[dead]
An effort to ban caste discrimination in California has touched a nerve
301–310 of 324 posts
Re: An effort to ban caste discrimination in California has touched a nerve
#302Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
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 yea…
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)
Re: An effort to ban caste discrimination in California has touched a nerve
#303Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
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 yea…
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.
Re: An effort to ban caste discrimination in California has touched a nerve
#304Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 yea…
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 ou…
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?
Re: An effort to ban caste discrimination in California has touched a nerve
#305Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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 righ…
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 (?)
Re: An effort to ban caste discrimination in California has touched a nerve
#306Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 c…
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'…
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.
Re: An effort to ban caste discrimination in California has touched a nerve
#307> “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.
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.
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)?
Re: An effort to ban caste discrimination in California has touched a nerve
#308Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
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.
Re: An effort to ban caste discrimination in California has touched a nerve
#309Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 ou…
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 admin…
>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?
Re: An effort to ban caste discrimination in California has touched a nerve
#310Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 sati…
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.…
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.