An effort to ban caste discrimination in California has touched a nerve(politico.com)
politico.com
An effort to ban caste discrimination in California has touched a nerve
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/09/04/ban-caste-discrimination-california-bill-00113817
323 comments
I don’t know a lot about this subject and am definitely open to my perception being wrong, but reading about the opposition to this makes we wonder whether it’s akin to the south during the civil war—“we want to secede because of injustices against us, totally not because we want to keep slavery”.
That's more retroactive. The confederates didn't have any shame about their motivations when they seceded.
The Lincoln administration wasn't actually trying to abolish slavery and Lincoln himself wasn't elected as an abolitionist (still a fringe view at that point). So it wasn't that clear what exactly their motivations were.
Obviously it was about slavery in the broad sense but the rebellion was mostly preemptive and they had to come up with some justification. Chances are that slavery would've lasted another 10-20 years had the southern states not seceded.
Obviously it was about slavery in the broad sense but the rebellion was mostly preemptive and they had to come up with some justification. Chances are that slavery would've lasted another 10-20 years had the southern states not seceded.
Elsewhere you wrote "Politicians back then (just like now) certainly often said things they didn't believe in when doing so was politically advantageous."
Why then should the South believe any statement made by Lincoln?
We know what the State of Georgia thought about the Republican Party: "The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers ... We know their treachery; we know the shallow pretenses under which they daily disregard [the Constitution's] plainest obligations."
They were motivated because they didn't trust the treacherous Republican Party to maintain slavery.
Why then should the South believe any statement made by Lincoln?
We know what the State of Georgia thought about the Republican Party: "The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers ... We know their treachery; we know the shallow pretenses under which they daily disregard [the Constitution's] plainest obligations."
They were motivated because they didn't trust the treacherous Republican Party to maintain slavery.
So we can agree that imminent (during the next administration) abolition was not something most confederate politicians considered likely? That's the only thing I had when I wrote the word "believe".
> Why then should the South believe any statement made by Lincoln?
Because it was politically infeasible to actually abolish slavery in the next 4 years and because Lincoln is still accountable to his northern voters (overwhelming majority of whom preferred the continuation of slavery to the collapse of the Union).
> They were motivated because they didn't trust the treacherous Republican Party to maintain slavery.
I'm not sure treachery is the right word. Republicans were generally pretty open their desire to weaken the institution of slavery and limit it's expansion into new territories. Eventually that would've probably led to abolition. Southern politicians understood and that's why they rebelled (it had nothing to do with the threat of imminent abolition).
> Why then should the South believe any statement made by Lincoln?
Because it was politically infeasible to actually abolish slavery in the next 4 years and because Lincoln is still accountable to his northern voters (overwhelming majority of whom preferred the continuation of slavery to the collapse of the Union).
> They were motivated because they didn't trust the treacherous Republican Party to maintain slavery.
I'm not sure treachery is the right word. Republicans were generally pretty open their desire to weaken the institution of slavery and limit it's expansion into new territories. Eventually that would've probably led to abolition. Southern politicians understood and that's why they rebelled (it had nothing to do with the threat of imminent abolition).
> I'm not sure treachery is the right word.
You are rejecting the literal words they used to describe the Republican party, which I quoted. Those are by definition the right words for describing their viewpoints because that is what they wrote.
You also reject the reasons they wrote to justify secession, because you think it did not make sense. Remember, these are people who believed "the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty", and whose use of slave labor enriched their economy - you have different belief in what God wanted, so cannot use your beliefs as a lens to interpret what made rational sense to them.
You cannot have a good understanding of history if you filter the primary documentation through your own interpretations and discard anything that does not make sense to you.
You are rejecting the literal words they used to describe the Republican party, which I quoted. Those are by definition the right words for describing their viewpoints because that is what they wrote.
You also reject the reasons they wrote to justify secession, because you think it did not make sense. Remember, these are people who believed "the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty", and whose use of slave labor enriched their economy - you have different belief in what God wanted, so cannot use your beliefs as a lens to interpret what made rational sense to them.
You cannot have a good understanding of history if you filter the primary documentation through your own interpretations and discard anything that does not make sense to you.
> You also reject the reasons they wrote to justify secession, because you think it did not make sense
No, I never said that.
> Remember, these are people who believed "the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free
How is this relevant? I never defended slavery or claimed that the southern states did not rebel to protect slavery.
> if you filter the primary documentation through your own interpretations and discard anything that does not make sense to you.
I'm not doing that either.
Did you read the quote you posted?
> "The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers ... We know their treachery; we know the shallow pretenses under which they daily disregard [the Constitution's] plainest obligations
Could you explain how exactly am I misinterpreting it?
If you reading that quote as "we believe that the abolition of slavery is imminent and will happen in the next years" that's a pretty obvious misinterpretation.
No, I never said that.
> Remember, these are people who believed "the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free
How is this relevant? I never defended slavery or claimed that the southern states did not rebel to protect slavery.
> if you filter the primary documentation through your own interpretations and discard anything that does not make sense to you.
I'm not doing that either.
Did you read the quote you posted?
> "The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers ... We know their treachery; we know the shallow pretenses under which they daily disregard [the Constitution's] plainest obligations
Could you explain how exactly am I misinterpreting it?
If you reading that quote as "we believe that the abolition of slavery is imminent and will happen in the next years" that's a pretty obvious misinterpretation.
I'm not sure what you're arguing, but I don't think its true that the claim "we want to secede because of injustices against us" was retroactive.
see: https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declarati...
"The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union."
I think there's a tendency for discussions about the south's position in the civil war to end up with slavery poisoning the well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well
see: https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declarati...
"The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union."
I think there's a tendency for discussions about the south's position in the civil war to end up with slavery poisoning the well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well
That's the first sentence.
Second sentence:
"For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery."
Third sentence:
"...and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property..." (my emphasis)
C'mon.
Second sentence:
"For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery."
Third sentence:
"...and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property..." (my emphasis)
C'mon.
To complete the sentence you incompletely quoted: "but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right."
What are those "frequent violations of the Constitution"?
> In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.
> The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."
> This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.
> The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.
> The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution.
It's all about the injustice that they are not able to keep slaves like they want to.
What are those "frequent violations of the Constitution"?
> In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.
> The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."
> This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.
> The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.
> The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution.
It's all about the injustice that they are not able to keep slaves like they want to.
The injustices being, primarily, that they were no longer allowed to engage in chattel slavery.
> that they were no longer
That they might no longer be allowed to engage in chattel slavery at some indeterminate point in the future. Outright abolition was still a fringe policy at the beginning of the war.
That they might no longer be allowed to engage in chattel slavery at some indeterminate point in the future. Outright abolition was still a fringe policy at the beginning of the war.
My reading of South Carolina's "Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union" says they believed otherwise.
They seemed to regard abolition as no longer a fringe policy but one which, in the North, was effectively mainstream, and were certain that after Lincoln's inauguration the North would wage a war to exterminate slavery.
> For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms [emphasis in the original] of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction. ...
> On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.
The Texans seemed to have similar viewpoints that the abolition of slavery was not a fringe policy, and would be carried out during the next administration:
> By consolidating their strength, they have placed the slave-holding States in a hopeless minority in the federal congress, and rendered representation of no avail in protecting Southern rights against their exactions and encroachments. ...
> And, finally, by the combined sectional vote of the seventeen non-slave-holding States, they have elected as president and vice-president of the whole confederacy two men whose chief claims to such high positions are their approval of these long continued wrongs, and their pledges to continue them to the final consummation of these schemes for the ruin of the slave-holding States.
(I trust that "within the next administration" isn't what you mean by "indeterminate".)
They seemed to regard abolition as no longer a fringe policy but one which, in the North, was effectively mainstream, and were certain that after Lincoln's inauguration the North would wage a war to exterminate slavery.
> For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms [emphasis in the original] of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction. ...
> On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.
The Texans seemed to have similar viewpoints that the abolition of slavery was not a fringe policy, and would be carried out during the next administration:
> By consolidating their strength, they have placed the slave-holding States in a hopeless minority in the federal congress, and rendered representation of no avail in protecting Southern rights against their exactions and encroachments. ...
> And, finally, by the combined sectional vote of the seventeen non-slave-holding States, they have elected as president and vice-president of the whole confederacy two men whose chief claims to such high positions are their approval of these long continued wrongs, and their pledges to continue them to the final consummation of these schemes for the ruin of the slave-holding States.
(I trust that "within the next administration" isn't what you mean by "indeterminate".)
Yes, you're definitely right about what they said, I'm not sure they really believed it ,though.
In the north and even in the Republican party itself immediate abolition without compensation was still certainly a 'fringe' view. However the new administration was pretty explicit about not allowing new slave states to join in the future while simultaneously allowing accept new free states.
Slave states would've been outvoted in Congress, which would've probably led to eventual abolition. However it would've been a slow and gradual process with possible compensation and much closer to a 'death by a thousand cuts' (anything else would've just triggered a secession and most northern politicians certainly preferred allowing the Southern states to maintain slavery for the foreseable future).
So I certainly doubt most reasonable people in the South expected that slavery would be abolished 'within the next administration,' but they still must have seen the writing on the wall and judged that they'll never be in a stronger position than they were at that time. When they actually decided to secede, it made sense to use the strongest/most outlandish language possible in their propaganda (since of course, there were still probably some people who might have believed it)
In the north and even in the Republican party itself immediate abolition without compensation was still certainly a 'fringe' view. However the new administration was pretty explicit about not allowing new slave states to join in the future while simultaneously allowing accept new free states.
Slave states would've been outvoted in Congress, which would've probably led to eventual abolition. However it would've been a slow and gradual process with possible compensation and much closer to a 'death by a thousand cuts' (anything else would've just triggered a secession and most northern politicians certainly preferred allowing the Southern states to maintain slavery for the foreseable future).
So I certainly doubt most reasonable people in the South expected that slavery would be abolished 'within the next administration,' but they still must have seen the writing on the wall and judged that they'll never be in a stronger position than they were at that time. When they actually decided to secede, it made sense to use the strongest/most outlandish language possible in their propaganda (since of course, there were still probably some people who might have believed it)
Are you really arguing that they didn't believe the position they presented in their declarations of succession?
> immediate abolition without compensation
Whoa there. Please do not shift your argument.
Earlier you wrote "indeterminate point" not "immediate abolition" and you wrote "outright abolition", not a specific type of abolition.
My reading of the declarations was they thought would be during the Lincoln administration, not "immediate" upon his inauguration, but also not "indeterminate".
> So I certainly doubt most reasonable people in the South
Do you have supporting evidence for your belief? I mean, these people elected the leaders of the state, so why do you think "most" people disagreed?
> immediate abolition without compensation
Whoa there. Please do not shift your argument.
Earlier you wrote "indeterminate point" not "immediate abolition" and you wrote "outright abolition", not a specific type of abolition.
My reading of the declarations was they thought would be during the Lincoln administration, not "immediate" upon his inauguration, but also not "indeterminate".
> So I certainly doubt most reasonable people in the South
Do you have supporting evidence for your belief? I mean, these people elected the leaders of the state, so why do you think "most" people disagreed?
>Are you really arguing that they didn't believe the position they presented in their declarations of succession?
Depends on how do you define 'believe'. Politicians back then (just like now) certainly often said things they didn't believe in when doing so was politically advantageous.
I certainly believe that they thought that the new administration was probably the biggest threat to slavery in the last 50 years or so and its actions were likely to lead to eventual abolition. Does not change the fact that immediate abolition was politically infeasible (which is something Lincoln himself reiterated during his inaugural address and I have to reiterate that while opposed to slavery Lincoln himself was not an abolitionist and did not run on abolitionist ticket).
> Whoa there. Please do not shift your argument.
Am I? Sorry, my comment might not have been clear, I certainly did not want to imply that abolition was likely at any point during the Lincoln administration (at least before the next election).
> Do you have supporting evidence for your belief? I mean, these people elected the leaders of the state, so why do you think "most" people disagreed?
I'll have to shift my argument in this case and say "most rational people".
Also if we look at all of the quotes you posted:
- slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.
- that the South shall be excluded from the common territory
- war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States (unless you believe they mean a literal war)
- and their pledges to continue them to the final consummation of these schemes for the ruin of the slave-holding States.
none of these seem to imply that their authors believed that abolition was imminent (in the next 4 years or so):
> Do you have supporting evidence for your belief
Anyone who vaguely understood the political situation in 1860 would have know that (peaceful) abolition during the next 4 years was unfeasible.
> so why do you think "most" people disagreed?
Disagreed with what exactly?
Depends on how do you define 'believe'. Politicians back then (just like now) certainly often said things they didn't believe in when doing so was politically advantageous.
I certainly believe that they thought that the new administration was probably the biggest threat to slavery in the last 50 years or so and its actions were likely to lead to eventual abolition. Does not change the fact that immediate abolition was politically infeasible (which is something Lincoln himself reiterated during his inaugural address and I have to reiterate that while opposed to slavery Lincoln himself was not an abolitionist and did not run on abolitionist ticket).
> Whoa there. Please do not shift your argument.
Am I? Sorry, my comment might not have been clear, I certainly did not want to imply that abolition was likely at any point during the Lincoln administration (at least before the next election).
> Do you have supporting evidence for your belief? I mean, these people elected the leaders of the state, so why do you think "most" people disagreed?
I'll have to shift my argument in this case and say "most rational people".
Also if we look at all of the quotes you posted:
- slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.
- that the South shall be excluded from the common territory
- war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States (unless you believe they mean a literal war)
- and their pledges to continue them to the final consummation of these schemes for the ruin of the slave-holding States.
none of these seem to imply that their authors believed that abolition was imminent (in the next 4 years or so):
> Do you have supporting evidence for your belief
Anyone who vaguely understood the political situation in 1860 would have know that (peaceful) abolition during the next 4 years was unfeasible.
> so why do you think "most" people disagreed?
Disagreed with what exactly?
You wrote "Outright abolition was still a fringe policy at the beginning of the war."
Why do you believe that? All of the declarations of succession I've argue otherwise.
Georgia's says "The feeling of anti-slavery, which it was well known was very general among the people of the North, had been long dormant or passive; it needed only a question to arouse it into aggressive activity."
Mississippi's says "until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice" against "the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world".
You wrote "none of these seem to imply that their authors believed that abolition was imminent (in the next 4 years or so)."
The documents of succession are clear that they don't want to be under Lincoln, with the Republican party in control.
Mississippi's says "There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union"." They are clear that if they stay in the Union then they are certain abolition will come.
South Carolina specifically named "On the 4th day of March next" as the day when "The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy."
Georgia again: "Such are the opinions and such are the practices of the Republican party, who have been called by their own votes to administer the Federal Government under the Constitution of the United States. We know their treachery; we know the shallow pretenses under which they daily disregard its plainest obligations. If we submit to them it will be our fault and not theirs. ... because their avowed purpose is to subvert our society and subject us not only to the loss of our property but the destruction of ourselves, our wives, and our children, and the desolation of our homes, our altars, and our firesides. To avoid these evils we resume the powers which our fathers delegated to the Government of the United States, and henceforth will seek new safeguards for our liberty, equality, security, and tranquillity."
These aren't people thinking they can wait until the next election to see what happens, and perhaps they can decide to succeed then. These are people convinced that if they stay with the Union any longer then their entire way of life will be destroyed. That's why seven states succeed before Lincoln was inaugurated.
How do you get from those statements to "none of these seem to imply that their authors believed that abolition was imminent (in the next 4 years or so)"?
You commented;
> Does not change the fact that immediate abolition was politically infeasible (which is something Lincoln himself reiterated during his inaugural address and I have to reiterate that while opposed to slavery Lincoln himself was not an abolitionist and did not run on abolitionist ticket).
That's not relevant because my comments all concern chargingmarmot's claim at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37383422 , concerning the reasons for why the South succeeded.
That those reasons may be ill-founded is a different discussion, while I want to stay on topic as Civil War discussions have consumed countless hours.
The fact is, many of the states which succeeded did do because they want to keep slavery, as they very clearly justified at the time. The injustices they felt were because they (correctly!) thought that the Constitution was created to preserve slavery, and that compact was no longer being followed.
If you conjecture it was merely "politically advantageous" and they didn't actually believe it, then you aren't taking this seriously and presenting solid evidence to support your conjecture.
Otherwise, are we also to take racist nonsense like
> We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.
as more political posturing that they didn't actually believe?
Why do you believe that? All of the declarations of succession I've argue otherwise.
Georgia's says "The feeling of anti-slavery, which it was well known was very general among the people of the North, had been long dormant or passive; it needed only a question to arouse it into aggressive activity."
Mississippi's says "until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice" against "the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world".
You wrote "none of these seem to imply that their authors believed that abolition was imminent (in the next 4 years or so)."
The documents of succession are clear that they don't want to be under Lincoln, with the Republican party in control.
Mississippi's says "There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union"." They are clear that if they stay in the Union then they are certain abolition will come.
South Carolina specifically named "On the 4th day of March next" as the day when "The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy."
Georgia again: "Such are the opinions and such are the practices of the Republican party, who have been called by their own votes to administer the Federal Government under the Constitution of the United States. We know their treachery; we know the shallow pretenses under which they daily disregard its plainest obligations. If we submit to them it will be our fault and not theirs. ... because their avowed purpose is to subvert our society and subject us not only to the loss of our property but the destruction of ourselves, our wives, and our children, and the desolation of our homes, our altars, and our firesides. To avoid these evils we resume the powers which our fathers delegated to the Government of the United States, and henceforth will seek new safeguards for our liberty, equality, security, and tranquillity."
These aren't people thinking they can wait until the next election to see what happens, and perhaps they can decide to succeed then. These are people convinced that if they stay with the Union any longer then their entire way of life will be destroyed. That's why seven states succeed before Lincoln was inaugurated.
How do you get from those statements to "none of these seem to imply that their authors believed that abolition was imminent (in the next 4 years or so)"?
You commented;
> Does not change the fact that immediate abolition was politically infeasible (which is something Lincoln himself reiterated during his inaugural address and I have to reiterate that while opposed to slavery Lincoln himself was not an abolitionist and did not run on abolitionist ticket).
That's not relevant because my comments all concern chargingmarmot's claim at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37383422 , concerning the reasons for why the South succeeded.
That those reasons may be ill-founded is a different discussion, while I want to stay on topic as Civil War discussions have consumed countless hours.
The fact is, many of the states which succeeded did do because they want to keep slavery, as they very clearly justified at the time. The injustices they felt were because they (correctly!) thought that the Constitution was created to preserve slavery, and that compact was no longer being followed.
If you conjecture it was merely "politically advantageous" and they didn't actually believe it, then you aren't taking this seriously and presenting solid evidence to support your conjecture.
Otherwise, are we also to take racist nonsense like
> We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.
as more political posturing that they didn't actually believe?
> These aren't people thinking they can wait until the next election to see what happens, and perhaps they can decide to succeed then. These are people convinced that if they stay with the Union any longer then their entire way of life will be destroyed. That's why seven states succeed before Lincoln was inaugurated.
Yes, thank you, that's exactly what I sad. Southern politicians believed that they'll never be in a stronger position than they were at that point and if they were going to do something they have to do it now.
> The fact is, many of the states which succeeded did do because they want to keep slavery, as they very clearly justified at the time.
Absolutely. Never claimed the opposite. My only point that they rebelled because they believed that the Republicans will weaken and restrict the institution of slavery over time which would result in eventual abolition.
> If you conjecture it was merely "politically advantageous" and they didn't actually believe it, then you aren't taking this seriously and presenting solid evidence to support your conjecture.
I'm sorry but you arguments seem to lack nuance to an almost extreme degree. There is a lot space between "maintaining the status quo" and "imminent (over the next 4 years) abolition". Of course they believed that the new Republican administration and shifting popular opinions in the north (from maintaining the status quo to limiting the expansion of slavery into new territories) were a huge threat to slavery.
> How do you get from those statements to "none of these seem to imply that their authors believed that abolition was imminent (in the next 4 years or so)"?
I'm seriously puzzled how do we get the complete opposite by reading the same words? None of those quotes imply that they believed that abolition was imminent or might happen in the near future.
My entire point was and still is this:
while their desire to maintain slavery was obviously the main reason of the rebellion nobody viewed abolition as an imminent threat or that it might occur over the next 4 years (that was politically inconceivable both in the south and the north). The southern states seceded because their politicians assumed that the new administration will do everything it can to weaken the institution of slavery and limit its expansion which would've led to its eventual demise (at and indeterminate point in the future).
Could you clarify which part exactly do you disagree with?
Yes, thank you, that's exactly what I sad. Southern politicians believed that they'll never be in a stronger position than they were at that point and if they were going to do something they have to do it now.
> The fact is, many of the states which succeeded did do because they want to keep slavery, as they very clearly justified at the time.
Absolutely. Never claimed the opposite. My only point that they rebelled because they believed that the Republicans will weaken and restrict the institution of slavery over time which would result in eventual abolition.
> If you conjecture it was merely "politically advantageous" and they didn't actually believe it, then you aren't taking this seriously and presenting solid evidence to support your conjecture.
I'm sorry but you arguments seem to lack nuance to an almost extreme degree. There is a lot space between "maintaining the status quo" and "imminent (over the next 4 years) abolition". Of course they believed that the new Republican administration and shifting popular opinions in the north (from maintaining the status quo to limiting the expansion of slavery into new territories) were a huge threat to slavery.
> How do you get from those statements to "none of these seem to imply that their authors believed that abolition was imminent (in the next 4 years or so)"?
I'm seriously puzzled how do we get the complete opposite by reading the same words? None of those quotes imply that they believed that abolition was imminent or might happen in the near future.
My entire point was and still is this:
while their desire to maintain slavery was obviously the main reason of the rebellion nobody viewed abolition as an imminent threat or that it might occur over the next 4 years (that was politically inconceivable both in the south and the north). The southern states seceded because their politicians assumed that the new administration will do everything it can to weaken the institution of slavery and limit its expansion which would've led to its eventual demise (at and indeterminate point in the future).
Could you clarify which part exactly do you disagree with?
Because never in the history of humanity has a political faction used a knowingly distorted narrative about a group they oppose to justify their own actions.
Documents like that are a much better guide to the normative beliefs to which the authors wish to appeal than the factual beliefs they hold.
Documents like that are a much better guide to the normative beliefs to which the authors wish to appeal than the factual beliefs they hold.
What Texas deemed “odious unconstitutional restrictions”.
It wasn’t necessarily retroactive, but it was always pretense.
edit: see Texas’ declaration of secession for what it looked like when they weren’t shy about saying the quiet part out loud.
edit: see Texas’ declaration of secession for what it looked like when they weren’t shy about saying the quiet part out loud.
This one is called a circumstantial ad hominem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Circumstantial
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Circumstantial
Not exactly sure what you’re getting at. Use your words.
I can’t find the article now, but a Canadian doctor with Dalit ancestry (I think he grew up here) was in the news for firing a medical receptionist on the spot after she made a comment about lower castes.
It kind of sucks that South Asians apparently need to be singled out like this, but it seems like a pretty cut-and-dried civil rights issue.
It kind of sucks that South Asians apparently need to be singled out like this, but it seems like a pretty cut-and-dried civil rights issue.
It's the classic melting pot dissolving identities, making those depending on it for self worth super zealous.
[deleted]
I am sorry you have had such a bad luck with your company. All the education in the world can't teach basic human decency. You can probably take some solace in the fact that I have not seen any such behaviour in the Indian tech scene so far. Maybe give it a shot and come here (trade a different
set of problems). It must be an absolutely horrible of a mix in the US for this to be 8:10.
> It must be an absolutely horrible of a mix in the US for this to be 8:10.
The US is quite large so this is a YMMV thing. I solve this issue by just not associating very much with my ex-countrymen. I get enough of them when I go to visit my parents, I don't need to constantly mingle with more Indians. I have a solid set of diverse friends (one or two are Indian).
It helps that in my workplace I tend not to think of anyone as a 'friend' and just keep my interactions professional.
The US is quite large so this is a YMMV thing. I solve this issue by just not associating very much with my ex-countrymen. I get enough of them when I go to visit my parents, I don't need to constantly mingle with more Indians. I have a solid set of diverse friends (one or two are Indian).
It helps that in my workplace I tend not to think of anyone as a 'friend' and just keep my interactions professional.
I don't understand how educated people behave this way. I have seen this in illiterates but modern educated people behaving this way is absolutely mind boggling.
What do you mean by “behave this way”? I have no idea what in particular you’re referring to. It could be parent. Or something in grand parent and you’re supporting parent.
If you think the comment was made in good faith with good intentions ;) and you read my reply above, it should be pretty obvious that I am talking about educated people discriminating on the basis of caste.
You now the bit about Nazis, you can be two of either a) a nice person b) an intelligent person c) a Nazi.
I guess the works for all kinds of cases of discrimination.
I guess the works for all kinds of cases of discrimination.
Pretty sure they're referring to the act of caste discrimination.
Half of it came during my academic phase though!
Yeah a professor’s blog post was shared recently that he only felt safe to disclose his caste once he had achieved tenure, and that basically every CS professor of South Asian descent in North America is from the higher castes (as in, the number who aren’t is in the single digits).
Do you mean in India? If you don't mind can you tell me what years those were? I just want to see if I happen to live in a bubble or it was a different time (as in, sufficiently long ago for me to not see it).
The academic phase was during my PhD between 2009 and 2017 in Texas. Upper Caste Hindu professors (2) and fellow grad students and postdocs (2). The professors thankfully weren’t my advisors, but made it their business to pester every Indian student during poster presentations if they found they were not upper caste or weren’t behaving as one (by eating or dating habits).
You can absolutely still report them, if you’re no longer in the university they don’t have much power to influence your career anymore.
I think you might have too much faith in the HR departments of Texas universities :)
UT Southwestern is quite famous for protecting its image at all costs.
UT Southwestern is quite famous for protecting its image at all costs.
People take their culture with them.
When I was a child there were a lot of scandals about girls disappearing from school because they were married off to a cousin back in Morocco.
When I was a child there were a lot of scandals about girls disappearing from school because they were married off to a cousin back in Morocco.
It's not like "these people" haven't heard of that idea of basic human decency, more like they think whatever the books they carry has a priority over someone else's ethics and laws. But teaching them what's correct to a free man is a bit weird and it's also a rather steep slippery slope towards Chinese Uighur camp situation, so these problems are starting to grow and compound everywhere in developed worlds.
> But teaching them what's correct to a free man is a bit weird and it's also a rather steep slippery slope towards Chinese Uighur camp situation
You think teaching them that it's wrong to discriminate based on caste is a step on "a rather steep slippery slope towards" genocide??
You think teaching them that it's wrong to discriminate based on caste is a step on "a rather steep slippery slope towards" genocide??
Stop downvoting this person, you will make their comment disappear and it's not warranted. They are simply sharing their personal experience and are looking to understand the person they are replying to.
And because I know people will wonder: no, I am not Indian and know very little about caste so you can rest assured this isn't a biased response.
And because I know people will wonder: no, I am not Indian and know very little about caste so you can rest assured this isn't a biased response.
The new law that is being passed will not solve your personal issues with socializing. The law is designed to protect you from unfair discrimination by your employer, i.e. being fired due to your caste.
Analogy here would be, I’m saying I almost got robbed, robbery is real. You’re coming and saying, “this new law won’t solve your issue, it’s for actual robbery only.”
Awareness is good too, a lot of people’s here have anecdotes from their time in academia (almost all South Asian professors are from higher castes), where it is easier to set up protections.
Good luck gathering any evidence to even fight such a case. You’re only protected insofar as you can prove in the courts that you were discriminated against.
if companies are found liable they will (finally, at least start to) pay attention to the problem. (will it solve it overnight? no, of course not.)
Sorry, maybe I misunderstood. Can you describe a specific incident in your employment history where you were fired from a job or denied a promotion due to your caste or ancestry? You should be able to sue for this right now (even before SB403) with this law:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unruh_Civil_Rights_Act
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unruh_Civil_Rights_Act
>Can you describe a specific incident in your employment history where you were fired from a job or denied a promotion due to your caste or ancestry?
Just clarifying that discrimination doesn't have to result in being fired or passed over for a promotion to count as discrimination.
Just clarifying that discrimination doesn't have to result in being fired or passed over for a promotion to count as discrimination.
Can you give an example please?
IANAL, but basically anything that negatively impacts a protected class and doesn't have a clear business purpose can be argued as discrimination. "Reasonable accommodations" without "undue hardship" are key phrases you will commonly hear as being the expectations for employers. Those accommodations can include stuff like installing ramps for an employee in a wheelchair or granting a new mother time to pump. The employee doesn't have to be fired or denied a promotion, simply making their job or life more difficult is often enough to be considered discrimination.
I don't think you understand the concept of discrimination
I do, but I'm wondering, how far can SB403 go before you start bumping into 1st Amendment issues?
1. If a bunch of co-workers who are vegetarian due to their ancestry choose to exclude me from lunches because I want to eat meat, can I sue them for caste discrimination?
2. If someone makes fun of me because I wear a mark on my forehead, can I sue them for caste discrimination?
All laws need to have bounds that operate within the constraints of the US Constitution. This is why I was limiting the scope of my comments to hiring/firing/promotion related topics. I am sympathetic to social issues like what OP is talking about, but also do not believe that new laws can solve all of them.
1. If a bunch of co-workers who are vegetarian due to their ancestry choose to exclude me from lunches because I want to eat meat, can I sue them for caste discrimination?
2. If someone makes fun of me because I wear a mark on my forehead, can I sue them for caste discrimination?
All laws need to have bounds that operate within the constraints of the US Constitution. This is why I was limiting the scope of my comments to hiring/firing/promotion related topics. I am sympathetic to social issues like what OP is talking about, but also do not believe that new laws can solve all of them.
Unless you oppose anti discrimination laws in general what possible reason could there be to not add caste to them? (not even a rhetorical there seem to be plenty of people who oppose this but I wasn't able to deduce their reasoning just from the article)
op's comment included work. Unless it's common to measure social acquaintances by seniority.
Also, the existence of such a law should have a chilling effect on this behaviour. Even if it doesn't get rid of it. E.g. presumably HR policies & training will have to be updated to highlight it on pain of exposing employers to legal action.
Also, the existence of such a law should have a chilling effect on this behaviour. Even if it doesn't get rid of it. E.g. presumably HR policies & training will have to be updated to highlight it on pain of exposing employers to legal action.
Changing norms in one place can influence changes in others. Can anyone not believe that Truman's desegregation of the armed forces in the late 1940s helped set the stage white acceptance of the later civil rights movements of the 50s and 60s?
Depending on the actions his coworkers took when they were “offended”, you can have a discrimination case without actually losing your job.
The point sailed right over your head. Before you ask what I mean, I want you to think of a few possibilities first.
Did you ever analyze if this was purely due to your caste or if it was due to you being perceived (real or not I don’t know) as someone who is from the reserved category and hence benefited from reservation in college admission.
I don’t give a shit about caste, never have, and for most part can’t tell based on last names, but I’ll be honest that even after decades I still feel a little raw about reservation.
And therein lies the rub, as in will it or not, these legislations lead to people being unfairly sued for caste discrimination upon not getting a job due to lack of capability.
I don’t give a shit about caste, never have, and for most part can’t tell based on last names, but I’ll be honest that even after decades I still feel a little raw about reservation.
And therein lies the rub, as in will it or not, these legislations lead to people being unfairly sued for caste discrimination upon not getting a job due to lack of capability.
As mentioned, I’m only slightly lower than the uppermost caste, so I’m not in any extreme reservation category. And I didn’t use reservation either.
None of that matters since many of these incidents happen within 15 minutes of the first meeting. Roughly around when they start to realize and ask, “oh, you’re not Brahmin?”
Importantly, this question sounds more like trying to find a reason why casteism is justified tbh.
None of that matters since many of these incidents happen within 15 minutes of the first meeting. Roughly around when they start to realize and ask, “oh, you’re not Brahmin?”
Importantly, this question sounds more like trying to find a reason why casteism is justified tbh.
> Importantly, this question sounds more like trying to find a reason why casteism is justified tbh.
No of course it’s not justified, and not sure why you thought I was trying to do that. I apologize if my comment came across like that.
I have never been in your shoes, so was trying to understand.
No of course it’s not justified, and not sure why you thought I was trying to do that. I apologize if my comment came across like that.
I have never been in your shoes, so was trying to understand.
I'm legitimately confused about the strength of opposition to the measure. It seems like it should be a small, uncontroversial, update to protected categories. Are people opposing the term "caste" appearing in U.S. law? Is the concern that the law will cause other Americans to judge Indian/Nepalese/Sri Lankan communities?
If anyone here can explain the emotional significance of the bill to someone who is not South Asian, I'd appreciate it!
If anyone here can explain the emotional significance of the bill to someone who is not South Asian, I'd appreciate it!
It appears that the South Asian community in California is angry that the bill would mean that caste discrimination exists, and there seems to be the implication that many in that community want to bring that aspect of their culture with them to America.
The actual bill: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...
The actual bill: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...
*some people in the south Asian community
No one I know supports the caste system and as a person with Indian parents living in California I cheer this bill happening. People from South Asia aren’t a monolith, and my understanding is that caste based discrimination is more common in the Bay Area than other parts of the state, but either way discrimination based on religion, sex, gender, race, ethnicity, income, or any sort of box you can end up in that you don’t choose to be in should be illegal under the civil rights act.
No one I know supports the caste system and as a person with Indian parents living in California I cheer this bill happening. People from South Asia aren’t a monolith, and my understanding is that caste based discrimination is more common in the Bay Area than other parts of the state, but either way discrimination based on religion, sex, gender, race, ethnicity, income, or any sort of box you can end up in that you don’t choose to be in should be illegal under the civil rights act.
Most of the people I have talked to in person about this with are opposed because they still like the caste discrimination, they just don’t like being forced to openly admit it. Nonsense about social order and the way things are and whatnot.
What's mentioned in the article is that as caste is a primarily SE Asian phenomenon, this is a bill that targets SE Asians. People tend not to like being singled out on the basis of their race.
Mentioned in the article was one person who tried to address this by banning discrimination "on the basis of ancestry, including caste" which seems to me to be a completely reasonable adjustment.
Mentioned in the article was one person who tried to address this by banning discrimination "on the basis of ancestry, including caste" which seems to me to be a completely reasonable adjustment.
> What's mentioned in the article is that as caste is a primarily SE Asian phenomenon, this is a bill that targets SE Asians. People tend not to like being singled out on the basis of their race.
That seems weak.
One should not (and legally may not) discriminate on the basis of being Indian, which is a South Asian phenomenon. One should not discriminate on the basis of having Native Hawaiian ancestry, which is a Hawaiian phenomenon. And one should not discriminate on the basis of how many of someone’s ancestors happen to have been slaves in America, which is an American phenomenon (although there are surely analogues elsewhere).
edit: SE -> South.
That seems weak.
One should not (and legally may not) discriminate on the basis of being Indian, which is a South Asian phenomenon. One should not discriminate on the basis of having Native Hawaiian ancestry, which is a Hawaiian phenomenon. And one should not discriminate on the basis of how many of someone’s ancestors happen to have been slaves in America, which is an American phenomenon (although there are surely analogues elsewhere).
edit: SE -> South.
I don't disagree. It's just something the people who benefit from getting to discriminate focused on to try to get to keep discriminating.
But IMO it's fine, because banning discrimination based on ancestry in general is better than banning discrimination on the basis of ancestry only when caste is involved.
Mrs. McCoy shouldn't be able to discriminate against Mrs. Hatfield on the basis of last name either.
But IMO it's fine, because banning discrimination based on ancestry in general is better than banning discrimination on the basis of ancestry only when caste is involved.
Mrs. McCoy shouldn't be able to discriminate against Mrs. Hatfield on the basis of last name either.
[deleted]
> Mentioned in the article was one person who tried to address this by banning discrimination "on the basis of ancestry, including caste" which seems to me to be a completely reasonable adjustment.
The bill has already been modified to use that verbiage.
"Eventually, Wahab agreed to place caste under “ancestry” rather than list it as a standalone category"
So it seems that those still opposed to the bill are not satisfied with that amendment.
The bill has already been modified to use that verbiage.
"Eventually, Wahab agreed to place caste under “ancestry” rather than list it as a standalone category"
So it seems that those still opposed to the bill are not satisfied with that amendment.
For sure, which to me says that the targeting issue wasn't actually the real problem, which of course it wasn't.
Discrimination based on ancestry shouldn't be allowed regardless of whether it's on a short timeframe (caste) or a long timeframe (race).
What we're seeing now is what happens when people in positions of nonzero power who are used to getting to discriminate, are told not to. We saw the same thing in the American south when people were told they had to stop discriminating against people of African ancestry.
Discrimination based on ancestry shouldn't be allowed regardless of whether it's on a short timeframe (caste) or a long timeframe (race).
What we're seeing now is what happens when people in positions of nonzero power who are used to getting to discriminate, are told not to. We saw the same thing in the American south when people were told they had to stop discriminating against people of African ancestry.
The bill is opposed by the Hindu American Foundation. They give their rationale for opposing the bill in:
https://www.hinduamerican.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/HAF...
They claim:
"We share the admirable goals of protecting civil rights and eliminating all forms of prejudice and discrimination, including based on caste. As such, the question is not whether we deal with allegations of caste discrimination, but how. If and when caste discrimination allegations emerge, they should be adjudicated under the existing protected class of ancestry, just as the state of California did in California Department of Fair Employment Housing v. Cisco Systems, Inc."
In https://docs.google.com/document/d/1u0jxQY_cLti2XP3nEw0d9OBa... they state:
"There is only one legal case on the issue of caste-discrimination in the United States to date. It involves an allegation of caste-based discrimination in the US."
and give some facts related to that case.
( from https://www.hinduamerican.org/press-statements )
https://www.hinduamerican.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/HAF...
They claim:
"We share the admirable goals of protecting civil rights and eliminating all forms of prejudice and discrimination, including based on caste. As such, the question is not whether we deal with allegations of caste discrimination, but how. If and when caste discrimination allegations emerge, they should be adjudicated under the existing protected class of ancestry, just as the state of California did in California Department of Fair Employment Housing v. Cisco Systems, Inc."
In https://docs.google.com/document/d/1u0jxQY_cLti2XP3nEw0d9OBa... they state:
"There is only one legal case on the issue of caste-discrimination in the United States to date. It involves an allegation of caste-based discrimination in the US."
and give some facts related to that case.
( from https://www.hinduamerican.org/press-statements )
So, the problem is also the fact the whole concept of caste, not just discrimination based on it, risks being painted in a bad light.
I am reading between the lines so. Would be a stretch to speculate about the caste make-up of said association?
I am reading between the lines so. Would be a stretch to speculate about the caste make-up of said association?
Some information about the caste according to the Hindu American Foundation a few years back:
>In 2010, HAF issued a report titled "Hinduism: Not Cast in Caste" alleging that Christian missionaries were able to push their proselytizing agenda only because of the prevalence of caste discrimination in India; it went to argue that caste cannot be considered to be an intrinsic definitional aspect of Hinduism—due to a lack of theological sanction in its most sacred texts—and urged for reforms led by Hindus themselves. This led to a flutter in conservative Hindu circles of India and the next year, HAF toned down their report; they cautioned against the trend of passing resolutions against caste discrimination adopted by various global organizations and held caste to be an internal affair of a sovereign India. HAF has since portrayed castes as occupational guilds which had brought stability to premodern India before being reified under British colonialism; it has vehemently opposed drawing parallels between caste-discrimination and racism, and even any depiction of the caste-system as a rigid birth-determined pyramid of hierarchy.
They started off fighting against the caste system, until the elites in India told them no. Ever since, they've minimized the impact the caste system had and still has -- not just in India.
>In 2010, HAF issued a report titled "Hinduism: Not Cast in Caste" alleging that Christian missionaries were able to push their proselytizing agenda only because of the prevalence of caste discrimination in India; it went to argue that caste cannot be considered to be an intrinsic definitional aspect of Hinduism—due to a lack of theological sanction in its most sacred texts—and urged for reforms led by Hindus themselves. This led to a flutter in conservative Hindu circles of India and the next year, HAF toned down their report; they cautioned against the trend of passing resolutions against caste discrimination adopted by various global organizations and held caste to be an internal affair of a sovereign India. HAF has since portrayed castes as occupational guilds which had brought stability to premodern India before being reified under British colonialism; it has vehemently opposed drawing parallels between caste-discrimination and racism, and even any depiction of the caste-system as a rigid birth-determined pyramid of hierarchy.
They started off fighting against the caste system, until the elites in India told them no. Ever since, they've minimized the impact the caste system had and still has -- not just in India.
Maybe caste discrimination in the US is primarily a SE-Asian phenomenon, but there's plenty examples of caste systems in African nations as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste_systems_in_Africa?useski...
Not just Africa, plenty of other places.
Japan comes to mind, e.g. the Burakumin aka Japanese Untouchables
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burakumin
> Burakumin (部落民, 'hamlet/village people', 'those who live in hamlets/villages') is a term for ethnic Japanese people who are believed to be descended from members of the pre-Meiji castes which were associated with kegare (穢れ, 'defilement'), such as executioners, undertakers, slaughterhouse workers, butchers, and tanners...Due to severe discrimination and ostracism in Japanese society, these groups came to live as outcasts, in their own separate villages or ghettos. After the caste system was abolished, the term burakumin came into use to refer the former caste members and their descendants, who continued to experience stigmatization and discrimination.
Japan comes to mind, e.g. the Burakumin aka Japanese Untouchables
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burakumin
> Burakumin (部落民, 'hamlet/village people', 'those who live in hamlets/villages') is a term for ethnic Japanese people who are believed to be descended from members of the pre-Meiji castes which were associated with kegare (穢れ, 'defilement'), such as executioners, undertakers, slaughterhouse workers, butchers, and tanners...Due to severe discrimination and ostracism in Japanese society, these groups came to live as outcasts, in their own separate villages or ghettos. After the caste system was abolished, the term burakumin came into use to refer the former caste members and their descendants, who continued to experience stigmatization and discrimination.
Question: Is social discrimination based on wealth via witchcraft banned? In Africa those who are entrapaneurial and socially stick out, get hammered in by traditional witchcraft religions..
From what I read, it is rather "witches" that get hammered down, quite literally, instead of dpimg the hammering of poor entrepreneurs.
I can confirm people are singled out everywhere in the tech industry from not being SE Asian. And when they are the caste then will prevent them from moving forward on any front. SE Asians like to hire SE Asians only its pretty horrific and unchecked.
Nitpick, it's South Asia, which is euphemism for India/Pakistan. Southeast is regions culturally more connected to China than India.
> is that as caste is a primarily SE Asian phenomenon
South Asian, not South-East Asian.
South Asian, not South-East Asian.
You're right, my apologies.
It is unfortunately too late to edit the original post :(
It is unfortunately too late to edit the original post :(
Discrimination can be such an umbrella issue. Anything added to that, for example ancestry, has the potential to do more harm than good. What is ancestry? How to prove it? Could a southerner born in Alabama say they were discriminated against colleagues in New York City for his southern ancestry?
I do kind of get the argument that this creates a category of crime that only indians can be convicted (or even accused) of.
At least, nobody is openly saying that they're opposing the law because they want to do caste discrimination but if someone wants to be taken seriously they need to give a good answer for how they'll be addressing it.
At least, nobody is openly saying that they're opposing the law because they want to do caste discrimination but if someone wants to be taken seriously they need to give a good answer for how they'll be addressing it.
You could absolutely accuse or convict a non-Indian of caste discrimination. It might be unlikely, but not impossible. For example, I doubt most non-Indian Americans could competently discriminate on the basis of caste, but there is moderately compelling evidence that quite a few Californian companies do so.
Does it?
I couldn't find details in the article (I just skimmed it though), but what if a non-Indian with almost no understanding of the caste system wakes up and decides they want to take their bigotry to the next level and starts discriminating based on caste just for the hell of it? Wouldn't they still be guilty under this law?
I couldn't find details in the article (I just skimmed it though), but what if a non-Indian with almost no understanding of the caste system wakes up and decides they want to take their bigotry to the next level and starts discriminating based on caste just for the hell of it? Wouldn't they still be guilty under this law?
Of course; but that’s a pretty big leap. It is very unlikely that some non-Indian bigot decides to study up on castes and begin discriminating on their basis. On the other hand, it is a very short leap that someone who is Indian might. Thus, in reality Indians are much more likely to break this law.
1. There are plenty of laws that, in practice, only affect certain groups. There are plenty of laws around reproductive rights and sexual assault that are written in a way that they effectively target only one gender. Certain professions such as doctors and lawyers have regulations around what they can and cannot do because of their professions. Certain taxes effectively target only certain socio-economic classes.
2. Opponents of this say that it only targets a certain group of people, but for the exact same reasons, it also only protects one group of people.
2. Opponents of this say that it only targets a certain group of people, but for the exact same reasons, it also only protects one group of people.
To be clear, I agree with you. I just disagree with the idea that it doesn't target a specific group / help a specific group. It does. I also don't see anything wrong with that.
If as a right-handed person I discriminate against left-handed persons, I also both create yet another silly criteria for discrimination and a crime ex nihilo, and I am the only one to blame for that - not the cop that arrests me, nor the judge that correctly finds me guilty, nor the law itself as it follows the principles the universal declaration of human rights (which was both voted by the US and India, BTW). The argument is fallacious.
I get that argument but have no sympathy for it whatsoever
Banning discrimination based on ancestry, ethnicity, and religion should ban the type of thing caste discrimination is.
[deleted]
Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshi and Nepalese.
Not really; the argument would be that it creates a crime only Hindus can be accused of.
A Muslim or Christian or Sikh Indian, Pakistani, etc., would not be targets for caste discrimination lawsuits, under the logic.
Of course, as a legal matter, that's not true; anyone could be accused of caste discrimination if the law passes, whatever their religion, race, or national origin.
A Muslim or Christian or Sikh Indian, Pakistani, etc., would not be targets for caste discrimination lawsuits, under the logic.
Of course, as a legal matter, that's not true; anyone could be accused of caste discrimination if the law passes, whatever their religion, race, or national origin.
This is wrong and is a flawed understanding of how caste works in the indian subcontinent. Every single brown person has a caste. They may be unaware of it (in which case they are likely not lower caste) or not acknowledge it but it definitely exists. It certainly exists among muslims, sikhs and christians in the indian subcontinent. In those cases, religion is the perceived identity to the outsider but caste is right there, under the surface.
Hinduism codified and forms the basis for the caste system but every other religion evolved later or was forced upon people who already had caste.
Hinduism codified and forms the basis for the caste system but every other religion evolved later or was forced upon people who already had caste.
I'm of South Asian Muslim heritage, and that's just not been my experience at all. Literally nobody I know, ranging from relatives to friends (thus spanning several ethnic groups and a range of wealth/social status) has a concept of this.
There are definitely things like social stratification based on wealth or ethnic group, and you can see things which, I suspect, are remnants of things adjacent to the caste system, such as Jatis, in the form of things like the Memon community.
Granted, even though I am talking about a range of ethnic groups, I'm still talking about north-west Indian ethnic groups: Gujratis, Panjabis, UP/Delhi people, and Pashtuns. Thus, maybe what you're saying holds true in other parts of the subcontinent--or perhaps just in very rural areas (?)
There are definitely things like social stratification based on wealth or ethnic group, and you can see things which, I suspect, are remnants of things adjacent to the caste system, such as Jatis, in the form of things like the Memon community.
Granted, even though I am talking about a range of ethnic groups, I'm still talking about north-west Indian ethnic groups: Gujratis, Panjabis, UP/Delhi people, and Pashtuns. Thus, maybe what you're saying holds true in other parts of the subcontinent--or perhaps just in very rural areas (?)
> Not really; the argument would be that it creates a crime only Hindus can be accused of.
I replied to "that only indians can be convicted of" but as you point out AND THAT I POINTED OUT it's about Hindus, not Indians. There are big populations of Hindus in Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Nepal.
Basically you just replied "not really; exactly what you wrote".
I replied to "that only indians can be convicted of" but as you point out AND THAT I POINTED OUT it's about Hindus, not Indians. There are big populations of Hindus in Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Nepal.
Basically you just replied "not really; exactly what you wrote".
I wonder if they’re going to challenge it based on freedom of religion (similar to Christianity and discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation).
That would certainly be interesting.
Having left law to once again be a software engineer, I almost never find myself curious about the development of caselaw, but I think I'd follow that case lol
Having left law to once again be a software engineer, I almost never find myself curious about the development of caselaw, but I think I'd follow that case lol
Japan used to have a caste system.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-34615972
Japan has generally moved on with heavy government crackdown.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-34615972
Japan has generally moved on with heavy government crackdown.
Large portions of the US and the courts believe we live in a post-racial society where similar protections are affronts to society and them personally. Even teaching about historical slavery and discrimination is opposed.
Not sure why south Asians in general would be any more enlightened.
Not sure why south Asians in general would be any more enlightened.
[deleted]
There’s a glaring absence of any polling on the matter in this article. Instead we get a count of the number of protesters (hundreds!) and descriptions of lines spilling out the door.
I get the feeling the author is heavily pro-caste and is carefully selecting data to fit their narrative.
I get the feeling the author is heavily pro-caste and is carefully selecting data to fit their narrative.
Agreed. Shame on the editor
> confused about the strength of opposition to the measure
I’m also genuinely surprised and frankly intrigued by how quickly this topic gets flagged off HN. It seems there is serious disagreement about this in the tech community.
I’m also genuinely surprised and frankly intrigued by how quickly this topic gets flagged off HN. It seems there is serious disagreement about this in the tech community.
I think there is a case to be made against it. What is the difference between this and people allying up against any other perceived outsider? Which is something that I would say is wrong, but isn't something I believe should be illegal.
It's disappointing that companies lack the ability to deal with this issue in a mature way because having a policy and culture of inclusivity _should_ be enough to address this.
I realize this is all derived from an optimistic viewpoint, but I think it's still worth sharing.
It's disappointing that companies lack the ability to deal with this issue in a mature way because having a policy and culture of inclusivity _should_ be enough to address this.
I realize this is all derived from an optimistic viewpoint, but I think it's still worth sharing.
I am an Indian who oppose this bill, because of multiple reasons.
A good amount of Indian population here in America is form a Hindu background. And the majority of that population doesn't really believe in a caste system. I have never ever ill intentionally asked anyone their caste. But the way the bill is worded, It implies that anyone in my lineage can be sued based on my perceived caste (based on allegations of course) that is inherited to me against my will. That's is literally discriminatory law.
The bill defines caste as:
“Caste” means an individual’s perceived position in a system of social stratification on the basis of inherited status.
My son who never ever knew the term caste, can be sued when he grows up if in his 40s he becomes a manager and promoted someone which not promoting someone else. Right or wrong aside, my son did nothing wrong to be automatically finding himself in a category of a "perceived caste" that can be sued for caste discrimination.
Mankind should work against such categorizations including religions.
The problem with that argument is that it's the same one used to justify not having laws against racial discrimination or gender discrimination.
E.g. you can be a white manager and not a racist and promote a better-qualified white employee rather than a less-qualified black one, and then be sued. "Just because I automatically found myself being white!"
The solution is simply to have good documentation around the reasons for who you're promoting, and then the suit will lose. (In 99.99% of cases, the suit won't happen in the first place because no lawyer would take it if there isn't hard evidence of actual racial discrimination.) This kind of documentation is generally pretty easy, and it's good business practice besides.
This has worked pretty well at making a big dent in race-based discrimination. Why should it be any different for caste-based discrimination?
E.g. you can be a white manager and not a racist and promote a better-qualified white employee rather than a less-qualified black one, and then be sued. "Just because I automatically found myself being white!"
The solution is simply to have good documentation around the reasons for who you're promoting, and then the suit will lose. (In 99.99% of cases, the suit won't happen in the first place because no lawyer would take it if there isn't hard evidence of actual racial discrimination.) This kind of documentation is generally pretty easy, and it's good business practice besides.
This has worked pretty well at making a big dent in race-based discrimination. Why should it be any different for caste-based discrimination?
They have been literally infinite issues related to gender and race discrimination before such protections were in the law. Regarding the caste-based issue, there is literally just one case that was in the courts. And the case was pulled back (not settled). There is Zero evidence of any caste-based discrimination across the Americas in workplace today.
You can not get away from your race. But you can get away from religions and caste. I would like to get away from my religion and caste. This bill makes it impossible.
You can not get away from your race. But you can get away from religions and caste. I would like to get away from my religion and caste. This bill makes it impossible.
> There is Zero evidence of any caste-based discrimination across the Americas in workplace today.
That seems to be factually untrue. And you can't cite the lack of court cases as evidence, because court cases aren't brought unless there's a law in the first place.
> I would like to get away from my religion and caste. This bill makes it impossible.
No, the bill is a path to do precisely that. What you're saying makes as much sense as "passing anti-racism laws makes it impossible to get away from race as issue". That's not how it works.
That seems to be factually untrue. And you can't cite the lack of court cases as evidence, because court cases aren't brought unless there's a law in the first place.
> I would like to get away from my religion and caste. This bill makes it impossible.
No, the bill is a path to do precisely that. What you're saying makes as much sense as "passing anti-racism laws makes it impossible to get away from race as issue". That's not how it works.
"But the way the bill is worded, It implies that anyone in my lineage can be sued based on my perceived caste (based on allegations of course) that is inherited to me against my will."
Not a legal expert but this is extremely far fetched. You must have a great deal of contempt for the US legal system if you think this.
Not a legal expert but this is extremely far fetched. You must have a great deal of contempt for the US legal system if you think this.
More like "now under this bill, I cannot discriminate anymore based on my, and others, heritage that was opposed on us against their will, obviously this is against nature / the will of the gods..."
Bhai, I've never discriminated against anybody ever or even thought about it. I'm an extremely liberal person who support all the liberal policies in America. People need to open their eyes and realize that this bill is meant for split and division, not unity. This is definitely a larger political game than me and you.
Ah, pardon? In case caste based discrimination isn't a thing, this bill won't make a difference. And it wont devide anyone.
The title was, that it hit a nerve, that bill. It seems that truely is the case...
The title was, that it hit a nerve, that bill. It seems that truely is the case...
It's not just about legal system being abused. I would like to see casteism dissolved from the world. Grew up in India and I was taught to be caste agnostic. I have seen my parents being friends with and working with people of all castes. I grew up pretty liberal. This bill is trying to attack on a problem that does not exist on the same scale as any of the other discriminatory issues that we ever talk about here in America. We are creating a problem out of our imagination. The kind of arguments that I see from people on internet including this forum are hilarious. People say that The people of highcast would say vegetarians only for the room advertisement or someone can be denied of a marriage proposal based on their caste. That's all really stupid talk. Being a vegetarianism is a global phenomena. Just because I'm a Hindu doesn't mean I am trying to discriminate against someone who eats non vegetarian because they are low caste and I'm not a low caste (again in perception only). For a matter like marriage, it is extremely personal and people are allowed to decline on proposals based on their personal choice.
the bill is trying to attack on a problem that does not exist on the same scale as any of the other discriminatory issues
This is an invalid argument. You are effectively defending a practice based on the argument that it's not widespread. That's the same as saying that we don't need to protect transgender issues because they hardly ever get discriminated against. No -- for one, you cannot say for certain how widespread the practice is (and "I'm transgender myself" does not make you an authority on that), and second: low prevalence is not a reason for not prohibiting something. What's next? We shouldn't make laws against police violence because they kill less than 100 people/year?
If you really want to see casteism dissolved, you should not oppose laws trying to codify exactly that.
This is an invalid argument. You are effectively defending a practice based on the argument that it's not widespread. That's the same as saying that we don't need to protect transgender issues because they hardly ever get discriminated against. No -- for one, you cannot say for certain how widespread the practice is (and "I'm transgender myself" does not make you an authority on that), and second: low prevalence is not a reason for not prohibiting something. What's next? We shouldn't make laws against police violence because they kill less than 100 people/year?
If you really want to see casteism dissolved, you should not oppose laws trying to codify exactly that.
With that logic, the fact that I can find people who were raised in liberal environments and taught not to discriminate at all is sufficient grounds to get rid of anti-discrimination laws altogether.
That's absurd. The laws aren't for people who wouldn't discriminate. They're for the people who demonstrably do.
That's absurd. The laws aren't for people who wouldn't discriminate. They're for the people who demonstrably do.
I think you have some misunderstanding about how anti-discrimination laws actually work.
Others probably have more expertise than me, but I would highlight the following points:
1) The only way such a lawsuit would be successful is if he actually did something to indicate some decision was based off of caste.
2) Everyone can already be sued based off of attributes they have inherited against their will. People can be sued for discriminating against the opposite (or even the same!) gender, people can be sued for discriminating on the basis of race. Your son didn't choose to get born Indian, but he could still be sued for promoting Indians over Hispanics or something.
3) It is not only higher caste Hindus that can be sued for caste discrimination if that's a protected status. A manager of no religion or any religion could also be theoretically sued for discriminating against low-caste Hindus--or descendants of Japanese butchers, which, to my knowledge, constitute a low caste in Japan.
Others probably have more expertise than me, but I would highlight the following points:
1) The only way such a lawsuit would be successful is if he actually did something to indicate some decision was based off of caste.
2) Everyone can already be sued based off of attributes they have inherited against their will. People can be sued for discriminating against the opposite (or even the same!) gender, people can be sued for discriminating on the basis of race. Your son didn't choose to get born Indian, but he could still be sued for promoting Indians over Hispanics or something.
3) It is not only higher caste Hindus that can be sued for caste discrimination if that's a protected status. A manager of no religion or any religion could also be theoretically sued for discriminating against low-caste Hindus--or descendants of Japanese butchers, which, to my knowledge, constitute a low caste in Japan.
The amount of damage BS socio-economic systems like caste have done to human dignity is incalculable[1].
Some idiot ages ago (lets call them M) thought it was a good idea to build a system where people could bake in a heirarchy that dictated and guard railed what one could do, be and have. M's f****ery was well recognized by BR Ambedkar(one of the founding fathers of the Constitution) who baked into the constitution that this was basically not just illegal but also we needed tons of affirmative action just to repair the damage. And it has not gone away.
If someone(like I mistakenly did once) talks about equality to push back against reservation, they are missing the point. You have the luxury to not see, nigh rail, against what is never wrought on you. You may thus have the luxury to not see caste.
You have to understand one thing. What ever the vedas, puranas and upanishads are or have , they have nothing[2] (atleast nothing remotely consistent) on the the modern form of jurisprudence present in most democracies i.e. no one who wrote those things seemed to care or understand anything about the idea of Equality, Liberty and Fraternity before the law.
So if you hear someone say about indian culture was much more "advanced" socio-economically ages ago. Ask for context, Ask them about M[1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manusmriti [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manusmriti#Chronology
Some idiot ages ago (lets call them M) thought it was a good idea to build a system where people could bake in a heirarchy that dictated and guard railed what one could do, be and have. M's f****ery was well recognized by BR Ambedkar(one of the founding fathers of the Constitution) who baked into the constitution that this was basically not just illegal but also we needed tons of affirmative action just to repair the damage. And it has not gone away.
If someone(like I mistakenly did once) talks about equality to push back against reservation, they are missing the point. You have the luxury to not see, nigh rail, against what is never wrought on you. You may thus have the luxury to not see caste.
You have to understand one thing. What ever the vedas, puranas and upanishads are or have , they have nothing[2] (atleast nothing remotely consistent) on the the modern form of jurisprudence present in most democracies i.e. no one who wrote those things seemed to care or understand anything about the idea of Equality, Liberty and Fraternity before the law.
So if you hear someone say about indian culture was much more "advanced" socio-economically ages ago. Ask for context, Ask them about M[1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manusmriti [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manusmriti#Chronology
When the subject came up at Google I didn't know much to contribute to the discussion. I noticed white people were against it while Indians had a more nuanced approach.
But I always thought the way the predominant Indian leadership, Sundar included, completely ignored the matter was weird. That spoke louder than anything else they could have said.
But I always thought the way the predominant Indian leadership, Sundar included, completely ignored the matter was weird. That spoke louder than anything else they could have said.
> I noticed white people were against it while Indians had a more nuanced approach.
It's not that complicated. White people have been fighting this type of discrimination far more than any other ethnic group in the US. (I am Iranian, and this is completely evident to me).
Nearly every other ethnic group has its own weird culture of discrimination. As these ethnic groups take hold in the US, those forms of discrimination are not, and should not be tolerated.
One thing to consider is, many of the Indians that _are able to make it to the US_, are the ones who have benefited from the high class of their caste. Even if they're against it in theory, in practice that's going to take a much more nuanced PoV - so you're going to be seeing a lot of selection bias.
It's not that complicated. White people have been fighting this type of discrimination far more than any other ethnic group in the US. (I am Iranian, and this is completely evident to me).
Nearly every other ethnic group has its own weird culture of discrimination. As these ethnic groups take hold in the US, those forms of discrimination are not, and should not be tolerated.
One thing to consider is, many of the Indians that _are able to make it to the US_, are the ones who have benefited from the high class of their caste. Even if they're against it in theory, in practice that's going to take a much more nuanced PoV - so you're going to be seeing a lot of selection bias.
White people were against caste discrimination, or white people were against doing anything about caste discrimination?
And what was the nuance of the Indian approach you saw? E.g. you can say "racism is bad and racial discrimination in employment and housing and services should be illegal" and you don't really need a whole lot of nuance. Is there something about Indian caste discrimination that requires nuance here, in the setting of the US?
And what was the nuance of the Indian approach you saw? E.g. you can say "racism is bad and racial discrimination in employment and housing and services should be illegal" and you don't really need a whole lot of nuance. Is there something about Indian caste discrimination that requires nuance here, in the setting of the US?
Clarifying:
White people were against caste discrimination.
From Indians I heard several responses, from against castes to indifferent. But I never heard someone defending it.
Eg: Some said it wasn't an issue, some said it was a big issue that hardly affect Indians in America. Some said India is too big and diverse and that castes only matter in the more undeveloped regions of India.
White people were against caste discrimination.
From Indians I heard several responses, from against castes to indifferent. But I never heard someone defending it.
Eg: Some said it wasn't an issue, some said it was a big issue that hardly affect Indians in America. Some said India is too big and diverse and that castes only matter in the more undeveloped regions of India.
[deleted]
I'd be interested to know more about this
> a proposal that many felt was unnecessary and unfairly tarnished the image of the South Asian community
I'm white yet I don't feel "unfairly tarnished" by the banning of white supremacy.
Nevertheless, plenty of Americans (mostly but not exclusively white) do oppose legislative constraints on white supremacy and I think it's fair to say that they "feel tarnished" by them. My read is that this opposition comes from the same place.
I'm white yet I don't feel "unfairly tarnished" by the banning of white supremacy.
Nevertheless, plenty of Americans (mostly but not exclusively white) do oppose legislative constraints on white supremacy and I think it's fair to say that they "feel tarnished" by them. My read is that this opposition comes from the same place.
Difference being that discrimination by race is already illegal and therefore banning white supremacy amounts to limiting speech. Banning white supremacy would be equivalent to banning support of caste discrimination, which is different from banning caste discrimination itself.
> banning white supremacy amounts to limiting speech
I'm saying that I'm not threatened by the existing constraints on white supremacy: not limitations on speech, but the actual bans on discriminatory practices.
I'm saying that I'm not threatened by the existing constraints on white supremacy: not limitations on speech, but the actual bans on discriminatory practices.
Ah I misread your first line. I don't think many people, white or otherwise feel tarnished by the banning of literal race discrimination such as white supremacy, which probably contributed to my misreading.
I figured you were referring to banning it even in the way that white supremacists currently exist (ie noisy bigots who would get in legal trouble if they actually discriminated in a meaningful way), which I think more people would oppose on principle.
I figured you were referring to banning it even in the way that white supremacists currently exist (ie noisy bigots who would get in legal trouble if they actually discriminated in a meaningful way), which I think more people would oppose on principle.
White supremacy is not protected speech.
I'm pretty sure it is protected under the first amendment, especially as long as you don't actively advocate direct violence etc.
[deleted]
> there is effectively no "hate speech" exception to the free speech rights protected by the First Amendment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_in_the_United_Stat...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_in_the_United_Stat...
Yes, but that does not mean al speech is permitted in the workplace. A company that permits employees to display neonazi posters will not last very long.
You can be an open racist or you can collect a paycheck but you can't do both.
You can be an open racist or you can collect a paycheck but you can't do both.
White Supremacy isn’t a monolithic specifically defined thing. There are certainly kinds of white supremacism protected by the first amendment. For example, the ideas and works of Spengler.
From the article:
> At one point, Sharma asked ChatGPT to define “caste,” and then pointed out the number of times that the word “Hindu” appeared in the computer’s response. “That’s not an accident,” Sharma later said in an interview. “It’s been seeded for such a long time. The word is a hate brand.”
I for one am hoping this argument technique doesn't catch on. Pattern matches like a fallacy, "argument from LLM" or some such.
> At one point, Sharma asked ChatGPT to define “caste,” and then pointed out the number of times that the word “Hindu” appeared in the computer’s response. “That’s not an accident,” Sharma later said in an interview. “It’s been seeded for such a long time. The word is a hate brand.”
I for one am hoping this argument technique doesn't catch on. Pattern matches like a fallacy, "argument from LLM" or some such.
I propose "argumentum ab automato" for this type of fallacy.
Also, I can't replicate it? I gave ChatGPT the prompts "Define caste," "explain caste to me," and "discuss caste discrimination" and the responses didn't include the word Hindu once.
Notable excerpts:
"Castes have been particularly prevalent in certain societies, notably in parts of South Asia, such as India, Nepal, and Sri Lanka." ... "It's important to note that caste systems are not limited to South Asia, as similar systems have existed in other parts of the world. The term "caste" may also be used more broadly to describe any system of social stratification based on hereditary or ascribed characteristics that assign people to different social roles and statuses."
I suppose they OpenAI could have patched ChatGPT between then and now, but I'd like to see the full prompt and conversation history she used.
Notable excerpts:
"Castes have been particularly prevalent in certain societies, notably in parts of South Asia, such as India, Nepal, and Sri Lanka." ... "It's important to note that caste systems are not limited to South Asia, as similar systems have existed in other parts of the world. The term "caste" may also be used more broadly to describe any system of social stratification based on hereditary or ascribed characteristics that assign people to different social roles and statuses."
I suppose they OpenAI could have patched ChatGPT between then and now, but I'd like to see the full prompt and conversation history she used.
Imagine migrating to one of the more open nation-states and bringing your backward-ass practice there.
Even in this very thread there are people going "But maybe it's nuanced!" No. It's not. Imagine thinking that someone having to flick water at you to purify you just because you got touched by an untouchable is a nuanced issue and not blatant idiocy.
(Before any of you start Reeeing, I'm Indian).
Even in this very thread there are people going "But maybe it's nuanced!" No. It's not. Imagine thinking that someone having to flick water at you to purify you just because you got touched by an untouchable is a nuanced issue and not blatant idiocy.
(Before any of you start Reeeing, I'm Indian).
There's this huge myth that people migrate for cultural reasons. To borrow some famous words, "it's the economy, stupid"
> “Everyone has a race. Everyone has an ancestry. Everyone has a gender. Everyone has an age,” Shukla said. “Not everyone has a caste.”
Nor does everyone have a religion. Looks like bigotry is back on the menu.
Nor does everyone have a religion. Looks like bigotry is back on the menu.
"Yes, but are you a protestant atheist or a catholic atheist" is the northern-Irish quip that I think perfectly encapsulates the insanity that is arbitrary lines of discrimination. You can intellectually reject any of our ridiculous social-construction, but our societies always seem to try to squeeze you into it and never let you reject it. It's deeply disheartening.
A lot of discussion about caste system in California came up after the Cisco discrimination law-suit by the California civil rights department accusing two supervisors and Cisco of discriminating based on caste.
It's important to note that the civil rights department voluntarily dismissed its case against both the supervisors and court filings show very little evidence to support the discrimination case.
The truth is, there are definitely some folks who discriminate, both here and in India. Growing up as an adult in an small India city (I'd say fairly Urban area), I can't remember an instance where someone asked me what my caste was or discussed about caste until the affirmative action phase came up (in India, the government enables people of certain castes, irrespective of their economic status, by providing them with easier access to top educational institutions, federal and state government employee roles, and sometimes even promotions). Some folks were salty about the fact that one of their fellow classmates got into a better institution/position than themselves despite scoring much less than them. That was pretty much it. (My personal take is that after 75 years of Indian independence and enforcing reservations on the basis of caste, it's time to move on to a criteria that's based on the family's economic status)
Of course, things are different in rural India. We often see instances of discrimination on the basis of caste, sometime with violent endings. And as immigrating to US becomes more and more common, you'll see people from all over India, with different backgrounds, move here. Some are casteist, some are misogynist, and some are racist - just like any other group.
My personal take has always been to stay away from folks who bring up the topic of caste, religion, race or language. That's just me, and I'd say I am slowly becoming the minority.
It's important to note that the civil rights department voluntarily dismissed its case against both the supervisors and court filings show very little evidence to support the discrimination case.
The truth is, there are definitely some folks who discriminate, both here and in India. Growing up as an adult in an small India city (I'd say fairly Urban area), I can't remember an instance where someone asked me what my caste was or discussed about caste until the affirmative action phase came up (in India, the government enables people of certain castes, irrespective of their economic status, by providing them with easier access to top educational institutions, federal and state government employee roles, and sometimes even promotions). Some folks were salty about the fact that one of their fellow classmates got into a better institution/position than themselves despite scoring much less than them. That was pretty much it. (My personal take is that after 75 years of Indian independence and enforcing reservations on the basis of caste, it's time to move on to a criteria that's based on the family's economic status)
Of course, things are different in rural India. We often see instances of discrimination on the basis of caste, sometime with violent endings. And as immigrating to US becomes more and more common, you'll see people from all over India, with different backgrounds, move here. Some are casteist, some are misogynist, and some are racist - just like any other group.
My personal take has always been to stay away from folks who bring up the topic of caste, religion, race or language. That's just me, and I'd say I am slowly becoming the minority.
1. Casteism is not going down in India but has become much worse. Even in developed cities. Me and my friends live through a life where our relationship choices continue to become pain points or even complete ostracizations, these are IIT educated Brahmins for example. You’re right you might live your life without knowing this exists especially in a city like Mumbai if your family and friends circle is progressive but that doesn’t mean it’s not a problem.
2. I think a higher proportion of American Indians (including second generation) than even Indians in India are casteist. Just my observation. Leaving their home country and in this political climate with their general ideologies seems to engender embracing such ideas as part of their identity.
3. You can’t just stay away from such folks, if those folks are in places of power at work or community. If you wish to live a life where you don’t want interact with anyone or move up somewhere sure that’s fine but Indian Americans tend to be in a lot of places of power (and guess which fraction of them also might be casteist) so it’s not escapable all the time.
2. I think a higher proportion of American Indians (including second generation) than even Indians in India are casteist. Just my observation. Leaving their home country and in this political climate with their general ideologies seems to engender embracing such ideas as part of their identity.
3. You can’t just stay away from such folks, if those folks are in places of power at work or community. If you wish to live a life where you don’t want interact with anyone or move up somewhere sure that’s fine but Indian Americans tend to be in a lot of places of power (and guess which fraction of them also might be casteist) so it’s not escapable all the time.
its certainly touching a nerve with me, in that it shouldn't exist. the caste system is a disgusting relic of systematic oppression that has no business being in india, never mind being exported to america.
I only have one anecdote. At my previous job, I vividly recall my office mate being bullied and ordered about by a more junior peer. After said peer left, he would breathe a deep sigh and turn to me and say: "Brahmin motherf*cker."
This bill seems overdue to me.
This bill seems overdue to me.
As someone completely ignorant in this cultural phenomenon, given it seems to be hurting some people what are the arguments for not banning it as discrimination? (I was hoping to read at least one in the article, but perhaps I'm blind?)
The caste system dates back to the Vedic period (around ~1500 BC), it's engrained into the fabric of indian society and through the years this hasn't really diminished. For instance the British reinforced the notion of the Caste system, and so did Gandhi, for many it's not seen as something that should be stamped out, but a way of organising a social hierarchy. Modern Indian politics is controlled by the elite - all from high castes - so movement here is seen as politically difficult and unpopular.
America's divisions are primarily race (and to an extent wealth), the British still have a strong sense of subconscious class, in that regard Indian society inherits fragments of both. Those of the SV Indian tech society who still propagate the system do it because they do not like seeing traditionally poor people from lower castes earning triple figure salaries in the US, and sometimes if you're extremely fortunate in India.
Note: This is me playing the devils advocate, I'm absolutely not in favour of the caste system
America's divisions are primarily race (and to an extent wealth), the British still have a strong sense of subconscious class, in that regard Indian society inherits fragments of both. Those of the SV Indian tech society who still propagate the system do it because they do not like seeing traditionally poor people from lower castes earning triple figure salaries in the US, and sometimes if you're extremely fortunate in India.
Note: This is me playing the devils advocate, I'm absolutely not in favour of the caste system
Yeah, I understood that argument. I don't want people who I feel contempt for to have any human rights, was a pretty obvious argument against it. But I didn't think I needed to specify that I was only interested in arguments against it that are both sane and ethical.
I don't want to give up my monopoly on power and privilege is what I was assuming it was. I was asking if there's some other aspect or argument that I'm missing that's not a toxic bigoted fallacy?
I don't want to give up my monopoly on power and privilege is what I was assuming it was. I was asking if there's some other aspect or argument that I'm missing that's not a toxic bigoted fallacy?
>Modern Indian politics is controlled by the elite - all from high castes
Source on this? I've heard people say the opposite.
Source on this? I've heard people say the opposite.
As an outsider: perhaps there is some harm in producing laws for every specific situation and there should be some generic non-discrimination rule that should also cover this case.
For example, I would find it silly if there were specific laws against stealing bread, stealing a doughnut, stealing a flower, etc.
For example, I would find it silly if there were specific laws against stealing bread, stealing a doughnut, stealing a flower, etc.
I'm only basing this on what I've read in the comments: I can see why people would be against creating another identity group. Labeling people into further and further refined identities and pushing victimhood on people in certain labels has a downside. I don't personally know enough to have a side in this, and I don't live there anyway, just speculating why some might disagree with it.
Certainly if we end up with "people from Caste X are encouraged to apply" I can see that as offputting.
Certainly if we end up with "people from Caste X are encouraged to apply" I can see that as offputting.
Protected classes and diversity quotas are nearly unrelated. For example, I have never heard of a hiring quota for people without arms, but they are certainly a protected class.
>Protected classes and diversity quotas are nearly unrelated.
That's not true. Here is what EEOC says it includes:
race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation, or gender identity), national origin, age (40 or older), disability and genetic information (including family medical history).[1]
So it's not clear why caste discrimination doesn't already fall under religious discrimination and most of these groups are associated with diversity quotas. That's not a clearly defined concept but we all generally associate diversity quotas with race, gender identity, and ethnicity.
I generally think there is a big overlap between diversity quotas and protected classes. It's a clear logical link.
If caste were added to diversity quotas (or even protected status) I just think it would create perplexing situations where a totally foreign concept of caste is used to justify things in American law like protecting low caste voter rights despite no history of that ever being a problem or suing non-Hindus for caste discrimination under disparate impact legal concepts despite no animus. Or universities in the US tracking caste in DEI statements and admissions essays which they consider for adversity scores. Would that be fair to Americans? Is there even proof that low caste Indians are generally facing adversity in the US or is it only in specific situations with other Indians? What if they actually earn more than the average US income but get added to diversity quotas?
[1]: https://www.eeoc.gov/employers/small-business/3-who-protecte...
That's not true. Here is what EEOC says it includes:
race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation, or gender identity), national origin, age (40 or older), disability and genetic information (including family medical history).[1]
So it's not clear why caste discrimination doesn't already fall under religious discrimination and most of these groups are associated with diversity quotas. That's not a clearly defined concept but we all generally associate diversity quotas with race, gender identity, and ethnicity.
I generally think there is a big overlap between diversity quotas and protected classes. It's a clear logical link.
If caste were added to diversity quotas (or even protected status) I just think it would create perplexing situations where a totally foreign concept of caste is used to justify things in American law like protecting low caste voter rights despite no history of that ever being a problem or suing non-Hindus for caste discrimination under disparate impact legal concepts despite no animus. Or universities in the US tracking caste in DEI statements and admissions essays which they consider for adversity scores. Would that be fair to Americans? Is there even proof that low caste Indians are generally facing adversity in the US or is it only in specific situations with other Indians? What if they actually earn more than the average US income but get added to diversity quotas?
[1]: https://www.eeoc.gov/employers/small-business/3-who-protecte...
Those caste based identity groups exist for a couple of millenia already. It is the people who benefit from those existing identity groups that oppose the bill.
I have no personal experience with this phenomenon, but looking at it from the outside I do see one potential benefit: formalizing class distinctions in that manner must make it a lot harder to 'manufacture consent' when there's a conflict between the best interests of different classes. In Western culture there's a lot of ability to move between social classes by historical standards, and that's probably a good thing, but there are a number of downsides. The tendency to not acknowledge class differences at all can lead to a lot of doublespeak about what would benefit the least fortunate classes, and a lot of extra energy spent by the downwardly mobile wealthy to exclude lower classes in roundabout ways.
Formal divisions between social classes would make it a lot harder to confuse the less wealthy when their interests aren't aligned with the more wealthy. In India for example, my understanding is that the 'shopkeeper' class used to be quite low in the hierarchy, but with the change in global economics, an awful lot of important institutions are now being run by 'shopkeepers', who I presume would have seen those opportunities in a collective way and helped each other capitalize on them, rather than see themselves as no different from the incumbent warrior or priest classes when they arose.
Formal divisions between social classes would make it a lot harder to confuse the less wealthy when their interests aren't aligned with the more wealthy. In India for example, my understanding is that the 'shopkeeper' class used to be quite low in the hierarchy, but with the change in global economics, an awful lot of important institutions are now being run by 'shopkeepers', who I presume would have seen those opportunities in a collective way and helped each other capitalize on them, rather than see themselves as no different from the incumbent warrior or priest classes when they arose.
I don't have an opinion on caste discrimination itself. I have a good friend who is Brahmin and doesn't really care about caste I think so I know some things about it. But that person is not religious. Religious Hindus may have stronger preferences where caste seems like it is a part of the religion. For example, my understanding is Hindu priests are generally Brahmin. Although some sects disagree that priests need to be Brahmin, I believe that is the exception not the norm. I guess caste discrimination could be part of a religious view but generally in America this isn't considered acceptable in work environments.
OTOH I dislike the idea of adding caste to protected status because that affects people who have nothing to do with this. The US has no history of caste discrimination and most people have no idea what that is. So I am opposed to equating American concepts of discrimination that were based in things like Jim Crow laws and slavery with caste discrimination. I am opposed to things like corporate DEI hiring practices and school admissions policies incorporating caste because this places an undue burden on the majority of Americans who are not involved with this.
OTOH I dislike the idea of adding caste to protected status because that affects people who have nothing to do with this. The US has no history of caste discrimination and most people have no idea what that is. So I am opposed to equating American concepts of discrimination that were based in things like Jim Crow laws and slavery with caste discrimination. I am opposed to things like corporate DEI hiring practices and school admissions policies incorporating caste because this places an undue burden on the majority of Americans who are not involved with this.
What does banning caste based discrimination with affirmative action?
The article mentions adding caste to protected status. Protected Status has a specific set of meanings and implications in the US that came from US history, not Indian history.
If Indians want protections then I think the law should be more nuanced to prevent absurdities like arguing that caste should be included in things like American DEI policies. I draw the line at that point. I don't want the lack of nuance to cause caste to be equated with things like the history of racial discrimination in the US. There is nothing systemic in the US about caste discrimination so the US itself is not at fault and neither are most Americans.
Further, there is a history of Indian affirmative action policies which include quotas and I think Indians should not expect to have the same treatment under the law as there because quotas have been struck down in court.
If Indians want protections then I think the law should be more nuanced to prevent absurdities like arguing that caste should be included in things like American DEI policies. I draw the line at that point. I don't want the lack of nuance to cause caste to be equated with things like the history of racial discrimination in the US. There is nothing systemic in the US about caste discrimination so the US itself is not at fault and neither are most Americans.
Further, there is a history of Indian affirmative action policies which include quotas and I think Indians should not expect to have the same treatment under the law as there because quotas have been struck down in court.
Age, nationality, religion, marital status etc. all fall into the same category and I haven't really heard anything about religious hiring quotas. So it's still a significant leap and I'm still not sure how would this affect most Americans.
> implications in the US that came from US history
Some categories do, some don't, most are generally universally applicable, so yeah the law should primarily focus on 'ancestry' with 'caste' just being a subset of that. Which is exactly what this law is doing if I understand it correctly.
> implications in the US that came from US history
Some categories do, some don't, most are generally universally applicable, so yeah the law should primarily focus on 'ancestry' with 'caste' just being a subset of that. Which is exactly what this law is doing if I understand it correctly.
I wrote this is another post but it's not clear to me why caste discrimination isn't considered religious discrimination which is already protected so what exactly would adding a new protected class achieve?
There are more categories than just the ones you mentioned for a protected class. They also include race, gender identity, and ethnicity. I don't believe caste should be a protected group in the US. It opens the door to suing people, who are not even Hindu, arbitrarily for caste discrimination under legal concepts like disparate impact. It also opens the door to arguing that caste should be included in DEI efforts. I don't think it's a significant leap between these two things, it's inevitable even.
There are more categories than just the ones you mentioned for a protected class. They also include race, gender identity, and ethnicity. I don't believe caste should be a protected group in the US. It opens the door to suing people, who are not even Hindu, arbitrarily for caste discrimination under legal concepts like disparate impact. It also opens the door to arguing that caste should be included in DEI efforts. I don't think it's a significant leap between these two things, it's inevitable even.
I don't think the people opposing this realize how ridiculous they sound
> “A lot of staff asked, ‘What is caste?’”
Wait - these staffers are working in government but know so little about world history and culture that they’re clueless about caste? Maybe that’s part of the problem of getting progressive consensus on this bill.
Wait - these staffers are working in government but know so little about world history and culture that they’re clueless about caste? Maybe that’s part of the problem of getting progressive consensus on this bill.
To be fair, caste has no direct analog in U.S. or European culture. It isn't shocking that a staffer in the California state government would need to be educated about an issue, the first time it's become a political issue in the U.S.
It’s really basic social studies in the “world history and cultures” category, I would expect them to learn it in high school.
The US had a literal race based “caste-like” system for much of its history. In the South this didn’t end until the 60s, and many people alive today were alive when it was still strictly enforced.
The US had a literal race based “caste-like” system for much of its history. In the South this didn’t end until the 60s, and many people alive today were alive when it was still strictly enforced.
History is functionally infinite, history class time very finite.
I don't think analogies to the caste clarify complex race issues in the US.
I don't think analogies to the caste clarify complex race issues in the US.
> caste has no direct analog in U.S. or European culture
Wait, what? Systemic racism in what's now the U.S. was literally codified as a caste system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casta And we're still dealing with the legacy of that, many centuries since.
Wait, what? Systemic racism in what's now the U.S. was literally codified as a caste system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casta And we're still dealing with the legacy of that, many centuries since.
Interesting, thanks for the link! I had a vague sense that Central / South America had a more complicated understanding of race than the white/black dichotomy, and this is helpful.
I think that Americans are very familiar with systematic discrimination based on race or skin color. The distinction that I think confuses people not from SE Asia is that caste discrimination is between different classes of people who appear to be the same race and ethnicity from the outside.
Perhaps discrimination against Irish and Italian immigrants would be analogous, though that faded so long ago that even my Irish NY grandparents knew that it happened but just kinda thought it was funny.
I think that Americans are very familiar with systematic discrimination based on race or skin color. The distinction that I think confuses people not from SE Asia is that caste discrimination is between different classes of people who appear to be the same race and ethnicity from the outside.
Perhaps discrimination against Irish and Italian immigrants would be analogous, though that faded so long ago that even my Irish NY grandparents knew that it happened but just kinda thought it was funny.
We are? The US is still dealing with the legacy of the Spanish formalized caste system, because of territory it took over from Spain and/or Mexico a century and half ago? I call baloney.
The US is still dealing with the consequences of its own sins. I don't think it inherited Spain's sins when it took the land.
The US is still dealing with the consequences of its own sins. I don't think it inherited Spain's sins when it took the land.
[deleted]
From my (USA American) viewpoint, caste discrimination seems very close to discrimination based on national (or group, e.g., Roma) origin. I would not be surprised (but do not know) were some instances of caste separation historically based on national origin.
How does caste discrimination differ from discrimination due to national origin (other than the fact that it obviously does not go away after multiple generations b/c inter-caste marriage is taboo)?
How does caste discrimination differ from discrimination due to national origin (other than the fact that it obviously does not go away after multiple generations b/c inter-caste marriage is taboo)?
caste has no direct analog in U.S. or European culture.
I mean, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Brahmin as one of many, many examples.
I mean, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Brahmin as one of many, many examples.
"Boston Brahmin" doesn't capture any of the subtleties of caste, nor is it long lasting. The salience of that group lasted at most two centuties, and most Americans wouldn't immediately place someone named Ted Brinley in that group on hearing the name. Exogamy was rampant. The same things are not at all true of a Brahmin.
nor is it long lasting.
Good point, there’s no such thing as old money, or legacy admissions, or even good old-fashioned racism in America. We left that in the 20th century!
Good point, there’s no such thing as old money, or legacy admissions, or even good old-fashioned racism in America. We left that in the 20th century!
It's not a caste in the direct sense. I mean rich people who adopted their cultural practices or married into (which would be hardly even possible in a 'true' caste system) were generally socially accepted.
Of course being Irish/Catholic/Black etc. would've disqualified you but it's not quite the same thing.
Of course being Irish/Catholic/Black etc. would've disqualified you but it's not quite the same thing.
There's a preponderance of Indian and other South Asian immigrants in California, so much so it can be considered part of the culture. It is shocking that such ignorance exists in California specifically, though not as surprising necessarily that such awareness is missing in other parts of the US.
As an anecdote, I am a white person who went to a high school in the US that was 33% Indian and had/continue to have absolutely no idea what caste the parents of my friends were.
Maybe it was common knowledge for them, I don’t know, but it was a truly invisible distinction for me.
Even when we learned about the caste system in AP World History in the context of Hinduism and classical/post-classical India, I just figured it wasn’t a thing anymore. No one ever brought it up as still being a thing.
Maybe it was common knowledge for them, I don’t know, but it was a truly invisible distinction for me.
Even when we learned about the caste system in AP World History in the context of Hinduism and classical/post-classical India, I just figured it wasn’t a thing anymore. No one ever brought it up as still being a thing.
I'd say there's a difference between being clueless and having a clear definition everyone agrees on. I have an idea of what the caste system is, but if I tried to explain it exhaustively I'm sure I'd get a lot of details wrong.
I don't need a bulletproof definition of race to oppose discrimination on its basis
If you were going to draft legislation around those issues though, it would probably help to have a definition.
A working definition is good enough is my point
It also seems prudent when creating a law that mentions caste that someone who, after reading the bill, still doesn't know what caste is, has a legitimate criticism.
We define the word "motor vehicle" in most Codes of Law as well. The existence of the precise definition isn't for people totally ignorant to the existence of the automobile.
We define the word "motor vehicle" in most Codes of Law as well. The existence of the precise definition isn't for people totally ignorant to the existence of the automobile.
I am guessing those staffers have at least a vague notion of what caste is, yet would have to either learn more or verify the accuracy of what they know in order to get their job done. If anything, their willingness to learn rather than to act upon limited and potentially prejudiced knowledge is a good thing.
> she received pushback even from fellow progressive Democrats. Newsom’s office would not say whether he supports the bill.
> In mid-July, about 250 people gathered at an events center in Fremont, an East Bay suburb in Wahab’s district, for “Caste Con,” a full day of programming against the bill… Fremont Mayor Lily Mei, who lost to Wahab in last year’s race for the local state Senate seat, was given a standing ovation when she was introduced.
It’s interesting to see politics swing side based on how it’s going to affect the votes they get.
In Newsom’s case I would think he wins on larger margins and does not have to worry about things like this.
For Lily, she has no choice, due to the demographic shift in the last 15 years for Fremont, it’s been primarily richer south East Asians. If she wants her reelection she has to support the Hindus.
> In mid-July, about 250 people gathered at an events center in Fremont, an East Bay suburb in Wahab’s district, for “Caste Con,” a full day of programming against the bill… Fremont Mayor Lily Mei, who lost to Wahab in last year’s race for the local state Senate seat, was given a standing ovation when she was introduced.
It’s interesting to see politics swing side based on how it’s going to affect the votes they get.
In Newsom’s case I would think he wins on larger margins and does not have to worry about things like this.
For Lily, she has no choice, due to the demographic shift in the last 15 years for Fremont, it’s been primarily richer south East Asians. If she wants her reelection she has to support the Hindus.
I thought SE Asian referred to Laos Cambodia Vietnam Myanmar and Indonesia? Now it also refers to India?
This was a typo, I meant South Asian where I wrote South East Asian.
Thanks for pointing this out.
This California law from 1959 already bans discrimination by ancestry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unruh_Civil_Rights_Act
From a legal perspective, is a new law even necessary? Isn't it legally redundant?
From a legal perspective, is a new law even necessary? Isn't it legally redundant?
Perhaps this was tested in court with a caste discrimination case and it wasn't clear enough that it applied. I don't know CA case law enough. Based on the article I have the impression that this law originated from insiders in the legal system so I assume it's necessary to call out caste by name.
To my knowledge, the only caste discrimination case in CA history is the "Cisco" case. It was dismissed with prejudice.
Why was it dismissed? Was it due to lack of clear legislation on the subject matter?
You cannot use a dismissed case as proof that existing laws are sufficient.
You cannot use a dismissed case as proof that existing laws are sufficient.
I don't know if it is editorial bias or not but I could not find a real problem with the bill listed in the article.
Although I don't have all the facts, the article doesn't seem to have much bias to me. They're reporting on why some people disagree with the bill. It doesn't seem to give much leaning in either direction as to whether those people are right or wrong.
I think non-Indian Americans are shocked that this exists in America, and totally have no idea why this is even a thing. How can I discriminate based on something I don't understand. My Indian best friend told me he's in the warrior caste, when I asked him about the caste system, but I have no idea the hierarchy or how someone would discriminate based upon it.
This article didn’t speak about why people are opposed to it. I’m still clueless on that point.
The article does try to allude to the reason, it's just poorly written.
Basically, many Hindus feel this is a tort only Hindus can be liable for. For example, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam do not have caste systems--thus, the logic goes, you could never sue a Jew, Christian, or Muslim for this, yet you could sue a Hindu for it. Moreover, many Hindus view it as simply carrying the strong connotation that there is something uniquely wrong with Hinduism that must be legally "fixed" this way.
To use an argument nobody in the article or this thread has raised, but which seems to me like one of the strongest ones someone who opposes the law could actually muster, remember those laws in the South banning "Shari'a Law"? Those were clearly anti-Muslim publicity stunts; any practical danger posed by Shari'a Law is already handled by the American legal system. One could see a Hindu feeling that this is an analogous thing that is mainly about singling out Hindus because existing anti-discrimination law should be sufficient.
Basically, many Hindus feel this is a tort only Hindus can be liable for. For example, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam do not have caste systems--thus, the logic goes, you could never sue a Jew, Christian, or Muslim for this, yet you could sue a Hindu for it. Moreover, many Hindus view it as simply carrying the strong connotation that there is something uniquely wrong with Hinduism that must be legally "fixed" this way.
To use an argument nobody in the article or this thread has raised, but which seems to me like one of the strongest ones someone who opposes the law could actually muster, remember those laws in the South banning "Shari'a Law"? Those were clearly anti-Muslim publicity stunts; any practical danger posed by Shari'a Law is already handled by the American legal system. One could see a Hindu feeling that this is an analogous thing that is mainly about singling out Hindus because existing anti-discrimination law should be sufficient.
It’s because many Indians still support caste discrimination, which is why this is a problem in the first place.
Some states in India are less advanced than others. To those who are from the more advanced states, this supposed caste discrimination is a nothingburger, and they see such accusations as unfairly tarnishing the image of their community. See [1] for example. But to those from less advanced regions (those where education has not made inroads... some regions have less than 60% literacy rate), this is still an issue.
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/16/opinion/sunday/caste-is-no...
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/16/opinion/sunday/caste-is-no...
It’s not clear to me that the link to education is so tight. After all, it is the top executives of tech companies (highly educated people) who have been the subject of lawsuits for discriminating by caste.
The way you were raised influences you for life.
I am surprised nobody in this thread or in the article mentioned that Wahab is Muslim (or at least was raised as such)--like, I'm surprised nobody is lobbing allegations of intentional anti-Hindu bias stemming from her own religious background.
(To be clear, I assume her motivations are genuinely altruistic, I'm just saying it seems like an obvious line of argument for someone who is opposed to the measure)
(To be clear, I assume her motivations are genuinely altruistic, I'm just saying it seems like an obvious line of argument for someone who is opposed to the measure)
This actually helps me understand why the negative tone of some of the comments on this thread that mentioned her. At first I thought it was because she was a progressive.
I've seen this firsthand at a multinational bank with Indian co-workers. I discovered this when, out of frustration, I commented to a co-worker that a certain VP and his line managers were being idiotic and wonder why some of the more competent lower managers were not being listened to. That co-worker whispered that it was because of the caste system, which is why he himself never got promotions he deserved.
I also saw this during hiring when Brahmin managers would be rude and condescending to all other castes and non-Indians during interviews but fawning when it was other Brahmins. So it affects non-Hindus when a Brahmin is at the top.
The caste system not only impacts Hindus but also non-Hindus and should be banned and exterminated in a modern professional environment. It should kept to places of worship and personal homes and lives.
I also saw this during hiring when Brahmin managers would be rude and condescending to all other castes and non-Indians during interviews but fawning when it was other Brahmins. So it affects non-Hindus when a Brahmin is at the top.
The caste system not only impacts Hindus but also non-Hindus and should be banned and exterminated in a modern professional environment. It should kept to places of worship and personal homes and lives.
From "LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST" of the bill:
> Existing law, the Unruh Civil Rights Act, provides that all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...
It should be obvious that caste is ancestry, and that the many incidents described are violations of the Unruh Act.
So, there's been a gross failure to enforce this long-existing law. Why? And why is no one involved asking the question?
> Existing law, the Unruh Civil Rights Act, provides that all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...
It should be obvious that caste is ancestry, and that the many incidents described are violations of the Unruh Act.
So, there's been a gross failure to enforce this long-existing law. Why? And why is no one involved asking the question?
NPR has a 2020 Planet Money episode on the topic [0].
[0] Caste Arrives In Silicon Valley. https://www.npr.org/2020/10/14/923736245/caste-arrives-in-si...
[0] Caste Arrives In Silicon Valley. https://www.npr.org/2020/10/14/923736245/caste-arrives-in-si...
My only experience with multiple Indians coworkers is from like 6 years ago. The one who could talk multiple Indian dialect, loved his country and his town explained to me what I should do if I ever visited seemed oblivious to castes. The other two (both from Punjab if I understood correctly) were of two different castes (and religion, I learned that towards the end) and it was... Weird. You could feel unease. Maybe the first one could afford to ignore castes his whole life, as his parents and grandparents were some kind of town mayor/leaders in an affluent part of india, as my understanding is that caste discrimination is more prevalent in poorer part of the country, but from that short interaction (less than a year), I thought at the time that India wasn't there yet.
I think caste discrimination does exist, and I've heard of colleagues from South Asia talk about discrimination based on the darkness of their skin from their countrymen. But caste is a broad term and .. could be stretched to apply to a lot of people. A person with a pronounced Boston accent who is fired might say that he was discriminated against because of his caste as a Bostonian. That's way simplified but ...where there is a law there will be lawyers..
I'm confused, why most people here refer to "South Asian community"? Isn't caste system relevant only to non-muslim part of a single country?
Humans: even if there is 0.01% genetic difference between people or ZERO, we'll still seek some other way to discriminate against each other because hey that's what conscious life is all about right, hating "the other" ?
Ban it, make it politically incorrect. We have to start somewhere by saying it's wrong or each generation will just teach it to the next.
Yes governments should ban it, that protects people.
Ban it, make it politically incorrect. We have to start somewhere by saying it's wrong or each generation will just teach it to the next.
Yes governments should ban it, that protects people.
"So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts." - James Madison
https://billofrightsinstitute.org/primary-sources/federalist...
https://billofrightsinstitute.org/primary-sources/federalist...
Feeling worthy and respected is a fundamental human need.
Sadly, one way to achieve this is by looking down on other people.
Sadly, one way to achieve this is by looking down on other people.
Has anybody noticed requests for referrals from Indian students/fresh grads flooding Linkedin? Is this a caste thing? What kind of referral you can expect from a complete stranger other than "This person is of the right origin for this job"? I am not an Indian and cannot tell which one is which caste but I figure they just mass-mail everyone.
It's not a caste thing, let's not make everything a caste thing. I've got similar messages from many Asians in general.
It's based on a bunch of blogs/influencers asking folks to always reach out to someone in a company on LinkedIn and ask for a referral even if you don't know them.
A referral is not a recommendation. Most companies have referral programs where they can refer pretty much anyone and you don't explicitly have to know them. Referrals kind of help people get ahead of queue when HR is reviewing the application in the first phase.
It's based on a bunch of blogs/influencers asking folks to always reach out to someone in a company on LinkedIn and ask for a referral even if you don't know them.
A referral is not a recommendation. Most companies have referral programs where they can refer pretty much anyone and you don't explicitly have to know them. Referrals kind of help people get ahead of queue when HR is reviewing the application in the first phase.
99% of these I get are from Indians, I figure few other Asians that sent same requests were influenced by their Indian classmates. And I've never worked in a company where a referral given to somebody you don't know is worth something, did not imagine there is such a thing. What is the point of this, to select for candidates proficient in scripted mass-mailing?
From what I've seen, the point is to convince an acquaintance or alumni (even if you didn't explicitly know them) to give you referral so that they can get ahead of the online application madness. Happens quite frequently, checkout blind where people are constantly asking for referrals (and many giving them to random strangers).
I'd figure it would be easy to target Linkedin spam to the alumni, since the schools are in the same profile where they get the workplace. Instead they wrap their requests into invites to connect, get bounced and I don't know if this still a thing but Linkedin used to throttle your ability to send invites if you get enough rejections... But thanks for explaining, I used to be completely mystified by this behavior.
[deleted]
I hate both sides of the aisle here. For fuck sake, I am mentally burnt out by these topics.
Honestly it should be banned worldwide. It's incredibly backwards and anachronistic.
[deleted]
I gave up reading that article could some one please give me the tldr?
(I gave up because it would cut to the chase and explain what the issue is)
(I gave up because it would cut to the chase and explain what the issue is)
jiofj(2)
Here's are some video clips of the head of Equality Labs, who is shown in the picture featured in this article. She claims that Nazis in Germany were actually Hindus, as support for her point of view.
https://youtu.be/sGQ4r4ElLyQ?si=q8S-u3dO7QWbQUaB
https://youtu.be/sGQ4r4ElLyQ?si=q8S-u3dO7QWbQUaB
This seems like a cherry-picked snippet taken out of context. She compared them to the Germans yes but not some conspiracy theory that they ARE them.
Has california tried to ban discrimination against asian men?
Yes, that race and gender are already protected classes, so discrimination against Asian men is banned.
cool, someone should tell every corporation and education facility in the state.
I am not sure what you are trying to say. No one pretends these laws make discrimination go away, they just provide some mechanism to get relief. If you feel you have been discriminated against because you are an Asian male, speak to a lawyer and see if you have a case.
> because you are an Asian male, speak to a lawyer and see if you have a case
The supreme court just ruled on my case (https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/students-for-fai...). aa is now illegal. doubt that's gonna stop anyone.
The supreme court just ruled on my case (https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/students-for-fai...). aa is now illegal. doubt that's gonna stop anyone.
As an outsider: Is there going to be people that now will openly admit they are low caste in an effort to be a protected class?
That's the only reason I see as to why some people are against the proposal: people will start talking more and more about caste in a country and a culture where this does not exist.
That's the only reason I see as to why some people are against the proposal: people will start talking more and more about caste in a country and a culture where this does not exist.
Unfortunately it does exist here, in Indian subculture. Workers are absolutely discriminated against by Indians of other castes.
[deleted]
North America has a caste system, though. We just don't call it that. The laws written to protect our lower castes aren't written to cover the Indian caste system, and caste discrimination is happening here. Hence, the effort to pass laws to cover it.
> Is there going to be people that now will openly admit they are low caste in an effort to be a protected class?
This is asinine. People who belong to lower castes should be protected from discrimination, whether or not they openly admit it. Do people point out that they belong to a protected class in order to fight cases of discrimination? Yes. That's why the law exists.
> Is there going to be people that now will openly admit they are low caste in an effort to be a protected class?
This is asinine. People who belong to lower castes should be protected from discrimination, whether or not they openly admit it. Do people point out that they belong to a protected class in order to fight cases of discrimination? Yes. That's why the law exists.
Great, good luck enforcing that. Good luck even verifying caste identity. The last name is not even close to 100% valid in determining caste identity. Also, I think whether we admit it or not, we definitely have a notion of caste in the west except it’s a combination of race and socioeconomic identity. Growing up my white friends had a whole network of friends with summer homes and we once took a tour around the USA just staying in unoccupied summer homes of rich white friends.
White man here, citizen of US. I actually think this could work to our long-term advantage. We get some laws passed that ban caste discrimination, not realizing that the same problems exist in other parts of US society and is not just a "SE Asia problem". And then eventually someone comes along and uses the caste discrimination laws creatively for some kind of civil rights / liberties win that is not related to SE Asia. I'm pretty sure that a fair amount of our civil rights / liberties progress came about through creative use of laws that were not expected to be used for that purpose.
> just staying in unoccupied summer homes of rich white friends.
Class divide is not caste divide.
Imagine if you went to the market, and you touched someone, and immediately, their parents/people around them flicked drops of water at them to purify them because they got touched by an untouchable. Do you experience THAT in the US? Do you know how humiliating that is?
You're being absurd at equating the two.
Class divide is not caste divide.
Imagine if you went to the market, and you touched someone, and immediately, their parents/people around them flicked drops of water at them to purify them because they got touched by an untouchable. Do you experience THAT in the US? Do you know how humiliating that is?
You're being absurd at equating the two.
It’s actually worse. Why are we focusing on caste, which is very isolated, when class divide and class discrimination is a much worse problem. Probably because the upper class who would be adversely affected by any efforts to fix it are the ones in control of driving the agenda. We’re too focused on idealistic feel good politics and not focused enough issues that are affecting most of the nation
Are you seriously alleging that class discrimination is a problem that society is ignoring? Did the 20th century simply not happen?
Basically. Even if they aren’t ignoring it, they aren’t addressing it effectively. Look at rich men north of Richmond. Hard to afford much of anything these days. But oh wait, that’s not the problem, the real problem is some obscure ancient practice from india coming to USA affecting highly privileged and overpaid tech workers.
So are you advocating banning people from having too many friends? Owning summer houses?
I'm just trying to understood how do you think that could work (besides from abolishing capitalism).
This is only partially sarcasm, I do certainly thing that growing inequality is one of the biggest issues today.
I'm just trying to understood how do you think that could work (besides from abolishing capitalism).
This is only partially sarcasm, I do certainly thing that growing inequality is one of the biggest issues today.
And yet, that practice won’t be prevented by this law.
Your “flicking of water” happens to many middle class who go to high end boutique stores. Classism is just an evolved form casteism that has embedded itself into the subconscious so we don’t recognize it as such.
[deleted]
I have no idea what point you're making
And that’s the whole problem. We have lost the point. Divorces are increasing, single parents, single moms are increasing, kids growing up lost in broken homes, a crumbling education system shifting to only individuals who can afford private schools, crime increasing, social media toxicity. But no no no it’s casteism that’s the problem, let’s legislate on that and pat ourselves on the back. Wake up people, your nation is crumbling before you.
I once edited a code comment that had a typo because I happened to notice it as I was glancing through. At the time, there were serious problems with the architecture and design of the codebase. Was I wrong to do that?
It’s dumb. They’re trying to get caste codified and defined where all it will do is extend the longevity of a system that is genuinely on its way to being forgotten, even in India.
It's absolutely not forgotten in India. Maybe openly talking about in terms of 'caste', sure. But I just visited India for over a month and it was extremely clear they bucket each other into groups. And it's also very alive here in the US. Recently a friend at an ivy league mentioned that an 'upper class' Indian refused to work with a lower class one for their lab's research. Just straight up said he would not interact with him. And this was at a western University!
Something like that should be grounds for expulsion IMO.
Impossible to prove tho. You can always just claim you don't like the person for other reasons. That's why this whole 'banning caste' stuff is mostly performative imo. People will just be hostile to each other but not be open with the reason.
> You can always just claim you don't like the person for other reasons.
That's true. It's also true that there are plenty of professional contexts where people have to work together regardless of their personal feelings toward each other. Sometimes lives depend on it.
That's true. It's also true that there are plenty of professional contexts where people have to work together regardless of their personal feelings toward each other. Sometimes lives depend on it.
[deleted]
So in the article we got to see a whole lot of "It's embarrassing me that you would even bring this up" arguments and now in this comment we get to see the "It doesn't even matter anyways, and you talking about it is making it worse" arguments, all classic defensive positions when someone definitely supports a system that is being exposed as toxic.
[deleted]
Being forgotten in India? Things are much better than it was before but there are still couple being murdered for marrying out of their caste
Really? How would it extend longevity?
Seems like people who are fighting this are likely the ones still benefitting from this system
> How would it extend longevity?
Codifying something in law (or code, ie unit tests) tends to ensure it's durability. Information is something that can exist as an idea ephemerally. Once you write down a definition, it has perceived historical value. Later this can be used as an example of how things were done that might be tried again. Many people recognize this as self-evident.
Codifying something in law (or code, ie unit tests) tends to ensure it's durability. Information is something that can exist as an idea ephemerally. Once you write down a definition, it has perceived historical value. Later this can be used as an example of how things were done that might be tried again. Many people recognize this as self-evident.
It's ridiculous though, that's like saying that the 13th amendment assured the longevity of slavery since it was never as explicitly defined in the Constitution.
Try to divorce the concept from the specific issue. It's not ridiculous, on it's face. It's one aspect of history, that seems to hold true. The concept of a belief being promoted by enshrining it in writing, is not a truth, but a matter of circumstance. eg Any religious writings.
I guess I also don't think that speaking directly about a belief makes it stronger, particularly for discrimination. Many people have commented on HN about experiencing caste discrimination but being unable to do anything about it, because Americans have no understanding of what caste discrimination is. "Sunlight is the best disinfectant."
Certainly writing things down can make it easier for concepts to stick around, but I don't think the dynamics are the same for something written down to call out that it's bad. And holy texts are a totally different ballgame.
Certainly writing things down can make it easier for concepts to stick around, but I don't think the dynamics are the same for something written down to call out that it's bad. And holy texts are a totally different ballgame.
Many people in this thread have completely misunderstood the answer I gave, to the question that was posed.
> holy texts are a totally different ballgame.
They are not. Historically, written concepts endure longer than unwritten concepts. Again, this is commonly considered self-evident.
> I also don't think that speaking directly about a belief makes it stronger, particularly for discrimination
It may be worth it, but the hyperbole of denying the effect:
eg "How would it extend longevity?"
is the dissonance that I have pointed out.
> holy texts are a totally different ballgame.
They are not. Historically, written concepts endure longer than unwritten concepts. Again, this is commonly considered self-evident.
> I also don't think that speaking directly about a belief makes it stronger, particularly for discrimination
It may be worth it, but the hyperbole of denying the effect:
eg "How would it extend longevity?"
is the dissonance that I have pointed out.
This is a perfect example of why we should always consider the specific issue, as opposed to latching onto general concepts.
Religious writings’ sole purpose is to establish & promote a belief system, based on subjective values.
Anti-discrimination laws’ sole purpose is to dissolve the practice of belief systems that objectively cause interpersonal harm.
These are conceptual opposites in many ways. But if I generalize the concept “writing makes ideas immortal”, then I am able to conflate the two.
Religious writings’ sole purpose is to establish & promote a belief system, based on subjective values.
Anti-discrimination laws’ sole purpose is to dissolve the practice of belief systems that objectively cause interpersonal harm.
These are conceptual opposites in many ways. But if I generalize the concept “writing makes ideas immortal”, then I am able to conflate the two.
> This is a perfect example of why we should always consider the specific issue, as opposed to latching onto general concepts.
You call it a "general concept", I saw it's a common understanding of reality. Hyperbole is used to poison further discussion.
eg I generalize the concept “writing makes ideas immortal”
Within your own post, there is misattributed hyperbole (sometimes called uncharitable discussion). Someone asked a question, I answered and all kinds of random assumptions were made about it. Good luck with whatever.
You call it a "general concept", I saw it's a common understanding of reality. Hyperbole is used to poison further discussion.
eg I generalize the concept “writing makes ideas immortal”
Within your own post, there is misattributed hyperbole (sometimes called uncharitable discussion). Someone asked a question, I answered and all kinds of random assumptions were made about it. Good luck with whatever.
Yes, which is why the United States frequently has never-ending debates on whether soldiers should be quartered in the homes of civilians.
I find that when people defend something as self-evident it often isn’t.
I find that when people defend something as self-evident it often isn’t.
[deleted]
What's the difference between codifying anti-discrimination laws and codifying laws against other things, such as shoplifting?
There isn't one. Written laws allow individuals to defend against prosecution by referencing the letter of the law, and wrongfully persecute by recontextualizing similar acts as parallels. I don't think it's a bad trade to have a common reference, despite these weaknesses.
Note, I support the idea of adding castes to common discrimination clauses. That is incidental to the issue of codification, which I am interested in.
Note, I support the idea of adding castes to common discrimination clauses. That is incidental to the issue of codification, which I am interested in.
If you make categories by law and afford certain benefits to those categories then people will continue to adopt them and perpetuate it. Caste is complex, build over many generations. It is however very easy to destroy by just forgetting the things people use to categorize others and would be nearly impossible to rebuilt in the modern world as it was a system built for local communities where people intimately knew each other for generations. The goal should be breaking and forgetting knowledge that let’s people distinguish castes in the first place.
Shoplifting is shoplifting. No one is going to “forget” you can steal things so you need explicit laws forbidding it in perpetuity.
Shoplifting is shoplifting. No one is going to “forget” you can steal things so you need explicit laws forbidding it in perpetuity.
Do you have examples of "referencing something in law makes it last longer"?
This is not an argument I recall people making much in other ban discussions across the political spectrum such as (a) banning discrimination on sexuality, (b) banning abortions, (c) banning guns, (d) banning censorship, so I'm very skeptical without historical examples? Generally those have been hotly-fought battles where the "no action" course would not have resulted in it simply going away - see also the 100 years after the civil war and racial discrimination in the US persisting - so the claim of "ignore it and it'll be ok real soon now, promise" doesn't appear to have much merit.
This is not an argument I recall people making much in other ban discussions across the political spectrum such as (a) banning discrimination on sexuality, (b) banning abortions, (c) banning guns, (d) banning censorship, so I'm very skeptical without historical examples? Generally those have been hotly-fought battles where the "no action" course would not have resulted in it simply going away - see also the 100 years after the civil war and racial discrimination in the US persisting - so the claim of "ignore it and it'll be ok real soon now, promise" doesn't appear to have much merit.
A simple search for "caste discrimination" seems to disprove that. Whether or not you agree that it's routine or rare, or whether it happens in the US or just in India, it's absolutely not "forgotten". Coverage of the practice in the media is pervasive.
[deleted]
Caste discrimination is illegal in India. So according to your logic, perhaps codifying and banning it seems to be working then.
This has nothing to do with civil rights, it’s just a continuation of colonialism and the rich white man’s “divide and conquer” ideology. They have Modi, Sunak, Vivek is coming, and pretty much every executive team of every major tech company is dominated by people from the Indian subcontinent. Let’s not be fooled here folks, this is cultural oppression and warfare in a hidden form. Why else of all people is Wahab driving this.
It takes some truly impressive mental gymnastics to go from “pretty much every executive team of every major tech company is dominated by people from the Indian subcontinent” to “we are being culturally oppressed.”
It absolutely is. Whenever a group feels threatened you can be sure there will be an agenda to undermine the counter party.
This is a truly weird take. Imagine defending one of the most oppressive practices that happen even in our home country. Do better.
>Vivek is coming
Vivek ain't gonna go nowhere.
----------
>Vivek is coming
Vivek ain't gonna go nowhere.
----------
No one is defending it. Being against the proposed legislation does not mean imply defending the practice. But the point is that the agenda of trying to fight so-called casteism comes from people who have little to no understanding of it, and what they are trying to do is to undermine a people as a whole, rather than the practice itself.
Why don't you just come out and say that you want cast discrimination to exists instead of hiding behind all that rhetoric about colonialism?
Your law will not and cannot stop it. The whole agenda is just a tool used by politicians to manipulate voters.
> They have Modi, Sunak, Vivek is coming, and pretty much every executive team of every major tech company is dominated by people from the Indian subcontinent
I am curious if those people represent specific caste?..
I am curious if those people represent specific caste?..
"Why else of all people is Wahab driving this."
Is that a rhetorical question? because I have no idea what it's supposed to mean.
Is that a rhetorical question? because I have no idea what it's supposed to mean.
Modi is the Prime Minister of India, a position generally held by Indians.
Vivek isn't likely to win the primary.
Where's the oppression?
Vivek isn't likely to win the primary.
Where's the oppression?
>Modi, Sunak, Vivek
I bursted out laughing. Imagine comparing major world leaders with some right-wing techbro troll.
I bursted out laughing. Imagine comparing major world leaders with some right-wing techbro troll.
After Trump, Vivek is winning is most betting pools.
I’m not of the “lowest caste” as it’s perceived but by looks I am often mistaken to be a Brahmin, one of the highest ones. So my fellow Brahmins get offended when I’m not strictly vegetarian, and get more so to learn that I’m not Brahmin or that I believe India should remain secular.
I’d advise anyone not fully informed to not give too much credence to people opposing this legislation; I spend a lot of time weeding and working around them and can assure you this is a real thing and should be codified just to remind them what America should stand for.