American Buddhism: 
What does it mean for people of color?
   
   
    Part 1 - Why is a dialogue on American Buddhism Necessary?
 Part 2 - Are Buddhist people of color separate from American Buddhism?
   
   
    Part 1
 Why is a dialogue on American Buddhism Necessary?
   
    Experience for yourself whether your local Dharma
 center or organization represents the diversity of
 America. If a particular racial group is dominant at
 the center or organization ask yourself, "What would
 be the experience of someone not represented by this
 group, if they were to come here?", "What would
 someone not from the majority group have to do to
 fit in?".
   
 Perhaps you will find, as I have, that some Buddhist
 centers in America are racially and culturally
 segregated. They appear to be segregated for the
 same reason churches, synagogues, masques, and
 temples have been segregated throughout the history
 of America. Segregation by race, culture, or
 economic affluence is not the mutuality taught by
 the Buddha. Segregation is not beneficial to any
 religion or society entering a global community of
 increasing diversity and multinational interaction.
 Segregation is attachment to separateness, which is
 also the root cause of one group believing they are
 better than another. A belief that, even in the mind
 of one individual, can be extremely dangerous and
 threaten peace throughout the world, like Hitler for
 example.
   
 Separatism and mutuality are equally free to emerge
 in the splendor of freedom in America. For some
 Buddhists, this causes confusion. Some American
 Buddhists who believe in the mutuality of all beings
 conversely find themselves practicing racial,
 cultural, and economic segregation in their Dharma
 activities. Mere mention of this contradiction makes
 them very upset and can cause them to condemn, cold
 shoulder, reject, and even eject someone from their
 Dharma center. This happened to my wife and I along
 with our newborn son at an otherwise liberal
 California Dharma center.
   
 In my opinion, the enigmatic contradiction is based
 in the history of how early European Americans
 acquired wealth and power in America. Many of their
 descendants are embarrassed and shamed by their
 heritage, to this day. They seek to disengage
 themselves from the catastrophe of conquest leveled
 on people of color by their forefathers in the name
 of peace and justice for all. Their ultimate
 frustration is similar to a person trying to run
 from his/her shadow. Diversity, multiculturalism,
 multiracial, and interracial dialogue cast the light
 from which their shadow continually emerges to haunt
 them. I have great compassion for this kind of
 suffering. Its insidious nature does not liberate
 those afflicted even though they have majority power
 in a democratic society, nor is it pervious to
 economic affluence, gated communities, or media
 propaganda to its contrary. I know in my heart that
 some people from the dominant culture, especially
 our Buddhist brothers and sisters, are deeply upset
 with their heritage. They are equally disheartened
 by the travesty of continuing extremist hate towards
 people of color as well as the murder of same
 culture women and children in America. Their attempt
 to position themselves as a distinct pacifist group
 is understandable. But, for people of color, a
 segregated pacifist movement is no more inclusive
 than an extremist enclave.
   
 Herein lies the dilemma; our dominant culture peace
 loving brothers and sisters want to create a
 distinct compassionate group. In order to do so they
 must include that which their hateful counterpart
 does not. Inclusion means engagement with people of
 color whose presence is a reminder of
 Euro-American's discomforting heritage. The heritage
 issue inevitably arises creating the notion in minds
 of some peace loving Euro-Americans that their
 cultural past is irrevocably connected to their hate
 group counterparts. The inseparable connection
 creates an understandably maddening frustration.
   
 In an attempt to reduce the frustration a subtle
 selection process for Euro-American Buddhist
 approval has been put in place. The selection
 process has several criteria: 1) people of color are
 allowed in as long as they do not bring up the
 heritage issue 2) people of color who have no
 connection to the heritage issue, such as Tibetans,
 are welcome because their preoccupation is with
 Chinese heritage rather than American heritage 3)
 anyone, regardless of race or culture who speaks of
 these issues must subject him/herself to a verbal
 caution from a dominant culture senior student 4)
 if, after being verbally cautioned, an individual
 persists in discussing these matters they must leave
 the center or organization because they are engaging
 in 'non-Buddhist' activity, and finally 5) Any
 public discussion of these topics is expressly
 forbidden and will result in Dharma center
 blacklisting as well as going to Buddhist hell.
   
 The above criteria is agreed upon by a loosely
 formed majority consensus among Euro- American
 Buddhists who happen to finance most Buddhist
 centers and is comprised of dominant culture
 Buddhists. Although the intent is to maintain a
 comfort zone for those struggling with their
 heritage issues, the result is the creation of
 segregated worship centers and organizations.
   
 In response to discussions about segregation and
 racism in Dharma centers some Euro-American
 Buddhists in America create multifarious rationales.
 They cite business savvy, history, racial politics,
 economics, peaceful living, and a hodgepodge of
 ideas from other religious traditions to make their
 rationale appear 'contemporary' and uniquely suited
 for "American culture".
   
 They say that in order for Buddhism to come to
 America, as it has spread throughout Asia, Buddhism
 must naturally reflect 'American' societal beliefs.
 I believe there is truth in Buddhism's ability to
 inflect society and culture. But a trend of throwing
 Dharma brothers, sisters, and their children in the
 street; rejecting teachers because they are Asian;
 establishing hierarchies that inherently keep people
 of color on the periphery of the Sangha, and so on,
 can only result in confusion, not Buddhism.
   
 In my mind, and I think most Buddhists of color will
 agree there is no reason why Buddhism cannot become
 fully integrated in America. I love America, I love
 all my Buddhist brothers and sisters as well as
 humanity as a whole. But, I also believe the way
 that Buddhism will merge into America's fabric and
 what aspects of society it will inflect are matters
 deserving continuing dialogue among all Buddhists
 including those who happen to be of color.
   
   
 Part 2
 Are Buddhist people of color separate from American Buddhism?
   
    Historically, the term "American" has been used as an
 inference to a particular group. For example, when we speak of
 "American Presidents" no person of color comes to mind. When
 we say "American Constitution" it is commonly understood
 neither was a person of color free to participate in its
 drafting nor was it intended to benefit anyone outside a
 certain group at the time. When we consider the "American
 Revolution" many people commonly imagine Union and Confederate
 soldiers as depicted in many history books. That is, soldiers
 on non-African, non-Asian, or non-indigenous American descent.
 When we imagine the "American West" as depicted on television,
 a certain group never seems to choose diversity over
 annihilating the 'savages'. From this point of view a term
 such as "American Buddhism" raises concern about its diversity
 and the inclusion of people of color within its scope.
   
 Some Asian teachers, new to America, find the concerns of
 people of color difficult to comprehend. "American History" is
 foreign to their sensibilities. Why people of color are still
 demanding equality from their 'conquerors' remains difficult
 for them to fathom. One must understand that many newly
 arrived Asian teachers are experiencing people of color for
 the first time. Their knowledge of non-mainstream culture is
 usually based on encounters and explanations given them by
 affluent Europeans and Euro-Americans traveling through Asia
 coupled with entertainment industry depictions that have been
 piped internationally through various television, radio, and
 print mediums.
   
 I had one newly arrived Asian teacher tell me he was afraid of
 me when we first met. He said he had heard that, "black people
 were violent", and challenged me to a battle of his Asian
 magic against my black magic. I thought to myself, "Black
 magic? What the hell is he talking about? Where'd he get that
 from?" He also said he remembered seeing some black NFL
 players doing a demonstration of football in India and figured
 it must be true they are violent based on the way they played
 football with each other.
   
 At some point I got used to the distorted American views of
 newly arrived teachers. Generally, they mean no harm and are
 merely repeating what they've heard and responding to images
 they've seen. I made it a special point to get to know the
 teacher who was initially afraid of me. I now consider him a
 very close friend and profound teacher of unerring Dharma
 knowledge. But still, as he and others become popular icons of
 the current "American Buddhism", I ask myself why he and many
 Dharma brothers and sisters from the dominant culture are not
 talking about the fact that Buddhism has been in America since
 the mid 19th century. Buddhism, that came among the thousands
 of Asian Americans who labored to build the transcontinental
 railroad. Buddhism, among Asian Americans who also labored to
 develop mining and agricultural industries that continue as
 part of America's Pacific Coast economy to this day. I know
 they were here because I've personally seen a 19th century
 statue of Buddha along with altarpieces in the historical
 society building of a small desert town in California. It is
 accompanied by photographs and writing from the period's
 Chinatown giving it verifiable provenance.
   
 With the history of early Buddhist presence in America one is
 led to ask a reasonable question," Why now?" Why is it
 important to proclaim, at this time, that there is some new
 kind of Buddhism in America? Have they now 'discovered'
 Buddhism, like they discovered America? Who serves to benefit
 from such a 'discovery' bestowed upon their activity? What
 purpose could be served by the exclusion of a rich century and
 a half presence? Yes, the Chinatown I mentioned was burned to
 the ground by a mob not comprised of people of color. The
 inhabitants as well as all Asian of the period were also
 stripped of their right to become American citizens by the
 Asian Exclusion Act (c.1882). We can't even tell if they were
 in fact all people from China as in those days anyone who
 looked Asian was presumed Chinese. What we do know is these
 Buddhists existed and practiced their religion on American
 soil. To me, they are as much a part of American Buddhism as
 the Dalai Lama recently speaking in New York City's Central
 Park.
   
 Considering the above and other historical precedents I think
 it wise that people of color participate in deciding whether
 certain terms, and the implications of those terms, fully
 express inclusion. Even newly emerging terms such as
 multiracial, interracial, and phrases such as non-European
 based diversity can only begin to embellish the increasingly
 panoramic view of a fully integrated 'American Buddhist'
 experience.
   
 Finally, we know history, phraseology, and racial politic are
 not the quintessence of Buddhist philosophy. Such concepts are
 merely points of reference through which Buddhists, including
 those of color, can perceive a favorable outcome of inclusion.
 An outcome that includes every human being's innate ability to
 realize the all encompassing equanimity of Dharma. An outcome
 that does not endorse segregated worship as a common practice.
 An outcome whose essence is so unsullied the word 'separate'
 does not exist as part of its expression.
   
 I am certain that critics stand ready to argue each and every
 point I have made. But for any of us to overly dwell on terms
 and phrases makes no more sense than arguing about a bus
 schedule as the bus drives off, without us. We cannot reach
 the destination through disagreement and confusion arising
 from habitual tendencies of exclusion.
   
 Suffice it to say that Buddhist people of color want all of us
 to be included and fundamentally know that disagreements have
 no inherent value. At the same time, if labels must be used to
 express the "American Buddhist" experience then the labels
 should at least include all human beings that have practiced
 Buddhism in America in the past, now, and those who are yet to
 come. Regardless of our superficial differences we, as
 Buddhists, have agreed to universally believe all beings
 suffer in the same way and, as such, we are all inseparably
 woven in the fabric of our common mutuality.
   
 Choyin Rangdrol, Founder, RainbowDharma.com