You are just so provably wrong about this very simple fact. It makes me wonder if you ever searched for the word "astrology" in a search engine.
A small sample of currently published, western, aka, "Greek", astrological horoscopes...
https://www.nydailynews.com/horoscopes/
https://www.chicagotribune.com/horoscopes/
https://m.startribune.com/horoscopes/
https://www.seattletimes.com/horoscopes/
https://nypost.com/horoscopes/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/horoscopes/
This list is almost endless. Every single one of these is using the tropical zodiac, not the sidereal zodiac. When dates are mentioned they are all almost always without a doubt based on the classic tropical zodiac.
These have nothing to do with India, Hinduism, etc. and this is just the start of what makes your article break down into a nonsensical and self-contradicting mess.
On the one hand, you say "While several other cultures have astrological components, it is Hindu mythology specifically that has been the driving force in the West."
But then later you say "To say astrology is harmless is to erase the Indian experience of it and pretend that Western astrology is all that exists"
So which is it? Which astrology are you talking about Hindu-based or Western-based? Are you claiming that Western-based astrology is somehow now Hindu-based? Because if you are, go see the list of "horoscopes" above. No, I think you are trying to claim that there is some kind of "Western" version of Hindu/Vedic astrology and that is somehow offensive. Or maybe that there is some hybrid version. Or maybe that because most people in the west only know of the greek tropical zodiac-based system, they are unaware of Vedic astrology's harm in India. The point is that it is not clear what you are trying to say. Because you haven't laid it out.
But even past this, your article completely goes off the rails. On one hand, it seems that you are arguing that "Vedic traditions" are somehow superior to western astrology, ie. "Whenever Western astrology falls short....astrologers fall back on "more complex" Vedic traditions". As if you believe in any of this garbage.
But then later you seem to deride astrology for what it is, "Astrology is a pseudoscience...astrology does not make accurate predictions"
But then even later near the end you throw all that out the window and come back to say "I would encourage you to ... check out Vedic astrology." You explicitly encourage people to take up studying something that you know is complete woo.
Then you go off on this gender-based thing,. Now here not only are we completely off the rails, but we are now in the water paddling out into the pond. I don't even know how to pretend to understand this bit. Of course, there are both men and women that believe in astrology. Yes duh.
Then in the middle of that argument, you make this strange statement that seems so out of place it really feels like you wrote it ahead of time and were just trying to find a way to shoehorn it in somewhere, "India, a country ...that needs to stop being erased by the United States"
I can't even process this one because you make no effort to even explain what you mean. In what way is the US trying to erase India? How? What do you mean? What was the point of this sentence?
But now back to the gender thing. You make some really broad assumptions. And I have no idea where you get them. I'm a straight white man, I don't "hate" astrology for the same reason that I don't "hate" any made-up fantasy or religiion. I've dated women who believe in astrology, others that believe in ghosts, or Jesus, God, maybe witches, or even that the moon landing was faked. It's all pretty ridiculous, but hey believe what you want. As long as we aren't making public policy based on reading the stars or a book that features a talking snake, I am fine with you believing whatever you want. So go on, pray, meditate, read tea leaves, chew mushrooms, flagellate yourself, consult star charts or the bible, or whatever else helps you to feel like you have more control over your life than you really do.
But let us clear up a different broad assumption and a terribly constructed sentence at the same time, "White men are hating on white women who are into “Eastern things” because they’re racist."
First of all, this is a terrible sentence. You need to learn how to use pronouns correctly. I can't tell which of the following points you are trying to make;
A. White men are racist and are therefore hating on white women who are into eastern things.
B. White women who are into eastern things are racist and are therefore being hated on by white men.
It is unclear which of these you mean because the pronoun "they" could be referring to either group. By strict rules of the language, I would have to assume that you mean the women are racist as this is the closest preceding noun. However, I don't think that is the point you are trying to make. Regardless a writer should never set down a sentence that could have ambiguous interpretations for the reader. It's not the reader's responsibility to try to read the writer's mind. It is the writer's responsibility to convey meaning and intent clearly and without ambiguity.
However, I digress. Whichever way you intended this sentence to be interpreted it still makes a very faulty assumption. Men reject women for all kinds of reasons. Have you considered that men are rejecting these women because these men don't like people who are idiots and believe in magical woo?
I do want to be clear on the one thing that I could discern from your article. I agree with you that, "astrology is not a woman's thing at all", I would say that astrology is an idiot's thing.
The last "point" you are trying to make about cultural appropriation is perhaps the worst laid-out argument in this entire article. It's not that you might or might not have a valid point it's that your writing is kind of gibberish. Particularly the paragraph that starts "White women are now claiming astrology is their "minority culture..."
In this one paragraph of only six sentences, you make at least 5 different claims. 1. White women are claiming astrology as their culture, 2. That this is harmful, 3. That there is something sexist about this 4. Astrology is harmful in India, 5. The US is trying to erase India. The only one of these ideas you even attempt to follow up on is that astrology is harmful in India.
And then inside of that mess, there is this almost non-parseable pair of sentences;
"White women frequently say that astrology is their "cute and cultural thing," something that makes others prejudiced or sexist when they rail against it. They reject all attempts by people like me... to criticize it."
Who are "they" in these sentences? "They" rail against the women, but "they" also reject your attempts to criticize? What is "it"? Who is railing against what? Are you criticizing the women or are you criticizing the people who rail against the women? Who is rejecting your criticism? Again this is about pronoun usage. You are using the same pronoun in a single paragraph to refer to different nouns. Particularly you use the word "they" to refer to two different groups only 4 words apart without introducing the new noun that is being replaced. Don't do this. It is just bad writing. Pronouns should have cohesion within a paragraph.
Please understand I don't fundamentally disagree with whatever point you are trying to make, I don't necessarily agree with it either. In truth, I cannot agree or disagree because I cannot tell what the overall point you are trying to make is. Your article is really all over the map and littered with poor grammatical constructs but most importantly it has no discernible central thesis.
Then again, for an article that is fundamentally about something that is itself complete BS that should be expected.
