As Democrats push to ban caste discrimination, some Indian Americans object
24 points by casefields 1 year ago | 43 comments- JohnFen 1 year ago> They argue that the measures could falsely characterize all Hindus in America as inherently biased against members of their own community.
So instead, they fight in order to maintain the ability to engage in this sort of discrimination? Doesn't that do a whole lot more to make them seem inherently biased than supporting anti-discrimination efforts would?
The argument makes no sense to me. It really looks to me like it's not only a tacit admission that this discrimination is real, but that they want to ensure they can continue to treat certain people as second-class citizens.
- vikramkr 1 year agoYeah there's no way for them to make that argument look good, especially to a democratic voting base. That's because that argument is bad and they should feel bad for making it. Also by the plain text of that argument, "all hindus" biased against their own community? Where exactly do the non upper caste members of our community fit into that "all hindus" stereotype? Or did you forget about them?
- LargeTomato 1 year agoThese are minority opinions from people who are clearly confused or otherwise. You can completely ignore them. This entire article is click bait.
- vikramkr 1 year ago
- dghlsakjg 1 year agoAll this needs is a single court ruling that caste is synonymous with race to make this illegal (in employment, housing, etc). I personally don't think there's a distinction. Both are social constructs used to arbitrarily lump people into categories. The people in this article claiming that caste discrimination doesn't exist are telling on themselves. If it doesn't exist, then there should be no objection to outlawing it.
AFAICT the caste system is just a subcategory of racism.
- _thisdot 1 year agoYour race could be a factor in a medical diagnosis. Whereas your caste is completely irrelevant
> According to geneticist David Reich, "while race may be a social construct, differences in genetic ancestry that happen to correlate to many of today's racial constructs are real."
- mrcartmeneses 1 year agoYou are confusing race with ethnicity. Race is a made up thing, a construct with no basis in reality
- lotsofpulp 1 year agoEvery single question regarding race that I have come across lumps over half the world’s population into one race, “Asian”.
- _thisdot 1 year agoTrue that around 60% of the world population lives in Asia. I’d say “Asian” is more a geographic classification rather than race. Asia is huge and contains multiple races within.
Even smaller continents like North America or even Australia/Oceania has multiple races within them
- _thisdot 1 year ago
- mrcartmeneses 1 year ago
- lotsofpulp 1 year ago>AFAICT the caste system is just a subcategory of racism.
It is all subcategories of tribalism, except the boundaries are blurred between skin tone, ancestry, traditions, diet, occupation, wealth, etc.
- dghlsakjg 1 year agoThe major distinction is that, in theory, some of those tribes are by choice, and some are unable to be changed. In the US, discrimination against unchangeable characteristics is illegal in many cases (skin color, gender, etc...)
I can choose to join the vegetarian tribe, and I can choose to leave it.
I cannot choose the color of my skin or my race.
- dghlsakjg 1 year ago
- rightbyte 1 year ago> If it doesn't exist, then there should be no objection to outlawing it.
I don't think that is a valid argument. Laws are a hazzle to deal with etc.
It is also a sort of "have you stopped beating your wife?", "nothing to hide" etc.
I am buying caste discrimination is a big problem in the US though.
- dghlsakjg 1 year agoThe more apt comparison would seem to be a law banning something else described as imaginary.
Would anyone object as strongly to a Unicorn ban as they would to a ban on caste based discrimination? We might think that the law is a waste in many ways, but no one could seriously object to the content of a Unicorn ban since it would have no real effect. The same would be true of explicitly making caste a protected class/race.
- dghlsakjg 1 year ago
- JohnFen 1 year agoIt's literally classism, not racism. Just as objectionable but, sadly, "class" is not a protected category and so discrimination based on it is legal in the US unless a new law is passed to address it.
- vikramkr 1 year agoNo it's not. You can change your class you can't change your caste - your caste is literally determined exclusively by birth. It's a form of race and has nothing to do with social standing.
- _thisdot 1 year agoWhat’s funny is that you can change your religion. But you still can’t change your caste!
It’s even more interesting how norms and customs predate even caste. For instance, missionaries came to India and offered a better status within Christianity to Hindus from lower caste. This led to some caste based discrimination against Indian Christians. Now, Pakistan as a country doesn’t really have caste system being a Muslim country. But there are restaurants in Pakistan where Christians are still not allowed to eat in the same plate regular customers eat!
Source: A White Trail: A Journey Into the Heart of Pakistan's Religious Minorities Book by Haroon Khalid
- rngname22 1 year agoIsn't it the case that social class is not just about how much money you have, it's about where you went to school, your social etiquette, way of speaking, mannerisms, the clothing you wear, etc?
Isn't social class specifically evolved to not simply be traversed by attaining more money, and that's the whole distinction between "new money" and "old money" and how they say "money can't buy class"?
That being said, I think perhaps the caste system is sort of neither about race nor class but some unique blend of those things and more. It seems to have its own characteristics and I'm not sure we can dumb it down.
- _thisdot 1 year ago
- CodeWriter23 1 year agoThe one first-gen in the US Indian couple I know, the man is light skinned and the woman is darker skinned. So the man has been disowned by his family over this Caste thing. I don't know that the underlying nature is racist, but it kinda looks that way to me.
- _thisdot 1 year agoIt’s weird. India has a problem of casteism, colourism and classism.
What you’re describing is probably a mix of casteism + colourism.
There is no strict correlation between skin colour and caste. The current Prime Minister Narendra Modi is fair skinned and from a lower caste while a cricketer like Hardik Pandya who is darker skinned is from an upper caste.
- _thisdot 1 year ago
- vikramkr 1 year ago
- jinpa_zangpo 1 year agoThe Indian word for caste, "varna" literally means color.
- lotsofpulp 1 year agoIt does not seem “color” is referencing skin tone here.
>The word appears in the Rigveda, where it means "colour, outward appearance, exterior, form, figure or shape".[4] The word means "color, tint, dye or pigment" in the Mahabharata.[4] Varna contextually means "colour, race, tribe, species, kind, sort, nature, character, quality, property" of an object or people in some Vedic and medieval texts.[4] Varna refers to four social classes in the Manusmriti.[4][5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varna_(Hinduism)
>The terms varna (theoretical classification based on occupation) and jāti (caste) are two distinct concepts. Jāti (community) refers to the thousands of endogamous groups prevalent across the subcontinent. A jati may be divided into exogamous groups based on the same gotras. The classical authors scarcely speak of anything other than the varnas; even Indologists sometimes confuse the two.[63]
- LargeTomato 1 year agoOnce you're in America the etymology is irrelevant. If it can tangentially relate in any way to race then it must be about race and viewed through a racial lens at all times.
- LargeTomato 1 year ago
- 1 year ago
- lotsofpulp 1 year ago
- vikramkr 1 year agoAgreed. Honestly I think these bills are purely symbolic since casteism is racism is discrimination against a protected class. So if they don't matter and are purely symbolic, what's wrong with passing the bill?
The only argument against these bills that id be sympathetic to (that I don't really see that many people making) is that specifically focusing on caste might create a legal precedent that casteism and similar forms of discrimination aren't covered under existing statutes and lay the groundwork for other systems of discrimination to be shielded from anti-discrimination laws. But I don't see how just reaffirming that caste is a protected class is objectionable beyond, well, beyond the obvious reasons.
I certainly don't appreciate a bunch of casteist whackos with too much political power pretending to represent me as a part of the "Indian American community" to Gavin Newsom. Y'all can fuck right off with that bullshit.
- _thisdot 1 year ago
- casefields 1 year agoThere’s been a bunch of discussion in tech about caste discrimination. Newsom vetoed a bill that would’ve outlawed. Now we are getting pieces of the story as to why he did that.
- mikhael28 1 year agoWe know these truths to be self-evident - that all men are created equal.
- mydogcanpurr 1 year agoIf you import people who disagree with the fundamental premises of your country for economic purposes, you reap what you sow.
- KyleBerezin 1 year agoThe US has always had immigration, including when that was written.
- lotsofpulp 1 year agoNot to mention plenty of Americans disagree with this “fundamental premise” of the country.
See legacy admissions at top schools, and businesses that hire only from top schools.
- mydogcanpurr 1 year agoI never said I’m against immigration.
- lotsofpulp 1 year ago
- KyleBerezin 1 year ago
- askin4it 1 year agoSadly, never enough for the proverbial do-gooder class...
- mydogcanpurr 1 year ago
- DoItToMe81 1 year agoCaste discrimination is insanely prevalent. Every workplace I've been in that has had Indian workers has had some form of it. Very often it has been serious and skilled people have been denied the positions they should be in because they "need to stay in their station".
- casefields 1 year ago
- egberts1 1 year agoIs classism a form of religion and thus can be protected under U.S. rights of religious freedom from government interference?
I mean, your salary too is a form of classism, no?
Not a rhetorical question. And not asking for a friend.
- AnimalMuppet 1 year agoThe US legal system really doesn't care how much my religion says that usury is wrong; I still don't get to rob banks. That is, there are plenty of things that are illegal, and they're still illegal if I do them for religious reasons.
Also, classism isn't a religion, even if it maybe is a feature of some. "I'm a classist" is not a legally-recognized reason to discriminate against anyone.
Disclaimer: IANAL.
- egberts1 1 year agoSo it is ok for church schools to not hire atheist people who do not follow the religion tenet?
- egberts1 1 year ago
- brnt 1 year agoThe word you are looking for is discrimination: yes, salary differentiation is discrimination, and one of the most consistent ones I've ever seen (where do intern make more than CEOs?).
The question is: when is it OK and when isn't it? Maybe it shouldn't ever be OK, if we'd be very consistent.
- egberts1 1 year agoWe were almost there in making CEO make the same or less than the company peons.
- egberts1 1 year ago
- AnimalMuppet 1 year ago
- 1 year ago
- extasia 1 year agoThe caste system should have died millenia ago. Disgustingly prejudiced set of beliefs.
- infamouscow 1 year agoDerision and ridicule are legitimate social tools for combating these ridiculously mediocre clowns, for which reason is impervious.