OPINION

Apr. 05, 2021 | The Mercury

JACKY CHAO | MERCURY STAFF

Cultural Appropriation Rising

How astrological, spiritual symbols are being misused OPINION

KEERTHI SRILAKSHMIDARAN MERCURY STAFF

According to Google Trends, words such as “astrology chart” and “rising sign” have peaked in early 2021, and many professional astrologers report that business has boomed in the past few months. With the current uptick in astrology and spirituality consuming social media, it is necessary to understand their cultural significance before advertising or promoting these practices online.

To clarify, posting Tik Toks about your healing crystals or manifestation is not necessarily cultural appropriation. Rather, it is pairing these practices with insensitivity and ignorance towards their ancient origins that can lead to cultural appropriation.

When astrological and spiritual symbols are appropriated, it can hurt and diminish the significance of communities that actively practice these rituals. Astrology and spirituality have been deeply rooted in Hinduism since the Vedas were written. Hinduism and ancient Indian practices, moreover, are home to some of the symbols we see popularized on social media such as the third eye, the Om symbol, Hindu deities and the Bindi. There are of course more cultures from which modern-day astrology has evolved from such as Geomancy from North Africa and Feng Shui from China, but as an Indian Hindu, it seems only right to talk about cultural appropriation as it relates to my culture.

To see the current astrology trend further popularize aspects of our culture by people that don’t understand its importance and receive praise for it – while people from my culture get shamed for it – fuels insensitivity and ignorance towards discussions about cultural appropriation. Am I saying that only Hindu people can wear the Om symbol or talk about astrology? Of course not. But people should be cautious of what they post and purchase if it originates from other cultures and also understand that context is critical. For example, wearing a Bindi to a pop concert is out of context and would be considered cultural appropriation because it has nothing to do with Indian culture. On the other hand, wearing a Bindi to an Indian wedding or a Hindu festival is appropriate and demonstrates appreciation. One of the most recent examples of how the normalization of astrology and spirituality in the media can cause cultural appropriation was Rihanna’s Instagram post around two weeks ago. We see her topless wearing a necklace with a huge pendant of Ganesh, a Hindu God. Here, wearing the Ganesh pendant in a post promoting her brand in a non-Hindu context makes this cultural appropriation. Her refusal to delete the post or even talk about it – and repeat this mistake after her various other instances of appropriation in the past – not only hurts a community but suggests to her millions of followers that cultural appropriation is permissible.

Corporations are also benefitting from this trend, normalizing the usage of sacred symbols for profit. Just one search for “third eye jewelry” on Google curates hundreds of pages of companies selling these for fashion. Likewise, Macy’s and Forever 21 have sold shirts with the

Om symbol and Indian designs on them, making them accessible to hundreds of people who may not understand their importance and simply wear them as a fashion statement.

Some people may argue that the widespread usage of these symbols is actually beneficial because it makes other cultures seem less foreign. I am all for increasing awareness of my culture, but wearing these symbols in a non-cultural context – concerts, mall trips, parties – do nothing to appreciate other cultures except simply normalize their traditions.

Wearing cultural clothing and symbols should be saved for when you’re in that cultural context. As part of a diverse student body, I want people to hold corporations and celebrities accountable for instances of appropriation and take steps to do their own research on the cultural significance of certain practices as well.

ALESANDRA BELL | OUTREACH EDITOR April 5, 2021 | The Mercury We Need Women in STEM

Women provide valuable insight but can’t get their foot in the door

AISHNI SHRIVASTAVA

MERCURY STAFF

“Too emotional for science.” Phrases like this have continuously hindered women trying to break the glass ceiling in STEM. Why are these barriers still alive and well in the new decade?

There’s no denying that the number of women entering STEM has significantly increased since 1990. However, when we look at the rapid rate at which society has modernized over the past 20 years, we find that the overall growth of women in these fields has been objectively low. According to the National Science Foundation, women make up 50% of the total U.S. college-educated workforce but only 28% of the science and engineering workforce.

Contrary to prior belief, the lack of girls’ aptitude for STEM does not explain why this gap exists. A 67-country analysis found that girls performed about as well or even better than boys on science in most countries, and in almost all countries, girls would have been capable of college-level science and math classes if they had enrolled in them. In truth, societal stigmas and a lack of role models are two major causes of the gender gap. When young women rarely see people like them going into STEM, they have fewer examples to follow. The lack of role models here is understandable, as the efforts of female researchers over the past few years have been continuously discounted. Female principal investigators commonly publish papers in less prominent scientific journals and are subjected to blatant bias. In a double-blind study done in 2018, 127 science board faculty at renowned research universities rated a male applicant for a laboratory manager position as “significantly more competent and hirable” than a female applicant, even though the application materials were identical. When female students are aware of their increased likelihood of being unfairly overlooked, what incentives are left for them to go into scientific fields?

Urging women to participate in STEM is about much more than just women’s empowerment. It’s about the general health and wellbeing of the female population. The lack of women in research means that there is a lack of a much-needed diverse perspective on critical matters. This makes existing scientific views increasingly male-centric, especially in fields such as SEE HEALTHCARE, PAGE 16

Mission: Impossible (to help)

Short-term mission trips do more harm than good

FATIMAH AZEEM

MERCURY STAFF

At first glance, short-term mission trips might seem like a good way to get involved in humanitarian work, but they are actually more harmful than helpful to the communities they seek to assist. Mission trips seek to help disadvantaged communities, usually in other countries, by doing activities such as building houses and schools, caring for children and providing medical assistance. Trips are frequently church-sponsored, and most mission trips available to college students are short-term trips that are one or two weeks long. While accessible, these trips are too short to have long-lasting helpful impacts. Their brief duration allows for short-lived solutions such as bringing food to communities, instead of long-lasting sustainable solutions like working closely with communities to allocate resources such as machinery for improved crops.

Another fatal flaw in short-term mission trips is that they seek to fix rather than to help. These trips aim to rescue disadvantaged communities from their problems and believe that their methods are globally applicable regardless of the history, current affairs and needs of specific communities. Because of this, mission trips can offer unhelpful solutions that stunt community growth and lead to counter-productivity. For example, a common activity in short-term mission trips is building homes, but ironically, those trips are most populated by teenagers and college students who have limited or no training in building infrastructure. Sending a bunch of college students to construct a house that a local could’ve built better or was entirely unneeded is uncalled for, wastes the community’s time and presents the community with the unnecessary work of figuring out what they’re supposed to do with an unhabitable or unneeded home. Mission trip activities like building houses also strip natives of financial opportunities. There are already builders, teachers, farmers and other natives with expertise in disadvantaged communities who can perform their craft better than college students from another country. Trying to do local specialists’ craft for them presents them with unnecessary financial competition by temporarily taking away a job they could’ve gotten paid for. Short-term missionaries fail to understand communities’ core needs and thus disempower them by spreading the message that they must depend on foreign assistance, even with tasks they can already handle. Additionally, mission trips are exploitative when they serve as a glorified vacation instead of a genuine humanitarian effort. I’m sure I’m not the only one who’s heard missionaries talk about how mission trips have forever changed them, pulling up pictures of them posing with poor children as evidence. However, if a missionary’s main goal is to broaden their perspective, expose themselves to the