Yeah it’s the same as todays socio-economic classes. Poverty is a viscous cycle and our society makes it impossible to escape. But it’s wrong. The above poster lost some credibility with me for using that language. Their point is still valid but calling out the caste really did not add anything.
There are many methods that the upper socio economic classes used to suppress the lower classes. Casteism in India was one of the most successful methods that suppressed generations of these classes for over a thousand years. Casteism led to further disparity in the socio economic classes. When such is the case, why does mentioning it make me lose my credibility?
Ok I’m not the most educated person on this subject, I know about the brahman and the untouchables at both extremes that’s about it. This is mostly my opinion, but I just can’t help but cringe when anyone uses caste to describe someone else’s status, as it perpetuates the validity of that system. I believe modern India has rejected this idea, even though it’s deeply baked into culture and I’m sure conservatives still believe in it today. You didn’t have to call out that these people are the lowest caste, couldn’t you have said they are the poorest or most disadvantaged group or some other adjective? It horrifies me how successful the caste system was at segregating groups of people and your usage of that language put you in that category of conservative people who believe in it. It was a subconscious thing for me that stood out in your comment, I guess you could say it triggered me a little.
Can’t help but cringe when anyone uses caste to describe someone else’s status, as it perpetuates the validity of that system
The caste that you’re born with decides your life quite a lot unfortunately. Due to historical wrongs done against individuals belonging to the “lower castes”, they are more likely to be born in poverty, thus making them more likely to have life that can be considered of “low quality”. Humans do not have 100% agency in their actions (no matter what stories of “self made” successful individuals would make you believe). Society and culture has a huge influence on the lives of people for the better or for worse. Historical and current wrongs done by the caste system against individuals belonging to the “lower caste” are clearly unjust. This is what I was intending to showcase.
I believe modern India has rejected this idea, even though it’s deeply baked into culture and I’m sure conservatives still believe in it today.
You are contradicting yourself when you say this. Isn’t today’s Indian culture “modern India”? Aren’t the “conservatives” (who have absolute majority in both houses of the Parliament) modern India? Or is your definition of “modern India” that of a utopian India? Cuz lemme tell you mate… India is far for utopian right now.
You didn’t have to call out that these people are the lowest caste, couldn’t you have said they are the poorest or most disadvantaged group or some other adjective?
I absolutely did have to call them “lower caste”. You’re right. The caste system makes 0 sense. It is a social construct. However, this doesn’t mean that its effects aren’t real. Caste affects, and has affected millions of innocent lives terribly for a thousand years. Using “another adjective” according to you, shifts the blame from the caste system onto something else. These aren’t just “poor people”. They’re a large chunk of India who’ve been treated like slaves since a long long time, and are being treated like that today as well, all because of the caste system. I thus have no interest in using euphemisms like “disadvantaged group” or something stupid like that.
It horrifies me how successful the caste system was at segregating groups of people and your usage of that language put you in that category of conservative people who believe in it.
So basically you’re telling me to pretend that the caste system doesn’t exist. “Brahmin? What is that? Never heard of it! Dalit? Never heard of that word!”. As I said before, while segregating people into castes is stupid (and evil), it doesn’t mean that the effects of this segregation don’t exist. Hence, when you have to point at these effects and explain their origin, you HAVE to invoke caste and all language associated with it.
Let’s use your language for a second here. These “disadvantaged people” are disadvantaged because of the caste system. They are disadvantaged BECAUSE they belong to the “lower castes”. Why should I lie here?
I should just stop talking, I have a weak opinion on this, I’m not at all equipped to argue Indian politics and culture with you. I just have some close indian friends and what little I know about the caste system was from my asian studies classes in primary school. I live an ignorant easy american life. I was coming at it from the POV that the caste level is a synonym for socio-economic status, but I’m understanding from you that your caste level determines your socio-economic status. Its difficult for me to accept that your caste level is determined at birth, I would just call that the birth lottery. Its random. I just happened to be born into an ok middle class american family, but I could have been born into a shit hole north-korean one just the same. Does that mean I’m in a higher caste and just unaware? What comes first, the caste or the family you are born into? As you said, its a human social construct so maybe its a moot point. Also when I said modern India, I implied a more liberal awareness, while conservative means an old, outdated way of thinking, entrenched in tradition. idk what my point is anymore, sorry for my earlier comment about discrediting your point. I’ll go away now. Thanks for educating this ignoramus.
Hey, sorry for the late reply! No worries mate, even Indians don’t really understand the caste system. I wouldn’t say that I’m an expert in it either.
To better explain how being of a 'lower caste" is different than simply being poor, here are some examples:
You can be in a very good position financially but still face societal discrimination because of belonging to a “lower caste”.
You can face problems getting places to rent or even getting employment because of your caste.
Inter-caste marriage is received very poorly by relatives. In India, joint families are still a very real thing, where saying “fuck off” to your relatives isn’t always the best option that people have. In the relatively lawless North Indian States, honor killings for inter caste marriage and stuff like that is very common.
Here’s another way to think about it. Imagine if US civilization (post-genocide, not pre-genocide) was 1000 years old. In these 1000 years, black Americans were slaves in everything but name. Only in the last 100 years, did they lose their slave-ish status legally. However, they still face racism till this date. One very interesting difference between racism and casteism however is that racists can recognise their hated race by looking at the color of people’s skin, while casteists can recognize their hated caste by looking at people’s last names. In almost all cases (except people who have changed their last names), your last name determines your caste. So… yeah. Apply most of the stuff that you know about racism in the US to the caste system to understand the problems associated with it.
Yeah it’s the same as todays socio-economic classes. Poverty is a viscous cycle and our society makes it impossible to escape. But it’s wrong. The above poster lost some credibility with me for using that language. Their point is still valid but calling out the caste really did not add anything.
There are many methods that the upper socio economic classes used to suppress the lower classes. Casteism in India was one of the most successful methods that suppressed generations of these classes for over a thousand years. Casteism led to further disparity in the socio economic classes. When such is the case, why does mentioning it make me lose my credibility?
Ok I’m not the most educated person on this subject, I know about the brahman and the untouchables at both extremes that’s about it. This is mostly my opinion, but I just can’t help but cringe when anyone uses caste to describe someone else’s status, as it perpetuates the validity of that system. I believe modern India has rejected this idea, even though it’s deeply baked into culture and I’m sure conservatives still believe in it today. You didn’t have to call out that these people are the lowest caste, couldn’t you have said they are the poorest or most disadvantaged group or some other adjective? It horrifies me how successful the caste system was at segregating groups of people and your usage of that language put you in that category of conservative people who believe in it. It was a subconscious thing for me that stood out in your comment, I guess you could say it triggered me a little.
The caste that you’re born with decides your life quite a lot unfortunately. Due to historical wrongs done against individuals belonging to the “lower castes”, they are more likely to be born in poverty, thus making them more likely to have life that can be considered of “low quality”. Humans do not have 100% agency in their actions (no matter what stories of “self made” successful individuals would make you believe). Society and culture has a huge influence on the lives of people for the better or for worse. Historical and current wrongs done by the caste system against individuals belonging to the “lower caste” are clearly unjust. This is what I was intending to showcase.
You are contradicting yourself when you say this. Isn’t today’s Indian culture “modern India”? Aren’t the “conservatives” (who have absolute majority in both houses of the Parliament) modern India? Or is your definition of “modern India” that of a utopian India? Cuz lemme tell you mate… India is far for utopian right now.
I absolutely did have to call them “lower caste”. You’re right. The caste system makes 0 sense. It is a social construct. However, this doesn’t mean that its effects aren’t real. Caste affects, and has affected millions of innocent lives terribly for a thousand years. Using “another adjective” according to you, shifts the blame from the caste system onto something else. These aren’t just “poor people”. They’re a large chunk of India who’ve been treated like slaves since a long long time, and are being treated like that today as well, all because of the caste system. I thus have no interest in using euphemisms like “disadvantaged group” or something stupid like that.
So basically you’re telling me to pretend that the caste system doesn’t exist. “Brahmin? What is that? Never heard of it! Dalit? Never heard of that word!”. As I said before, while segregating people into castes is stupid (and evil), it doesn’t mean that the effects of this segregation don’t exist. Hence, when you have to point at these effects and explain their origin, you HAVE to invoke caste and all language associated with it. Let’s use your language for a second here. These “disadvantaged people” are disadvantaged because of the caste system. They are disadvantaged BECAUSE they belong to the “lower castes”. Why should I lie here?
I should just stop talking, I have a weak opinion on this, I’m not at all equipped to argue Indian politics and culture with you. I just have some close indian friends and what little I know about the caste system was from my asian studies classes in primary school. I live an ignorant easy american life. I was coming at it from the POV that the caste level is a synonym for socio-economic status, but I’m understanding from you that your caste level determines your socio-economic status. Its difficult for me to accept that your caste level is determined at birth, I would just call that the birth lottery. Its random. I just happened to be born into an ok middle class american family, but I could have been born into a shit hole north-korean one just the same. Does that mean I’m in a higher caste and just unaware? What comes first, the caste or the family you are born into? As you said, its a human social construct so maybe its a moot point. Also when I said modern India, I implied a more liberal awareness, while conservative means an old, outdated way of thinking, entrenched in tradition. idk what my point is anymore, sorry for my earlier comment about discrediting your point. I’ll go away now. Thanks for educating this ignoramus.
Hey, sorry for the late reply! No worries mate, even Indians don’t really understand the caste system. I wouldn’t say that I’m an expert in it either. To better explain how being of a 'lower caste" is different than simply being poor, here are some examples:
Here’s another way to think about it. Imagine if US civilization (post-genocide, not pre-genocide) was 1000 years old. In these 1000 years, black Americans were slaves in everything but name. Only in the last 100 years, did they lose their slave-ish status legally. However, they still face racism till this date. One very interesting difference between racism and casteism however is that racists can recognise their hated race by looking at the color of people’s skin, while casteists can recognize their hated caste by looking at people’s last names. In almost all cases (except people who have changed their last names), your last name determines your caste. So… yeah. Apply most of the stuff that you know about racism in the US to the caste system to understand the problems associated with it.