As Democrats push to ban caste discrimination, some Indian Americans object | Hacker News Reader

As Democrats push to ban caste discrimination, some Indian Americans object

washingtonpost.com

24 pointscasefields43 comments

> 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.

Yeah 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?

These are minority opinions from people who are clearly confused or otherwise. You can completely ignore them. This entire article is click bait.

All 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.

>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.

The 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.

Your 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."

Every single question regarding race that I have come across lumps over half the world’s population into one race, “Asian”.

True 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

So as the word “race” is applied in the US, race is not very correlated with genetic ancestry.

How so? Sorry I’m not as aware of race or racism as much I am of caste and casteism.

In the US, based on someone’s answer to a question on which race they belong to, you would not have very good odds on determining their genetic ancestry.

You are confusing race with ethnicity. Race is a made up thing, a construct with no basis in reality

It'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.

No 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.

What’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

Isn'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.

Those mechanisms only exist because class is malleable. You don't need to worry about old or new money of etiquette or mannerisms or anything with caste because it's immutable, period. You can't get out it even by changing your religion. No amount of generations matter, where you went to school doesn't matter. No other mechanisms or such complications are needed because you can never change it, end of story. It's a form of race.

The 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.

It’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.

Agreed. 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.

> 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.

The 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.

The Indian word for caste, "varna" literally means color.

It 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]

Once 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.

There’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.

We know these truths to be self-evident - that all men are created equal.

Sadly, never enough for the proverbial do-gooder class...

If you import people who disagree with the fundamental premises of your country for economic purposes, you reap what you sow.

The US has always had immigration, including when that was written.

Not 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.

I don't know what point you think you're making. In a democratic (not necessarily a Democracy of which the US is not) country, people are allowed to disagree with each other, and they do. That doesn't change the fact that our laws are absolutely based on equal protection and equal treatment.

I never said I’m against immigration.

Caste 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".

Mirror: https://ghostarchive.org/archive/vsE9l?wr=true

Is 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.

The 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.

So it is ok for church schools to not hire atheist people who do not follow the religion tenet?

The 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.

We were almost there in making CEO make the same or less than the company peons.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna43667

The caste system should have died millenia ago. Disgustingly prejudiced set of beliefs.

Derision and ridicule are legitimate social tools for combating these ridiculously mediocre clowns, for which reason is impervious.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com