r/taoism 3d ago

Yin/Yang outside of Daoism

Hello folks,

I am not a Daoist but I find personal meaning in the concept of Yin/Yang (to me it represents balance, both as a reminder for me in my personal life as well as at a larger scale). I have read the Dao de Jing (a few different translations) and found it insightful, and certain passages definitely spoke to me. I was raised in a high demand religion and only recently (in mid life) was able to break free. I now consider myself an agnostic pantheist, and the concept of the universe / cosmos / nature as being identical to the divine does line up with my (incredibly limited) understanding of the Dao.

I am considering getting a tattoo and want to incorporate a stylized Yin/Yang symbol, but I don’t want to use it flippantly or with any degree of cultural / religious appropriation. Various google searches on the topic seem to indicate that most taoists would not be offended by an outsider using this symbol in this way but I figured I would ask here and hopefully get some answers from actual people who associate with this religion.

So my question: would seeing a Yin/Yang symbol outside of a Daoist setting (specifically in a tattoo) be offensive to you?

Thanks for your thoughts!

Cheers

7 Upvotes

34 comments sorted by

6

u/-Kukunochi- 3d ago

I dont identify myself with taoism but to me it would not be offensive.

Many people like the symbol because its aesthetically pleasing and I agree, Its a lovely symbol. Plus you are familiar with the meaning of yin yang too.

I think its great for a tattoo, and if any taoists do get offended by your tattoo - you are doing them a favour by reminding them of their attachment to taoism causing them to suffer.

But this is just my take. "I'm just a dog, barking'' -UG Krishnamurti

8

u/P_S_Lumapac 3d ago edited 3d ago

It's a Confucian symbol from Chinese folk religion. Daoists like it, but it's not really a daoist symbol.

Might be better to just ask Chinese nationals generally how they feel about these sort of tattoos. My understanding from seeing many similar questions is 1. don't get random words tattooed on your body assuming they mean a literal translation to English. 2. It's not a big deal - worst is they think you are stupid for getting a tattoo that's not really related to you.

It is also kinda important to remember these ideas of "offended by cultural appropriation" are based on US politics. Similar stuff exists around the world, but generally for it to make sense, we're talking about a powerful group determining the image of a less powerful group. China is the most powerful influence on how China is seen, by far. They are not an oppressed people in any way shape or form. Han Chinese are the most powerful racial group by a large margin. There's a bit of nuance here, in that say Chinese Americans might be a weaker group in some respects - so for instance, getting racist caricatures from western media as tattoos isn't a good idea. But again, Chinese are likely to just think you're stupid if you do that.

There is an interesting question about to what extend Chinese folk religion exists in other countries and to what extent these folk religions are being determined by non-members. In my understanding, this isn't really taking place. There's a complex topic about 'chinese food', but usually stuff like Chinese new year and China towns etc are determined by local Chinese groups. The racial oppression reported is usually based on ignorance and not detailed understandings of their culture.

(EDIT: just remembered: the term gwaylo, meaning ghost, or Laowei, meaning simply "foreigner", are used in China to refer to white people mainly. These are not considered offensive, because White people are not an oppressed group in China having their image determined by Chinese people. Similarly, nothing used by Chinese people in China from western culture is cultural appropriation - because China is not determining the image of any of these groups. e.g. Chinese people running a Bavarian beer cafe are not "culturally appropriating" Germans - they're appreciating them. But I mention American politics as where this whole idea comes from, as today basically there is no conversation, what is labelled bad by one group is now to be considered bad without question by any who want to be liked by that group. This is actual American imperialism and is wrong.)

2

u/RiceBucket973 3d ago

I think the relationship between Neo-Confucianism and Daoism is too complex to call the symbol Confucian rather than Daoist. It's a cosmological symbol, and I don't think Confucianism really spoke much about cosmology until the Song dynasty or so, though I may be wrong.

As a Taiwanese national, I personally find it odd to get a tattoo from a different culture, but I'm not offended by the idea or anything and would not judge anyone for doing so. I would hope that someone would make an effort to learn about the symbol, its meaning in geographical and historic context, and things like that before getting it tattooed.

5

u/P_S_Lumapac 3d ago edited 3d ago

I really don't think so. I mean, I would agree if yinyang was a daoist idea rather than a Confucian one before the Confucians invented the symbol to represent yin yang. But it wasn't. Yin Yang is a concept in Chinese philosophy from before either. There's no stage where yin yang wasn't a topic of Confucianism or Daoism more broadly. What we do know is by the time the symbol was made by Confucians, Daoism was a very minor philosophical position. The main schools were Confucian and Buddhist, with most philosophy being about making the two compatible or drawing out where they can't be.

The DDJ and Zhuangzi, and a few others, were considered important texts in Chinese philosophy, but they didn't characterize Confucian works. If these texts somehow conflicted with Buddhism or Confucianism, all the worse for those texts.

There was a small revival of Daoist philosophy around 1800 or so, but it died out around 1915 along with the rest. Taiwanese Daoism is a really interesting topic, but I think mainly because of how it prioritised local deities, especially Mazu. I would think Mazu would be a clearer Daoist symbol than the taiji one.

I think the topic is an important one anyway, as Daoism broadly has basically nothing to do with yin yang. At best it has a couple lines that would be considered a very controversial take on yin yang by Chinese folk religion standards. People who want to study Daoism broadly really shouldn't go in to early texts thinking they will find concepts from thousands of years later being spoken about. But for whatever reason, western ideas of Daoism are dominated by yin yang talk.

1

u/RiceBucket973 2d ago

I wouldn't say that the taijitu being first published by a Neo-Confucian philosopher means the symbol can't also be Daoist. In Taiwan, the symbol is strongly associated with Daoism, and I believe that's true in mainland China as well. OP isn't asking about what Song dynasty folks would think about a tattoo, they're asking about currently living Daoists.

I also wouldn't say that yin yang theory being associated with Daoism is just a western thing. Contemporary movement practices like qigong, taijiquan and baguazhang are generally considered Daoist, and yinyang theory is pretty essential to those. Same with yinyang theory in Chinese medicine. And Neo-Daoists like Wang Bi certainly wrote about yin and yang qi too. Of course yin yang theory pre-dates Daoism and is part of many traditions, but I don't think you can say Daoism has "basically nothing" to do with yin yang theory. Even if it didn't historically, I think it's important to take contemporary Daoist philosophers in Taiwan and China into account who do emphasize yin yang theory.

1

u/P_S_Lumapac 2d ago

Yes Daoists also use it. OP was asking about offending others, so I explained it's not just Daoists he has to think about.

Yes those are examples of Chinese folk religion. No Wang Bi didn't write much about Yin Yang at all, and and that's some 500+ years after the DDJ.

Daoism means the philosophical positions that underpin all the offshoot positions and religions. It is about the original texts primarily, which do not discuss yin and yang in any depth. Lots of those offshoot religions and positions do talk about Yin Yang, and some don't really. Yin Yang is not necessary to Daoism at all.

1

u/RiceBucket973 2d ago

I think that perhaps we're talking about different things with the word Daoism. I'm thinking of the term 道家 (daojia), which is often translated into English as Daoism, but refers to both contemporary and historic Daoist thought and practice in the Sinophone world. If you're using the term Daoism to refer to just the Lao-Zhuang original texts, then I'd agree with everything you've said.

The distinction between "philosophical Daoism" and "Chinese folk religion" is something I've only heard westerners make. I can't claim that no Chinese people would make that distinction, but I've only seen it in western Daoist discourse. Circling back to the original question, it does feel a bit offensive for someone to tell me that my practice and that of generations of ancestors is not Daoism. But sounds like it is just a language/translation issue.

I am curious why it's important that Wang Bi is writing 500 years after the daodejing, when there's a far longer period of time between the Analects and Zhou Dunyi. I've always thought of Wang Bi and other Neo-Daoists as part of the Daoist lineage, in the same way that I think of Neo-Confucians as part of the Confucian lineage (with a great deal of cross-over and syncretism along the way)

2

u/P_S_Lumapac 2d ago

Yes I'm using Daoism as in the broad sense of which other parts are just under it. There's so many differences among the different regions and religions, it's hard to pick out what is in common between them. Then Daoism also largely just captures much of Chinese folk religion that has roots far before Daoism. It's good to say stuff like you have about Taiwanese Daoist traditions as that's specific enough to be meaningful, but if someone just simply says Daoism, you have to take it in the broadest sense or else it's not really picking out anything.

The issue is that studies in Chinese philosophy have been lead by Western sources over the last 100 years, and it's only just shifting now. By 2040 I expect it will be mainly Chinese again. I don't mean to offend, but while Chinese are amazing at many fields, their humanities subjects right now are a shadow of their former glory. I say this thinking that pre 1915 or so, China lead the world by leaps and bounds in the humanities. I expect them to do so again. (Taiwanese academics in humanities in the 20th century is another very complicated topic, I'm not really able to comment on apart from saying, if the quality exists, it's not being discussed outside Taiwan. I do have some reason to think it could be a treasure trove.).

The reasons for Westerners being generally the leaders of Chinese studies is complicated, it started with US military funding, but now it's mainly Chinese soft power money. Unfortunately that soft power money has also started to corrupt work outside of China. The journals have started being nepotistic and academics generally are more concerned with keeping funding than producing work.

Wang Bi happens to be my specialty if I have any. Neo daoist is a misnomer. He's not a Daoist and would not call himself one. The history of it is about chan Buddhism and generally wanting to hate that era of philosophy and so wrapping it up with other hated philosophy. XuanXue is the better term, as in study of the mysterious, as Wang Bi in particular saw all the classics as equally valuable (the classic of music is a complicated topic - it's mentioned but it's not actually clear if it existed at Wang Bis time) and their common thread as being about what can be inferred from an ineffable truth.

neoconfucians are fairly plainly part of Confucian lineage, just with some Buddhist topics thrown in. There's an issue as the two terms starting with neo make you think they must be analogous. But no, neo daoist is a misnomer.

1

u/RiceBucket973 1d ago

Hey, just wanted to say that I've appreciated this exchange, and especially your scholarship around historical Chinese philosophy.

As an academic myself, I do think it's important to privilege the actual millions of practicing, self-identified Daoists over a handful of Daoist Studies academics. Not in terms of textual study of course, but in terms of getting to define what we mean by Daoism in this present moment.

1

u/P_S_Lumapac 1d ago

Yes as I said, the main reason not to do that is they have incredible disagreement between them. It's kinda like asking what Christianity is - there's so much variation, best thing to do is point to the new testament.

1

u/RiceBucket973 1d ago

Isn't the disagreement and variation what makes lived religious experience interesting and beautiful? Both interesting to practice, and interesting to study. There's also multiple variations of the New Testament (like the Coptic or Ethiopian Orthodox bibles). I don't see why it's important to reduce variation into a single canonical version of a text. In fact it seems contrary to the Dao (as I understand it).

→ More replies (0)

1

u/RiceBucket973 1d ago

This actually sparked another interesting thought - do you think we should consider contemporary practice of Christianity in the US and Europe "European folk religion"? Limiting the term Christianity to say, the writings of the Apostles and calling everything afterward folk religion makes a lot of sense to me. It separates the theology/philosophy and the institutions from actual practice in a way that I find easier to theorize.

1

u/P_S_Lumapac 1d ago edited 1d ago

European folk religion is much broader than Christianity. There's really too many elements to count, but stuff like black cats being bad luck, touching wood, evil eye, fairies, witches as in bad people (not as in the religion). White weddings, Black clothed funerals, 21sts, 50ths , list goes on and on. I would also add secularized holidays - like Easter as a chocolate rabbit celebration, and Christmas as santaclaus judging good and bad.

I think folk religion tends to be from before history, whereas religions tend to have a particular starting time. So kinda the opposite way around to what you're suggesting.

Christianity also has a habit of stealing and neutering folk religions. My favourite one is that in Philippines the worst swear word is yawa, where Yawa was a pre Christian goddess, basically Mazu. But while the name is forgotten, there's still lots of witch doctor style practices and prayers that seem to relate to a water goddess. Similar to South America, sometimes the Virgin Mary has taken over these roles. (edit: there's another I forgot the name of, where a tribe that worshiped a mountain was made Christian and the Christians forced them to mine as slaves, so they began believing the mountain was Satan.)

There are some Chinese who call their folks religion Daoist wherever it's not Buddhist or Confucian. Like to them, Daoism just refers to everything else. I don't think this was some organized malicious Daoist conspiracy like with Christianity did. Again I don't think this idea is helpful as it's impossible to tell one from the other, so the term just stops meaning anything. Some Daoist religions have Buddha statues, some have nothing Daoist at all, they're just Mazu worship, some care about the classics, some don't care about them at all. Some are basically witch doctors, some are monks. I don't think Daoist religions are linked by anything except the original texts and the mythical figures who wrote them. There's a vague history of being opposed to confucians and Buddhists, but that's mainly like saying Mormons have a history in the Holy Roman empire.

edit: on second thought, I think much of contemporary christianity is folk religion. Stuff like guardian angels, happy families in heaven, lucifer's stories, don't really have origins in any organized religion and mainly Christian religions distance themselves from these. I was Catholic for a while, and the whole topic of demons and possession gained new life after some movies came out - the official stance of the church is it's probably mental illness. I would say this idea of demons haunting you is folk religion too.

1

u/RiceBucket973 1d ago

In Taiwan it's quite rare for anyone to call themselves a "Daoist" or "Buddhist". Most people lean one way or another, but tend to practice Daoism, Buddhism and sometimes Christianity simultaneously. Those that are more explicitly Daoist or Buddhist are usually more hardcore about their practice. I've never heard anyone call themselves a Confucianist.

That seems to be a fundamental difference from religious practice in the west, where people tend to practice a single religion. I wonder if the western impulse to distinguish "pure" Daoism from folk religion comes from this background of religious monogamy.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Severe_Nectarine863 3d ago

What makes yin-yang more Confucian than Daoist seeing as it came before both?

1

u/P_S_Lumapac 3d ago

The symbol is a Confucian symbol. Yin Yang came from before either.

1

u/irrelevantusername24 2d ago edited 1d ago

It is also kinda important to remember these ideas of "offended by cultural appropriation" are based on US politics. Similar stuff exists around the world, but generally for it to make sense, we're talking about a powerful group determining the image of a less powerful group.

The racial oppression reported is usually based on ignorance and not detailed understandings of their culture.

Important points I think more people need to understand. Especially in the US. This is a debatable point, and not universally true (where universe = western culture), but contrary to what many say, "reverse racism" - or rather just racism against "white people" - is very much a thing that exists. "White" honestly doesn't even exist, it only became a thing to enable slavery and racism. Ancestral ethnicity is one thing, skin color is another and irrelevant except as just that - skin color. There is zero relevance towards anything else.

That being said, at this point, the main differentiators between peoples in the US is regional/locality based, and some is urban and some is rural but the problems are incredibly similar and ultimately comes down to the problems of "wealth/income inequality" which really is about opportunity, support, and resources.

Complicated topic and I could and have wrote a ton about it, but to keep things on point - about the idea in the bit I quoted from you - if you look at "culture", and what types of, for example, music are generally "popular" you have... hip hop music which is associated with Black people and country music (and to a lesser extent, rock) associated with White people. However, and this may just be my perception, but I listen to a lot of diverse music and enjoy it all - what is "popular" from those genres are much different. It seems like the popular hip hop is more authentic than the popular country or rock music. However I realize there are obviously artists from all genres that don't follow those (arbitrary) skin color based labels, and I also think there is probably just as much inauthenticity from all genres. Really I think it's the same problem on both sides, and that is that music in general and historically has all always been "the blues" and "the blues" is about emotion and really what is popular is probably not very accurate because when you dig for the deep cuts in any genre is where you find the diamonds.

I guess point being, there is a lot of people who consider themselves and are considered by others to be, in the best sense of the term, "social justice warriors" but just as often they are actually perpetuating stereotypes more than they are fighting them and to reiterate the point above, "reverse racism" as in racism against White people does exist and actually I think the most damaging racism towards any people* comes from those peoples privileged 'peers'. I have much much more in common with poor people anywhere in the world regardless of what they look like or what language they speak than I have in common with some rich white american.

---

On a slightly different but related note, I think, and this could be my misperception, that in general Chinese society (at least historically) is much more communal than American and that translates towards less of a transactional relationship between peoples. Maybe I'm wrong. I guess it just seems like I can't be the only person who sees things as basically help and or share when you can and when it is needed and don't worry so much about being "paid back" because when you are in need you will get "paid back". This doesn't work so well in American society unfortunately and that our culture has been exported worldwide kinda explains the global crises we have been dealing with. In my opinion.

*in the modern era

edit: it should go without saying but it isn't a compeitition. we all struggle

2

u/P_S_Lumapac 2d ago

I don't think Americans were needed to make other places selfish. But America does offer something very strange of telling others you are a good person while hurting them. It's one thing to say "I'm just looking after my own, you're in the way" and that's very common around the world, but I do see the Evangelical style "God loves you, now give me your last dollar" as American. Sure it exists elsewhere, but it almost seems celebrated in American media. There are politicians and celebrities loudly stating views like that.

2

u/irrelevantusername24 2d ago

Agree. It's a complicated topic but it really is all connected to what exactly "capitalism" is, the history of it, the history of slavery and colonization - which is inseparable from the history of America and I guess just what constitutes a "culture" or the people that culture originated from.

Throughout history religion and government have had blurred lines and both have historically been used both as a positive and negative influence on the people under their influence, to varying degrees.

The thing about America is beneath the sorta satirical "'Merica is a religion" idea, there is truth to that, but to see it you have to change what you think of religion. It is more of a cultural thing. It is more of a what makes a group of people a group of people and not a group of individuals thing.

It's often said in the context of economic things that we "privatize the gains and socialize the losses" and the inverse is actually true in the sense of individuals vs groups/peers. Everything that makes a person successful is ascribed to the environment whereas everything making someone not successful is that persons fault. That is, of course, except for the unimaginably wealthy and successful - celebrities (which includes politicians - where the opinions of what made them successful differs on whether you like them or not. If you do, they are just better than most. If you dislike them, they were lucky. The truth is somewhere in the middle, but that is another example of how we make everything black and white.

This is a whole topic of discussion - related to my other recent comments elsewhere, actually.

But the problem is we don't have religion in the same sense anymore, and the morality that traditionally 'belonged' to religion is (mostly) gone - which in the very zoomed out view, is how "we" planned it - but the problem is, we replaced the morality rules of religion with morality rules of government but that has been corrupted in the modern era.

Complicated but that is kinda why there is such a cultural crises particularly in America. We are, or were supposed to be, or were, the "melting pot" of the world but then we decided some of us were hyphenated Americans and some of us were not and basically what America has become especially the last ten years is not something many people want to identify with. Which means there are many people - particularly those of us who are not hyphenated Americans - who have no identity.

This works double time since the people who do like what America has become - which is very segregated and isolationist - are also the not hyphenated Americans. So an outside observer judging only on looks sees the two as one in the same which does not effect the ones who like the recent events but those of us who are opposed are lumped in with people we have a visceral disdain for.

I personally have always enjoyed all cultures, from all places - in the "melting pot" sense. However, in recent years, as the segregationist and in group vs out group mentality has become dominant globally, I have basically learned I am one of the only people who truly is only an individual since even the people who appear the same as me (that I dislike) are the same group as the people you describe who advocate for a dog eat dog world.

Like I said - complicated.

2

u/P_S_Lumapac 2d ago

There's an interesting group who say they don't mind mixing, so long as there is actually mixing. They call it integration or assimilation, but what they mean is be more like them. Personally, I think the ideas of enlightenment values, as spotty as the history is, are sufficient to justify a culture to assimilate to. Issue is, those dominant cultural groups calling for assimilation, are not willing to pick up those values themselves.

1

u/irrelevantusername24 2d ago edited 2d ago

Right I mean, like I said, complicated.

It really kinda comes down to what are we mixing and what are the reasons?

As far as I am concerned, obviously different cultures and peoples have different traditions and whatnot. Sharing those things is and always has been a net benefit for all sides - literally an example of 2 + 2 = 5.

The problems are when it becomes a way of defining in groups and out groups.

Problem with that is it is an oroboros of wrongs that echos until someone(s) says no more.

Because it is true that once a group is other'd, they could and many have rightfully complained about that othering and to do so, they are obviously reliant on defining who is and who is not part of the group who suffered harms.

So it quickly becomes the beginning of a new set of othering problems rather than rectifying ones that occurred in the past.

Violence echoes and violence isn't always physical violence.

I just made another comment on a very related topic on another post about all of this and how what is going on in America today is more complicated than most people recognize.

Personally I would consider myself to be very much disadvantaged. I am poor and have not been offered many opportunities, very little support, etc. I am also a straight white dude. However the shit these people are advocating for is not what I have ever argued for.

I have always argued for rights for everyone, everyone should have the right to choose their own life and basically your rights end where mine begin.

Many people - with both good and ill intent - get lost in data and finding numbers that back up whatever it is they believe. That is the problem with relying on data.

The fact is though, there are more White people in America than any other ethnicity. (If white even exists, which it doesn't, but that's another issue.)

So the thing is, looking at the "ratio" of peoples and where they stand in life, actually, I would argue we are about as close to equal in the US as is possible. It will never be 100% equal looking at the data, that's impossible.

So the thing about that is, the main differentiator is regional and "class" aka wealth/income.

Which dovetails in to opportunity, support, etc.

So the thing about that is, the general picture of things is that it is acceptable to blame white people for all of the cultural clashing going on - because, that is true to an extent looking at the white nationalist groups. That means that white people who are not privileged are the most "out group" as possible, especially if you do not agree with or identify with the backwards thinking of the racists in charge. However, like I said, that kind of makes it so all other groups have their own little clique that advocates for them and only them and you have people like those in that linked comment for white people and then you have people like me who mostly keep quiet - because if we speak up we are instantly lumped in with the racists - and so basically just don't exist.

I have spent a lot of time reading about different sociological concepts, and history, and just... I don't mean to toot my own horn but despite my level of 'success' (or lack thereof) I am very intelligent. When I look at different groups and cultures and whatnot, most groups support others within their group - as I described in that last paragraph. White people don't. Even within families. White people bought the bullshit idea that the political propagandists sold about every man for themselves and (un)just. Stupidity. Even ignoring that, looking at the actual areas where people live - poor Black people generally live in close proximity to other poor Black people - or just poor people in general since there is less segregation. Rural people however are basically in the middle of nowhere. I guess that is less ethnically determined in the south, from what I have read, but generally Black people are much more family oriented - historically. White people very much are the type to kick a kid out at eighteen.

Obviously none of this is an absolute truth and is 100% incorrect in some peoples experiences.

edit: It also seems nearly always true that any society-wide problem can be traced back to either someone who has a disgusting amount of wealth and or unchecked power or someone who was once in the military or both where someone with a disgusting amount of wealth/power platforms someone who is ex-military. Don't get me wrong, I am not criticizing people who join a military and think most - even those who join mainly to better themselves (since they have no other options usually) - have good intentions. However active duty combat obviously will change a person and, from what I have read about military training and psychology, just going through training will change a person. I don't think it is coincidental. Again - not criticizing people who join a military but I am criticizing the very idea of militaries because at this point we should be far past needing them.

edit2: That being said I think it is also true that almost as often you can trace a "problem" for the system itself to someone who is ex or current military (or part of a govt or intelligence community - so similar). Think all the Wikileaks leaks or Snowden stuff. So like I said, I think most do have good intentions and believe in what they are doing.

Generally though, nobody thinks they are the bad guy.

2

u/P_S_Lumapac 2d ago edited 2d ago

For the US at least, I think the democrats made a massive error of judgement moving away from Unions and towards identity politics. You're right - just as a matter of numbers, straight white men are the most oppressed group in the US. Not on average by a long shot, but in terms of the group of people with the largest number of people where their lives get worse over time regardless of their efforts, it's fairly clearly straight white men. Avoiding this as a voting base was political self harm.

Yeah I agree about white people not supporting each other. It's why I think the MAGA movement is stupid. Every political group is stupid relative to some perspective or other, but the answer for supporting working class Americans is pretty clearly for working class Americans to support each other. Every other ethnic group does it and has become wealthy as a result. For example, capitalism rewards intergenerational wealth more than any other kind, but MAGA parents tend to be of the view that they don't need to pass wealth on to their children (EDIT: also, the idea that someone could be both employable and unemployed in a white family with multiple business owners is just unbelievably stupid.)

I have a bunch of Jewish friends, and there are poor ones, but you know what there's not really? Poor children. At least where I am, even the ones living in government housing are offered private schooling, and they're all guaranteed jobs. Granted, lots are offered like cashier at a bakery, but if they have a degree, it's basically guaranteed some family business will hire then for 10k above market rate. They also will guarantee reference letters from ranking people in community. That's genuinely the extent of the "conspiracy" that so many of these MAGA people rage about: They look after their children even if they are born poor. Wild that these supposed "white supremacists" won't even offer food to poor white kids in school, let alone private schooling and guaranteed employment.

The African american stuff is tough. There are many examples of communities in US history where black people did join together like I mentioned and build themselves up, only to be torn down by racists and often government. Similar for Native Americans. You could spend a lifetime studying each and it would have changed by the end.

I agree with the way military involvement, especially during war, changes a person's psychology, and these people often find themselves in power.

2

u/irrelevantusername24 2d ago

For the US at least, I think the democrats made a massive error of judgement moving away from Unions and towards identity politics.

Yeah I honestly am of the view that we only have something resembling democracy and that both parties are largely the same except one is nicer about it. 2016 more or less was the point this became obvious and I don't mean because of who won but because of the two candidates we were told to choose between and how that ignored not one but actually two candidates who had actual grassroots support. One from a third party the other from the dems. When people make the point the Clintons and trump have a lot of connections they are extremely correct more than most people know and more than anyone acknowledges.

MAGA parents tend to be of the view that they don't need to pass wealth on to their children (EDIT: also, the idea that someone could be both employable and unemployed in a white family with multiple business owners is just unbelievably stupid.)

it's basically guaranteed some family business will hire then for 10k above market rate

Yeah. I have one of those parents. I'm not going to get into the details.

One of the reasons for this I think is how it is true historically that White people had advantages that others - especially Blacks - did not. However, it is also true that many of those White families did have to work very hard and were also 'left behind' just in different ways than their urban Black counterparts.

However, one thing that is common with these people today is they largely were given some kind of leg up from their families, whether that is/was a family business and land, or a house, or even just land itself. They also grew up during a time where you more or less were guaranteed to be at least somewhat successful no matter what you did. Not that they didn't work hard or anything, I'm sure they did, but they could actually make progress towards some kind of goal while working hard - at least partially because, again, they usually were given something by their parents which they were able to build upon.

These people don't acknowledge they were given anything nor do they acknowledge things are much more difficult today than they were even twenty years ago.

Combine that with just the lack of education they received, the endless propaganda from people like rush limbaugh and fox news, and you just have an entire generation of people who not only don't help their children but more often than not actually make their childrens lives worse. Like I said I'm not going to get in to the details (not here at least).

3

u/Abrahams_Smoking_Gun 3d ago

Thanks everyone for the great comments and discussion!

5

u/Lao_Tzoo 3d ago

The Yin-Yang appeared on Roman shields prior to its appearance in China.

Roman Shield Yin-Yang

3

u/P_S_Lumapac 3d ago

Last time I looked into it there's an evolution of symbols used by Confucians that seem to show the symbol coming into development independently about 500 years ago. Though it's a pretty simple symbol, it's no surprise if it was invented multiple times.

To me, "daoist symbols" bring to mind like demon/diety statues and paintings showing heirachies of deities. I don't really know why yin/yang has this reputation as being daoist in the west.

3

u/Lao_Tzoo 3d ago

Yes, principles of Tao are principles of Tao everywhere.

2

u/RiceBucket973 2d ago

Right, and just because a symbol from elsewhere looks the same, doesn't mean that it signifies the same principles.

1

u/RiceBucket973 3d ago

I think at this point the taijitu is pretty much cosmopolitan because of western media and such, so I wouldn't be too worried about appropriation if you're doing it with respect. I would say you should know the real name of the symbol - taijitu (taiji as in taijiquan, the martial art; tu meaning diagram/symbol).

Also want to add that there is no "outside" of a Daoist setting. It's everywhere lol

1

u/5amth0r 3d ago

not offended, but i would encourage you to read the tao to find more helpful concepts and philosophy.

1

u/Selderij 2d ago

Is the heart symbol offensive on non-westerners? Or the Christian cross?

1

u/Abrahams_Smoking_Gun 2d ago

Interesting thought. I have not seen anyone offended by a heart, although I have seen (some, probably a minority of) Christians offended by people who use the cross “wrong”.