not used to diversity! We’re not used to even valuing diversity. At most, spoken languages change when we travel within the West, but… that’s it. Cuisines, maybe, in a very superficial manner. Western music all uses the same theory, so that doesn’t count [in my view — with rare exceptions like yoik, from never-conquered-by-the-Romans Sámi people, and sean nós singing from never-conquered-by-the-Romans Irish people. Oh, look! What a coincidence! #sarcasm].
If we valued diversity, we would know better than to consider non-Western cultural music an extra twang we add to our already existing habits for making music.
If we valued diversity, we would know better than to consider non-Western food an extra spice to put on top of what we already know and love.
If we valued diversity, we would know better than to consider non-Western religion an add-on to our already formed and pre-conceived ideas about metaphysics.
Can you see how condescending, how supremacist it is to consider an entire new world “just an extra add-on”? As if it was so primitive, so easy to learn about and understand, so… inferior.
…Because why bother learning anything new from scratch? Why bother putting your past baggage aside and forgetting it for a moment when you’re learning something non-Western? Oh, no, not at all, if there’s any tiny bit of similarity to something we already knew, obviously we’re gonna compare, we’re gonna make rushed conclusions, we’re gonna misclassify. Emptiness is scary! We can’t ever have emptiness! Where’s the familiar comfort zone to stick to?
For the record: I’m not condemning cultural exchange. It’s ok. Sure, keep “adding on” something non-Western to your existing way of life. We’re more connected than ever now, it’s bound to happen. But please, PLEASE, I BEG YOU, listen to me when I say that you’re not doing the authentic thing. You’re coming up with a mixture. So call it a mixture. Call it what it is. Don’t appropriate by calling it what it ISN’T just because it satisfies your laziness and wishful thinking. I’m sure you wouldn’t like it if Mexicans started using English words in the middle of their sentences that are in Spanish and calling it “speaking English” — that’d be inaccurate, because the grammar and basic structure and most of the vocabulary at hand would still be Spanish. A pidgin at best. Not a fair representation of the English language. Also, I’m sure you wouldn’t like it if a Japanese put some tomato sauce and pepperoni on top of a base entirely made of rice and yakinori and called it “pizza”. It could perhaps be an Italian-inspired sushi (a mixture…), but calling it “pizza” is a bit of a stretch.
The above are ridiculous examples that don’t really happen, just so you grasp the message once and for all about how ridiculous (yes. Really!!!) are our double standards when we assume we can learn “all about” non-Western traditions and teachings in just one sitting, but at the same time we pay due respect to our own Western traditions and teachings. It’s supremacism. It’s bullshit. Stop it.
If you’re in doubt about whether or not you’re culturally appropriating, ask yourself: “if I went to the country of origin of this thing, would the locals be happy with the way I’m handling/using/teaching it?” In case the answer is “no” or “I don’t know” or “maybe they’d call me a clueless beginner and rush to help”, you’re appropriating.
You see, cultural appreciation vs appropriation shouldn’t be about Historic pedantism. Instead, it’s about what’s going on here and now, among living, breathing, walking-on-this-ground human beings. Who cares if a tradition “started off as a melting pot a zillion thousand years ago anyway”, we’re not talking about the motherfucking Bronze age. We’re talking about today. TODAY, it is done in such-and-such way. Are you respecting that? Or are you adding your own spin and passing it as the real thing? THAT is the question. Authenticity comes from an entire community who collectively agreed to do something a certain way, there’s mutual respect in that, there’s collaboration in that; Appropriation comes from individuals who overestimate their assumptions. There’s only narcissism, only “me, me, me” in that. Big difference!
So… now that you hopefully understand East and West are not a dichotomy (there’s West — our unfortunate monolith — then there are GENUINE Western people like Africa, American cultures and Europe, then there are Eastern cultures, and Altaic and Oceanic cultures, and on and on it goes…) Let’s talk about specifically, the East.
Buddhism is in vogue now, isn’t it? So are other old Eastern religions. Westerners have grown tired of the early 2000s newage pick-and-mix, and now would rather pretend to take individual traditions seriously… But do we?
Honestly. Let’s take a very honest look at ourselves, without sugarcoating reality. Do we?
I think the answer is “no”.
I’m not saying there aren’t authentic and fair representations of non-Western culture here in the West, by Westerners. There are! But these are unfortunately very few and far between. In most cases, what you will see is appropriation. I won’t speculate if it’s deliberate or not, I’m simply telling you that it happens. And really, we can “know where a problem is coming from” all we like, but this simple knowing isn’t going to solve the problem — at worst, it can even enable and excuse it. Let’s not enable and excuse problems. Let’s be a little more mature than that.
Taking just the Buddhism example today (first of all because it’s my religion and I know a thing or two about it; secondly because this is a blog post, not an encyclopedia. Don’t be entitled. It’s already here for free. Learn to value what I’m offering you, because I could be charging for this and instead I chose to be generous)… Let’s take a look at the appropriation vs the respectful adoption of Buddhist doctrine in the West.
I won’t name names, I’ll simply give you information so you can navigate what’s on offer and decide for yourself what it is you’re looking at.
Appropriators: the self-proclaimed “Buddhists” who demonise emotions (more commonly, anger).
Why is it appropriation? Simple: because like any other appropriation, it cherrypicks a religion and twists the narrative to make it look like the cherrypicking didn’t take place.
Authentic Buddhism does not demonise any part of our humanity because Buddhist doctrine is almost entirely built on the principle of non-conceptualisation. In order to abjectify anything, you need to conceptualise it. For example, in order to abjectify anger (or “angry people should be outcasts”, what these charlatans REALLY mean — jump to “When Protestant Christianity Wears a Buddhist Mask” to see why), you need to create in your mind a fixed and inflexible idea of what anger IS. Otherwise, you’ll see the nuance, and you’ll eventually conclude that, “well, surely there are contexts when anger is warranted, and as long as it passes and doesn’t stay too long, we can’t judge it”. Authentic Buddhist teachers, when told about someone’s anger issues, wouldn’t make a blanket statement like “all anger causes this and that and these and those problems, sans context, always, period”. Instead, they’d ask the person if they can identify what caused the anger. Because, as I already said, you can’t assume before you know somebody’s individual story (otherwise, you’re dehumanising them). Appropriators already know that, and some even use and twist this narrative as, “oh, but a guru would ask you what caused the anger because obviously he wants you to come to the conclusion it’s always these things listed here” — no. NO. STOP. Let’s have some empathy before becoming religious leaders, for fuck sake. Each person is unique and has unique needs (and at the same time, we’re all connected. It’s a paradox. But you can’t approach it from a prescriptivist Christian lens, ie “theory in the book says X, therefore this practical example must eat-up my theory and conform to it before I even let them speak”).
If you’re in doubt about my conclusion above (that authentic gurus would first welcome the individual that seeks help, and only after, case-by-case, depending on what was said to him, introduce more generalised doctrine), look no further than Shaolin kung fu.
Do you know how it came to be? It’s a Zen Buddhist school. I joined it in 2011 and stayed until 2014, not in China, but we had links to Henan in China. I learned a thing or two, and know for a fact that many outsiders are bullshitting when they say it’s “merely a mindful dance” or “just performative”. No, it isn’t. There are performances they make for tourists — especially in China — but that’s only a recent invention to help with fundraising. That’s not how kung fu (or wǔshù 武 術 to be more proper. This brings back memories of learning the tonal system, lol) originally started. And by Historical accounts, it wasn’t the commonly told Buddhist legend either (that monks in Hunan once came up with a way of exercising in between meditation sessions). When you cast legends aside and just look at History, you learn that it has been a martial art from the very beginning. Yes, a warrior thing. Based on anger. Literally. And yet, monks invented it. Mind-blowing? Well, I’m not even started.
So, Chinese martial arts predate Buddhist wǔshù by several centuries, with the specific style that came to be adopted by the warrior monks starting to exist during the Han Dinasty (206BC-23CE roughly). It used to be a much simpler system of military tactics and formations employed in war during that period, until it evolved into the “kung fu” we recognise as such in the 5th century AD in Hunan by influence of the Buddhist monks. But… why?
Well, there’s an interesting reason: surviving records give us mixed information about what really took place. Some say that warriors joined the temple and became monks; Other historians disagree and simply state that Buddhism was growing in popularity and receiving generous donations from noblemen, which is why the temples needed protection, and the monks took on the task themselves. Either way, what we have here is a chicken-and-egg problem: which came first? The meditation or the martial art? We can’t know. What we DO know is they became one and the same in Hunan, so that’s what I’m going with.
Fast-forward to today, and wǔshù is completely divorced from open-field combat tactics, only sometimes working in a single duel context (IF both oponents are mindful), but it uses anger all the same.
When you learn wǔshù, whether it’s shaolin or another style (there are many now!), a common thread can be perceived: the emphasis on mindfulness, breathing, and efficiency (ie, no unnecessary suffering and no “showing off” either, just do your job and take your oponent down). Some practices (most of them today, to be honest) are performative and don’t require an opponent, but you apply rule #3 to your own work on perfecting yourself — no unnecessary suffering (as in, everything is gradual, don’t rush, be persistent and you’ll get there), and no showing off (can this movement be simplified? Do that. It shouldn’t be “which looks cooler”). Gradually you start to realise that you’re sometimes channeling anger into it, but in a very controlled manner. There’s never chaos, only energy. It’s like learning to embrace the productive part of anger — not without letting go of it at the end and bowing properly.
…Because in the end of the day, how does anger cause suffering? Is it “everything about” anger that causes suffering? Well, no. It’s only the mental chaos in it. If we remove the mental chaos, the frenzy, the animalesque impulse to react “wherever and however” (and thus being a slave to your ego, your impulsive mind), we’re still left with anger — but it’s productive. It’s like raw electricity, you can channel it into a lamp, it doesn’t have to give you a shock. But if we’re going to admit that, and say it in the open, we also have to admit that you can channel anger into protesting, and taking action against injustice, and a bunch of other things that Imperialists aren’t a fan of. Isn’t it? That’s part of why the Chinese legend even came to be (“oh, the monks were just exercising”), so look to Historians for the truth instead.
The conclusion above can be applied to the hypothetical scenario where some of the first monks in Hunan used to be warriors: instead of demonising anger, what did their gurus do? Teach them how to strip it down to the bare necessary. Very Zen.
A practical example of appropriators not only ignoring all this riches of Eastern philosophy and History (because they’re ignorant of it. They don’t know it. They haven’t a clue and haven’t bothered to listen to the people who know), but also taking conclusions out of their arse to repress disciples can be found here and also here. I’m sure there are many other instances in today’s Western society. Imagine how many victims of that same brainwashing aren’t even speaking about it!
“But Lucy, Shaolin is an exception to the rule. Maybe anger is taboo in most schools of Buddhism”.
Actually, no. I have moved on from Zen a long time ago, in great terms as you can see! Zero complaints! Simply because my specific spiritual focus shifted and I could no longer get behind the “no deities, no divination and no reincarnation” mindset you find in Zen. Matter of personal choice. Also, I’m not a minimalist, but that’s a quirk, lol.
In Tibetan Buddhism (specifically Nyingma in my case), there are closed practices and mysteries where you consider every kind of emotion, good or bad — because “good or bad” is a dualistic judgement anyway — an offering to a specific deity. Are you feeling joy? Offer him that joy! Are you feeling frustrated? Offer him the frustration! On and on it goes, including with anger and anything you can imagine. I can’t get into details because, let me repeat, this practice is closed and you need initiation; But I CAN tell you this is not a wrathful deity we’re talking about — in fact he’s very popular and well-known across the board in Buddhist communities. Another thing I CAN tell you is you’re not offering emotions to rid yourself of them. It’s not a cleansing ritual. It’s a ritual of sharing experience. Yes, you read it right. There’s no pretense of purifying anything, simply sharing. Surely if something was “dirty” or improper, you couldn’t share it… with a GOD, for crying out loud.
These mysteries are mysteries for a reason: you can’t simply break the confidentiality, go on a public platform and “initiate” total strangers who are reading the blog because you can’t know who is reading. You can’t know if there are narcissists in their midst who will misinterpret the whole thing as carte blanche to justify misconduct or stop working on self-improvement… Because it’s not. There is a level of preparation and a bunch of vows you need to take first. Unfortunately, we can’t openly share everything because some people ruin it for everybody. But I’m telling you the anecdote just so you know that even in completely different doctrines of Buddhism, you can find the basic understanding that nothing human should be repressed or demonised. It’s not a dualistic religion. It’s not heaven-or-hell like Christianity. That’s what some Westerners refuse to understand.
When Protestant Christianity Wears a Buddhist Mask
As a half-Latina, half-Swede born and raised in Latin America, I grew up oblivious to the destructive flavour of Protestantism you find in the US. I mean, don’t get me wrong, we have Protestantism too, albeit it’s a social minority — the Lutherans, especially, with the German diaspora, among other churches from other Germanic countries (you could say the Swedes have their own “spicy” Protestantism because we openly acknowledge Sankta Lucia and other myths, so… do we count as anti-Catholic? I don’t know. I think we’re chill. Come have some fika with us anytime lol), but nothing REMOTELY similar to the level of repression and hierarchical narcissism you find in American Baptist or Mormon communities (among others, I’m sure).
I said the above just so you know I have no interest in shitting all over people who grew up in communities that are historically Protestant. I just said “Protestant” because I’m referring to a specific place where this fake Buddhism that represses people’s emotions tends to happen (as I have recently been made aware). I guarantee you, it’s not in South America. It’s not in most parts of Europe either. In fact, two of the legit Western teachers I know who have real knowledge of Buddhist teachings are Brits — Nick Breeze Wood and James Low. They know each other, too. I recommend them. Admittedly I’ve been focusing more on the oracle path, but if I ever go back to a deep dive in Buddhism to learn more, I’ll consult them again. You’ll see they’re very clear about which specific lineage and master they had. Appropriators can’t give you that information or prove it at all.
The thing with Protestant Christianity — especially the US flavour of it — is that it takes certain Biblical teachings to an extreme. That’s why the Irish and the Scottish curse a lot but Americans say “oh my gosh” and other gems that we find weird across the pond. Protestantism being pedantic with “don’t say gods name in vain” and “don’t engage in profanity” VS the Catholics being like “ah sure, it depends on context”. This is a bit of a silly example, but it has a religious undertone, and even atheists from long lines of atheists in their families engage in it without question (the “herding” or “programming” I told you about in the intro). See, religion seeps into culture and community life whether you want it or not. Nobody is an island. Sorry to break that one to the narcissistic lurkers who insist that everything they do and think and say is deliberate and all is under control. Yeah, right.
You see… if even something as simple to get rid of as the above linguistic feature influences us anyway… Why think that “if I chose to become a Buddhist, the Protestant background of the community that raised and fed me doesn’t matter anymore”? Of course it matters! Of course you have baggage! And if you’re a child of immigrants, you have even more baggage, both from your family’s culture and from your community’s culture. Or were you homeschooled? Were you isolated from the local community where you live? I doubt it.
There’s truth to the tongue-in-cheek tale that “Britain expelled their religious fanatics to America and their criminals to Australia”. I mean… When you look at History, can you say it’s a lie? No. It’s not. I am yet to see anything remotely similar to the fanaticism of the Republican party make its way into Australian or British politics, for example. And I’m well-connected in that regard.
But somehow, there’s a bunch of Americans who keep telling themselves the lie that they can just select a new religion for themselves, same way you pick a product off a shelf in Walmart, and that’s it. That’s NOT it. That’s very far from it.
Love it or hate it, people in the US need to admit that they live in a society which has been indoctrinated to “hush hush” dirty secrets, sweep them under the carpet, and think nothing of it. They were indoctrinated into conformity, because non-conformity is communist or nazi or insert-your-bully-insult-here. This specific society would rather strip people out of their very humanity and basic dignity, instead of admitting that unregulated freedom only sets the rich free, or silenced outrage only benefits the oppressors, or insert scenario here where you first need to account for how stratified and unequal your society REALLY is before blindly believing in this fantasy of a “same for all” solution. I mean, I’m sure a one-size-fits all solution for every imaginable problem would work wonders in heaven.
But we’re not in heaven.
We’re on planet Earth.
Let’s leave utopian ideology where it belongs: comicbook stories with superheroes and supervillains. Real life unfortunately needs nuance. And before we find this nuance in our nitty-gritty 24/7 routines, we won’t be able to provide it in any idyllic retreat.
Edit: Same day update: I just found a super interesting discussion in the comment sections of this video. Enjoy. The video itself is great too.
