to be nice to an animal."
A white girl wore a bindi at Coachella. And, then my social media feeds went berserk. Hashtagging the term “cultural appropriation” follows the outrage and seems to justify it at the same time. Except that it doesn’t.
Cultural appropriation is the adoption of a specific part of one culture by another cultural group. As I (an Indian) sit here, eating my sushi dinner (Japanese) and drinking tea (Chinese), wearing denim jeans (American), and overhearing Brahm’s Lullaby (German) from the baby’s room, I can’t help but think what’s the big deal?
The big deal with cultural appropriation is when the new adoption is void of the significance that it was supposed to have — it strips the religious, historical and cultural context of something and makes it mass-marketable. That’s pretty offensive. The truth is, I wouldn’t be on this side of the debate if we were talking about Native American headdresses, or tattoos of Polynesian tribal iconography, Chinese characters or Celtic bands.
Why shouldn’t the bindi warrant the same kind of response as the other cultural symbols I’ve listed, you ask? Because most South Asians won’t be able to tell you the religious significance of a bindi. Of my informal survey of 50 Hindu women, not one could accurately explain it’s history, religious or spiritual significance. I had to Google it myself, and I’ve been wearing one since before I could walk.
We can’t accuse non-Hindus of turning the bindi into a fashion accessory with little religious meaning because, well, we’ve already done that. We did it long before Vanessa Hudgens in Coachella 2014, long before Selena Gomez at the MTV Awards in 2013, and even before Gwen Stefani in the mid-90s.
Indian statesman Rajan Zed justifies the opposing view as he explains, “[The bindi] is an auspicious religious and spiritual symbol… It is not meant to be thrown around loosely for seductive effects or as a fashion accessory…” If us Indians had preserved the sanctity and holiness of the bindi, Zed’s argument for cultural appropriation would have been airtight. But, the reality is, we haven’t.
The 5,000 year old tradition of adorning my forehead with kumkum just doesn’t seem to align with the current bindi collection in my dresser — the 10-pack, crystal-encrusted, multi-colored stick-on bindis that have been designed to perfectly compliment my outfit. I didn’t happen to pick up these modern-day bindis at a hyper-hipster spot near my new home in California. No. This lot was brought from the motherland itself.
And, that’s just it. Culture evolves. Indians appreciated the beauty of a bindi and brought it into the world of fashion several decades ago. The single red dot that once was, transformed into a multitude of colors and shapes embellished with all the glitz and glamor that is inherent in Bollywood. I don’t recall an uproar when Indian actress Madhuri Dixit’s bindi was no longer a traditional one. Hindus accepted the evolution of this cultural symbol then. And, as the bindi makes it’s way to the foreheads of non-South Asians, we should accept — even celebrate — the continued evolution of this cultural symbol. Not only has it managed to transcend religion and class in a sea of one-billion brown faces, it will now adorn the faces of many more races. And that’s nothing short of amazing.
So, you won’t find this Hindu posting a flaming tweet accusing a white girl of #culturalappropriation. I will say that I’m glad you find this aspect of my culture beautiful. I do too."
Why a Bindi Is NOT an Example of Culture Appropriation
by Anjali Joshi
Said the carnist who probably
- doesn’t give a shit about the lives of slaughterhouse workers: how they are usually on shitty contracts, are usually poor and people of color (PoC), how they don’t have basic working rights, and how often times they are undocumented.
- doesn’t give a shit about how big, rich, Western, white countries go into other countries: usually (again) poor, underprivileged, native areas that are (again) usually inhabited by PoC. This takes land away from the people in that region or country and gives it to a) the livestock and/or b) the crops raised for that livestock.
- doesn’t give a shit about the fact that animal product consumption is causing deforestation: there are undiscovered plants and other things in these areas that could help with medicine, not to mention that rain forests and other land contributes to 20% or so of the Earth’s oxygen. This effects not only non-human animals, but human animals as well.
- doesn’t give a shit about the people back in their homes: in rich, white countries like the United States who live next to these factory farms. How their water quality is shit, the air quality is shit, the soil turns to shit and how they have higher rates of ailments that don’t effect people who don’t live near factory farms. This also leads to the areas being more poverty stricken.
- doesn’t realize that they too (unless they fancy themselves to only live on meat, dairy, milk, honey and other animal products) eat the same exact fruits, vegetables and other plant-based foods that those same farm workers pick for a plant-based diet.