Segregated Sanghas: Spirituality & White Privilege

[jacx]

Just a question to all...

How many of you have ever attended for any duration a majority Asian American ethnic sangha?

Not Asian. Asian American.

Well, I'm Canadian, and have never attended any kind of American sangha.

But what makes a sangha Asian-American (or Asian-Canadian) rather than Asian? I'm a bit confused by your terminology.

[Unequaled108]

Unequaled -- Not I. Would my zazen have improved had I done it -- as I assume, by your apparent vehemence, you have?

This is a textbook use of the strawman fallacy.

[Unequaled108]

Well, I'm Canadian, and have never attended any kind of American sangha.

But what makes a sangha Asian-American (or Asian-Canadian) rather than Asian? I'm a bit confused by your terminology.

Great question.

It's actually a very simple thing, but shows how systematic racism can color our worldview without us even knowing it.

It is a very common thing for Asian Americans to get asked in conversation, "So where are you from?"

No big deal there right? Everyone's fielded that question.

It's the follow-up that makes it different.

An Asian American gets the question, and responds Baltimore, or New York, or LA...and the questioner continues, "No, I meant where are you really from?"

One of the constant stereotypes Asian Americans have to deal with is that of the perpetual foreigner.

Buddhism has existed in the US for almost two centuries now, and with it, Asian Americans. There are Asian American families that have been here for generations longer than my own white family. They are every bit as "real Americans" as I am, you are, or Genkaku is. Ok, maybe not you

Their Buddhism is American. Not Asian, and this is what writers like Arun Likhati at Dharma Folk & Angry Asian Buddhist have tried to bring up into the conversation of shaping American Buddhism, a conversation that has lately been dominated by white Americans, the publishers, the writers, etc, where discussions have centered largely around the point of view of the white convert. The goal is not to marginalize or minimalize the white convert point of view, but rather to emphasize that it is not, in any way, shape, or form, the majority or the only voice in the American Buddhist experience, that heritage Buddhists have played a role in the majority of American Buddhist history, and deserve to speak now as well.

When writers like the one Carol mentioned, or Noah Levine (who I do respect greatly and consider a largely positive influence on American Buddhism), or others speak for "Western Buddhism" or "American Buddhism", they often forget the Asian American experience, and their words show they are addressed only to white Buddhism, that they consider white Buddhism to be American Buddhism. Again, this is not through outright racism, or deliberate discrimination, but rather shows how even as Buddhists, we can be affected by cultural and societal norms.

We like to point out and condemn how Japanese Zen Buddhists were swept up into a jingoistic fervor before and during World War II.

Can we turn our own eyes inward to a much more subtle, much less immediately violent, but just as real oppression of our own?

[Unequaled108]

I'm just reading Brian Victoria's review of David Brazier's book The New Buddhism: A Rough Guide to a New Way of Life, and came across this ...

[...]
Specifically, Brazier's maintains that Buddhism must "jettison much of its own conservative baggage acquired during centuries when the original message was buried under a series of compromises —some chosen, some coerced— with oppressive political systems in India, China, Japan, and elsewhere." It must abandon baggage from times when it was used in these countries as "an instrument of state policy for subduing rather than liberating the population" (p. 66).

This is a very harsh critique indeed and, needless to say, it falls to scholars to determine the merit (or demerit) of broad generalizations of this kind. Some readers might even detect an element of "Asia-bashing" in Brazier's remarks, complete with the suggestion of moral superiority on the part of the West. Yet Brazier is equally critical of what he identifies as the modern equivalent of the traditional four-tiered Indian caste system. He means by this the contemporary concentration of wealth in the hands of the "white caste" as compared with those of yellow, brown, and black skin colors.

Brazier notes that whites enjoy more than three-quarters of the wealth of the planet while making up only a quarter of its population. Because of their relative wealth, white Buddhists tend to look to Buddhism for "tantalizing spiritual experiences," bringing with it the serious danger that Western Buddhism will degenerate into a "narrow, sectarian, small-minded and irrelevant pursuit of personal euphoria" (p. 26). This head-in-the-sand spirituality is, according to Brazier, "extremely remote from what the Buddha was concerned with" (p. 5).
[...]

Thank you so much for bringing this up, Carol, because it hits a lot of the talking points very well.

There are things I agree with Brazier on, and things I don't, but that's part and parcel of this discussion.

His comment about jettisoning "conservative baggage" is just one of the issues in this conversation. Among some Asian American Buddhists I've talked to, there is a sense that many liberal whites assume that the Buddhadharma is about liberal politics, and that this portrays Asian American Buddhists with more conservative views as being backward & obscuring the Dharma as Brazier mentioned. Noah Levine mentions in "Against the Stream" that Western Buddhism is about shedding the cultural baggage that's gotten in the way of the Dharma. Yet, if Asian Americans have as much right to the claim of "Western Buddhism" as whites, then isn't that at best a narrow-minded view?

And again, just to emphasize that this is not a zero sum issue, "Against the Stream" is on the recommended reading list at the Baltimore Zen Center. I've given free copies to several of our young adult members, as it is a great straight-forward catechism of basic Buddhism.

[Unequaled108]

So what to do? Blend "whitewashed" buddhism with ethnic asian Buddhism? Are we talking about getting more black and latino people to come practice? How? Prosyletizing doesnt strike me as a good idea.
I think it would be cool to somehow combine the traditional asian model with the american model, as both groups may benefit. More "ethnic" buddhists coming to meditate, and us americans learning the faith aspects of mahayana buddhism which are IMO somewhat lacking.
I kinda feel guilty just writing about this stuff.'

I think the main thing, and the first thing that needs to be done is a level of recognition, and an inclusion at the table. I don't think a deliberate blending or a proselytizing needs to be done, but an awareness needs to be created and had.

Also my first thought when reading the original article was "By these standards, I am not a white person". I definately live on the low end of the economic scale, and In the past I've been on the lowest rung of society, on welfare, just trying to stay sane and alive. So at some level all these categories and generalizations break down.

I can agree with you on that, I don't come from money, and trust me, I'm not rolling in it now that I'm a Dharma teacher.

At the same time though, I can see the validity of the article's statements. As Carol said, it's not just about economics.

[jacx]

None of the nuns at my Chan temple are North American born, but I'd still call our gang "Asian-Canadian." Because where else but Canada could I hear a Mandarin-language Dharma talk simultaneously translated into English, Cantonese and Vietnamese?

Even that's not so bizarre as the fact that the Tibetan community holds its meetings in the local Jodo Shinshu church.

We don't have so much of a "segregated sangha" phenomenon around here!

[OmegA]

... Because where else but Canada could I hear a Mandarin-language Dharma talk simultaneously translated into English, Cantonese and Vietnamese?

Los Angeles, San Francisco and Sydney, at least.
Probably Paris, too, if we swap English for Francais.

[Huseng]

Is it possible that some "ethnic sanghas" segregate themselves from the rest of society by only offering their services in non-English languages?

It isn't necessarily that they're ignored, but that the rest of society can't become really involved with them. It might also be that they don't really want a lot of people from outside their community to become involved.

I was told by one monk in Taiwan that in some Taiwanese temples overseas if too many white folks show up the Taiwanese stop coming.

Unfortunately, not all Buddhist temples are first and foremost temples.

[genkaku]

Specifically, Brazier's maintains that Buddhism must "jettison much of its own conservative baggage acquired during centuries when the original message was buried under a series of compromises —some chosen, some coerced— with oppressive political systems in India, China, Japan, and elsewhere." It must abandon baggage from times when it was used in these countries as "an instrument of state policy for subduing rather than liberating the population" (p. 66).

Funny (or maybe not so funny), but when reading the words above, I could acknowledge the intellectual critique, which had a weighty and important feel to it especially, perhaps, among those who have taken an interest in Buddhism. Historically, culturally, philosophically, religiously ... the critique can be argued in quite serious tones.

But the only meaningful thing that entered my head -- or the only thing I found really meaningful -- was when I took that perspective and applied it to individuals, myself included. I'm not trying to be cute or evasive or dismissive of the intellectual concerns. I too would like to see Buddhism as a force for good and so, in other settings, might be wounded or elated by the Buddhism we all discuss, critique, appreciate and perhaps applaud.

But which one of us does not have to unload the "conservative baggage" we bring to Buddhism ... I mean up-close-and-personal "conservative baggage?" The baggage of a lifetime, literally. And which one is not forced to review -- sometimes with a terrible regret -- the compromises, "some chosen, some coerced," of that lifetime? And which one of us has not camouflaged or hidden or fled the "original message?"

The difficulty I see in the perfectly acceptable intellectual critiques of Buddhism is that they presuppose (perhaps subliminally, perhaps openly) that something called Buddhism could have a perfect, or anyway much, much better, structure and function. "If only" we got rid of X or Y or Z, a shining new day would dawn for the philosophy or religion called Buddhism. And there is nothing wrong with corrections and revisions, but the question arises, does what is being perfected stand any chance in hell of being perfect ... ever?

I think I would argue that no matter how much patching and how much revision and how much getting-rid-of and how much extolling occurs, still it would amount to little more than a new and improved version of Sisyphus, endlessly pushing the rock up the hill only to have it roll back down on him and never reaching the peak, never approaching anything like an "original message."

Can we -- culturally, intellectually, religiously -- correct our social mistakes, line up our philosophical ducks in a more pleasing way? Sure. But such philosophies and formats, however pleasing, are bound to be mistaken in the only way that really counts ... a little peace in your life or mine. By using a phrase like "the original message was buried" presupposes that the "original message" could somehow be uncovered ... if only we behaved more sensibly. It presupposes that someone could actually name the original message. And while this may have an intellectually or emotionally pleasing ring to it -- a ring infused with altruism and goodness and other make-niceties -- the question has to be asked: Is...it...true? Does it actually assure some clarity about our uncertainties? Does it actually assure some peace? Or is the "original message" referred to just another in a long list of compromises -- some chosen, some coerced?

Anyway ... as I say ... it was just what I thought of ... summed up more succinctly by Gautama:

It is not what others do and do not do that is my concern. It is what I do and do not do -- that is my concern.

Each and all of us takes our guidance from sometimes wonderful and sometimes horrific compromises called, perhaps, religions or philosophies, hopes or beliefs. But is compromise the name of the game? Is there any real peace when peace is a mere compromise, a mere "original message?"

Man, I sure wish I could talk shorter.

[Jiun]

The majority of any religious congregation in the US is middle-aged, usually white, women.

Bullhonkey chicken butt.

In fact, I'm willing to call this a fairly ignorant statement, race-wise.

Call it what you will, but it's a fairly well known statistic.

Of course, if you've personally visited the majority of religious congregations in the US and can refute these statistics, you're welcome to post your data.

[jacx]

... Because where else but Canada could I hear a Mandarin-language Dharma talk simultaneously translated into English, Cantonese and Vietnamese?

Los Angeles, San Francisco and Sydney, at least.
Probably Paris, too, if we swap English for Francais.

Actually, that's a really good point, OmegA. If people are really interested in reaching out to disadvantaged members of their community, without proselytising, they could do worse than ask advice of the Chinese sanghas who mobilised to re-settle the Vietnamese boat people in the 1970s and 80s.

[So-on Mann]

The majority of any religious congregation in the US is middle-aged, usually white, women.

Bullhonkey chicken butt.

In fact, I'm willing to call this a fairly ignorant statement, race-wise.

Call it what you will, but it's a fairly well known statistic.

Of course, if you've personally visited the majority of religious congregations in the US and can refute these statistics, you're welcome to post your data.

I dare say Jiun is right. We run the show! Mwoo-ha-ha-ha!

[Carol]

The majority of any religious congregation in the US is middle-aged, usually white, women.

Bullhonkey chicken butt.

In fact, I'm willing to call this a fairly ignorant statement, race-wise.

Call it what you will, but it's a fairly well known statistic.

Of course, if you've personally visited the majority of religious congregations in the US and can refute these statistics, you're welcome to post your data.

This is a bit misleading -- religious congregations are mainly segregated. Martin Luther King Jr famously remarked that the Sunday morning church hour was the most segregated hour of the week.

Black people go to Black churches. White people go to white churches. Latinos go to mainly Latino churches. And Asians attend mainly Asian temples.

The statistics are an average of all congregations across the country. The majority of church-goers are white because the majority of the population is white (still, barely, that will change soon). So, the statistical average of all churches and temples will be predominantly white. But there are many particular churches and temples where most of the congregation is not white.

[chapulincolorado]

Call it what you will, but it's a fairly well known statistic.

And some fairly well know statistics have been proven wrong upon close examination. Can you site your source?

A good place for start for those caring to check:

http://religions.pewforum.org/

[Unequaled108]

Call it what you will, but it's a fairly well known statistic.

Of course, if you've personally visited the majority of religious congregations in the US and can refute these statistics, you're welcome to post your data.

Before I run off on a wild-goose chase, could you provide a citation for your statistic, since it wasn't actually a statistic, but a blatant generalization, as you yourself said.

The majority of any religious congregation in the US is middle-aged, usually white, women.

Read your own statement again.

The majority of any religious congregation in the US is not middle-aged white women.

A congregation is an individual church, not a nationwide total of everyone who says they are religious.

Maybe in Cincinatti, the majority of religious practitioners are white women, but I can tell you that is not the case in Baltimore, or in PG County.

Ever hear the phrase "statistics never lie, but liars use statistics"? I'm not calling you a liar, but look how phrasing frames your statement, and then consider how it might be perceived by an ethnic minority in the US.

Go to one the enormous Gospel churches in PG County & make a statement like that. The women are backbones of such congregations, and they aren't white.

[hungryghost]

Is it possible that some "ethnic sanghas" segregate themselves from the rest of society by only offering their services in non-English languages?

It isn't necessarily that they're ignored, but that the rest of society can't become really involved with them. It might also be that they don't really want a lot of people from outside their community to become involved.

I was told by one monk in Taiwan that in some Taiwanese temples overseas if too many white folks show up the Taiwanese stop coming.

Unfortunately, not all Buddhist temples are first and foremost temples.

This is a good point. The asian temples in my area dont offer any services in english. They dont have meditation as a group. My attendance there would be some kinda fake white guilt thing. I'm trying my best to live an authentic and awake life..it just wouldnt fit.
I really think that 'american buddhism', and 'asian buddhism' are almost different enough to be separate religions.

[Unequaled108]

This is a good point. The asian temples in my area dont offer any services in english. They dont have meditation as a group. My attendance there would be some kinda fake white guilt thing. I'm trying my best to live an authentic and awake life..it just wouldnt fit.
I really think that 'american buddhism', and 'asian buddhism' are almost different enough to be separate religions.

Again, Asian and Asian American are two completely different things.

[hungryghost]

yes i understand the difference. There arent any "asian american" places here. We have a pretty good chunk of "asian americans" at our zen center.

[Christopher]

How many of you have ever attended for any duration a majority Asian American ethnic sangha?

I looked long and hard but was never able to find one. Course, I live in Germany.

Seriously though, my (Japanese) teacher always laments the fact that, in the twenty-five odd years he's been here, not once has another Japanese person shown up. And they're not underprivileged - they apparently just have no interest in Zen.

[genkaku]

How many of you have ever attended for any duration a majority Asian American ethnic sangha?

I looked long and hard but was never able to find one. Course, I live in Germany.

Seriously though, my (Japanese) teacher always laments the fact that, in the twenty-five odd years he's been here, not once has another Japanese person shown up. And they're not underprivileged - they apparently just have no interest in Zen.

Or perhaps it's your long nose that worries them.