I am Indian-American (born into a brahmin family if that matters) and personally haven't noticed casteism, barring the occasional idiot in our communities. Having said that, we (Indian-Americans) should be open to criticism and scrutiny. We are a very successful lot - arguably the richest immigrant group in America - surely we can be secure enough to confront some of these bad things. We need to stop being defensive and touchy about such charges.
You clearly know nothing about caste, because in cases where it happens, the "higher" or "middle" castes are most often the ones actively doing the discrimination. As a "higher" caste person, I have seen a great deal of this discrimination firsthand in India (both subtle and egregious [1]), and almost never among my fellow Indian immigrants in America [2].
The typical American response that I already see elsewhere in this thread is "lol this is like a white dude saying racism doesn't exist". This totally ignores the basic fact that it is not that easy to tell someone's caste, which makes it a totally different class of problem. It's kind of possible based on a combination of factors [3], but there are so many exceptions that basically unless you ask someone, you can never be sure. And therein lies the problem – the very existence of these sorts of conversations about "how you tell what caste X is?" is often the backbone of caste-based discrimination. I feel shitty even talking about how you'd tell someone's caste.
And ultimately, I think that's why these kinds of measures will backfire. You are going to have a lot more Indian-Americans being curious about what caste they are when the problem could have faded into the background, with existing anti-discrimination statutes being applied to cases like the ones cited in the article.
----------------------------------------
[1] A typical subtle version is mentioning a person's caste in a conversation where's it's totally irrelevant; a US equivalent would be something like "Jim, the new software engineer started today. He's Latino."
[2] A reasonable question here would be: "What changed? Why would Indian immigrants not discriminate after they come to America?" My answer is best guess is most Indians who come to the US are already likely predisposed to liberal and educated to a fairly high level. Unlike the US (where even Civil War history is still a touchy subject), specific lessons about the history of caste discrimination, statutes against it, and attempts at reparations are baked into all levels of the Indian education curriculum. Along with that, exposure to the staggeringly high diversity of America tends to dull any remaining biases that might exist. Like everything, I am sure there are exceptions. And I'm guessing that they are certainly more likely in Councilwoman Sawant's age group (she's almost 50).
[3] There should be a Falsehoods American Media Perpetuates About Caste article. If I wrote it, the top two would be: a) It's always possible to tell a person's caste based on their last name, and b) It's always possible to tell a person's caste by whether or not they eat meat.
You realize it's like a white person saying they've never witnessed a case of anti-black racism. It is the people on the receiving end who notice, and indeed cannot help but notice.
You do realize, that I am calling for scrutiny and banishing the scourge of casteism. It might very well exist, but our communities should be introspective and self-aware on how widespread this phenomenon is, instead of getting defensive.
But then your supposed to finish reading it, and have some charity in your interpretation. The gp implicitly recognizes their epistemic bias by affirming they should be open to scrutiny.
This is extremely important. One should take a good faith approach during a discussion. I see the opposite happening far too frequently these days, and it makes having productive conversations neigh impossible.
> I am Indian-American (born into a brahmin family if that matters) and personally haven't noticed casteism, barring the occasional idiot in our communities.
Translation: I don't see a problem.
> Having said that, we (Indian-Americans) should be open to criticism and scrutiny.
Translation: even though I'm open to criticism, I don't see a problem.
> We are a very successful lot - arguably the richest immigrant group in America - surely we can be secure enough to confront some of these bad things. We need to stop being defensive and touchy about such charges.
Translation: blah, blah, blah . . . me, me, me. Nothing about the problem.
It might be poorly worded, and the OP appears to be unaware of the fact that their being a member of the upper caste means they’re unlikely to witness casteism.
But they have shown an openness to learning. Instead of responding, like some commenters have, by getting mad at their potentially ignorant sentence, it’s a far better approach to, like some other commenters have, educate them about the fact that the very nature of privilege means that as part of the privileged class you get to live life being oblivious about the class distinctions.
That is indeed the privilege of the privileged. And the burden of the unprivileged is that they do not have the luxury to live their lives while being oblivious to their lack of privilege.
He left a factual statement of his own experience. It's not poorly worded.
It's entirely fair to point out that different castes would see and experience casteism very differently...but sheesh, it's tiresome to see a bunch of (probably white) keyboard warriors show up and argue with in Indian American about what it's like to be Indian in America.
I'm an Indian-American as well. Don't make assumptions.
In any case, there are some deeply problematic aspects to Indian culture, including that of my own community, and criticism of them is warranted, no matter the demographics of the critic.
They are providing scrutiny and criticism of your position. Specifically that you might be in a privileged position where you are unlikely to see the negative effects of casteism. While it is meaningful to say that you don't see it, it's not meaningful in the way you intend it. It's demonstrating the problem that this is trying to solve.
I'm a White person from Utah. Saying that I don't see Racism is missing the point. Of course I don't see Racism, it's well hidden from me as a part of my culture. And above and beyond that the Racism I do see is actually the hiding of clear discrimination such that it is invisible to me.
The first step to solving a problem is admitting you have a problem.
Unfortunately, criticism/scrutiny on the internet is not always nicely couched. So people will be direct like this commenter was.
Or it's like a "POC" saying that you can't be racist against white people despite it being clearly evident that racism against all people - including white - is happening every day.
Everyone is receiving racism but it's the truly privileged that can do so and claim they aren't guilty of it themselves.
> not OK for a lower-caste person to discriminate against a Brahmin
Unfortunately, U.S. discrimination laws have a long history of replacing perceived, hard to demonstrate/prove discrimination with actual explicit discrimination in the other direction... so although you may be morally correct, you're likely to be legally incorrect.
I won't speak to the situation in India, but in America it is certainly possible for somebody from a 'lower caste' to be in a position of authority over somebody from a 'higher caste'. If for no other reason than because Americans with no understanding of the caste system might find the 'lower caste' person to be more competent and capable than the 'higher caste' person and promote accordingly.
What is a lower-caste person? Your other comments argue that people are being dismissive yet you're using the very language that furthers caste segregation.
It actually has a genetic basis. According to David Reich in his outstanding book Who we are and how we got here, the varna/jati castes and sub-castes have been able to maintain a level of endogamy stricter than Ashkenazi Jews for millennia and there is 2-3x more genetic distance between two different jati groups coexisting in the same village than between North and South Europeans.
So basically you had a group of invaders who came to India, proclaimed themselves both racially and morally superior, and enforced a rigid system of miscegeneation laws to prevent themselves from being diluted. Makes the wildest dreams of white supremacists tame in comparison.
Of course, none of that justifies the discrimination. I don't know how to fix it either, India tried but hasn't succeeded. B. R. Ambedkar, the author of India's Constitution came to the conclusion that Hinduism is unreformable and that former untouchables like himself should convert to Buddhism, but that hasn't happened on a large scale. Subhas Chandra Bose proposed to abolish the caste system through socialism and inter-caste marriages, but he was an authoritarian bordering on Fascist.
Your idea of abolishing the concept of caste system is noble, but it has been tried and failed in India. Just as you could say making people color-blind would solve racism (setting aside the problem of reparations for past injustice), but how do you make it happen? It's a social problem, and there are seldom simple solutions. Banning the language won't make it disappear, just as (effectively) banning the N-word hasn't made racism go away.
Genetic differences don’t mean it’s not made up. It’s not like we studied people’s genes and went “hm yes you can divide this ethnic group into four subgroups, Science!” People made a system where they divided themselves, and over time that division resulted in some small but noticeable amount of genetic divergence.
But there are, like, trillions of different genetic differences between all of us, and you could draw totally different lines around people and find a genetic basis if you really wanted. The genetic basis is used to justify the arbitrary groups; the groups are not an emergent phenomenon of the genetics.
You're confusing cause and effect. The genetics did not emerge from the castes, the castes were an effort to entrench through religion the superior social status of invaders who were a different group with distinct genetics. They were not imposed from within by a faction of a unified group that subsequently diverged.
Race is made up, yet racial discrimination happens all the time. Money is made up, yet we all use it every day. Just because something is “made up” doesn’t mean it isn’t real. We made it real.
Instead of a law to stop "lower" and "upper" caste from discriminating against each other (like that comment was saying), the entire concept of caste needs to be purged.
That won't happen if you continue to use those very terms and then say it's (describing) reality. The sooner people stop dealing with it, the sooner it stops being a (real) thing.
Like, who is “we”? In any situation where one group has structural advantages over another, there are going to be people who are very much not on board with merging the groups. If your plan to equalize everyone is just “pretend the groups don’t exist”, it will fail, because you’re simply ignoring a status quo that others are actively working to preserve.
There are people who want caste discrimination to exist. Given that reality, should the people who don't want caste discrimination to exist simply pretend caste doesn't exist (and therefore caste discrimination doesn't exist) or acknowledge that the former group exists and try to do something about it?
The hierarchy of castes (and the untouchables) is intrinsic to the caste system, I am not the one making a value judgment. It's like saying "upper class" vs. "middle class" vs. "working class", which are within the reference frame of the class system.
One could of course combat it by totally transforming the original language and rituals of the culture, so that they can’t be used anymore. That is what communists tried to do with the Bible for instance.
But if you want to refer to things in a really widespread system by their name, then you show respect to the people practicing the system and may have more success in saying — keep believing what you are believing, but in this context you cannot enforce it. You may have an easier time getting it adopted then.
In the case of the caste system, my initial reaction was like the sibling comment but then I realized that I personally (and many Indians today) no longer believe it has anything to do with reality and is in fact just a self perpetuating mass delusion. So the question is, do we therefore have a right to gaslight and disrespect the beliefs of those who do believe it if they come to live in our country. My guess is yes.
This seems like a definition of racism that, at the very least, doesn't align with everyday use of the word and most people's conceptual understanding of it. What makes your minority interpretation of racism the correct one?
It seems to me that defining racism like this is less about reflecting some ground truth, and more about trying, through linguistic prescriptivism, to change an expansive term into something more proscribed, in order to focus attention only on a particular subset of activity. But doing so in a somewhat underhanded way, that avoids acknowledging or justifying the motivations behind the redefinition and instead attempts to make it a definitional fait acompli, saying "your definition is wrong, and mine is right".
The goal is simple - individual discrimination and systemic discrimination are fundamentally different things.
And systemic discrimination is what has been used to oppress minorities in the US for as long as the US has existed.
Indeed, I believe the opposite position (that all discrimination against all people based on race is racism) is the underhanded approach, as it waters down the concerns around systemic discrimination by emphasizing the individual discrimination over the systemic discrimination.
Discrimination against someone based on race is wrong. Full stop.
But it's critical we understand that what Black people in America face isn't just a few individuals with backwards ideas. It's fundamentally and categorically different than a few people hating me because I'm white.
Knowing nothing at all about this topic, I have a very basic question: How do people find out about the caste of another person? I mean, for example, is it because of the family name? Or dialect/accent? (I'd know if someone grew up in Liverpool as soon as they spoke)
Usually the last name is a giveaway. That said, last names are very regional in India, so someone from north India can pretty much instantly infer the caste of another north Indian, but that person would have difficulty doing the same with a south Indian last name.
Hi, just your average American here, please forgive my lack of understanding. I was under the impression that the system of using a father's first name as a son or daughter's last name was intended to disrupt caste identification by name. Is this not the case? I'm asking genuinely. I have worked with a lot of people from India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh and it's been something I have struggled to understand.
The British introduced that system, aligned on the Western European system (not everywhere, though, Iceland is an outlier). That's why you have people like Padmasree Warrior, one of her husband's ancestors put his profession as his last name when the British asked for one, and it stuck. Then again, many English surnames are also based on profession, one of Jimmy Carter's ancestors literally made carts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variar
Is a caste who have traditionally rendered temple services. it is not related to the english word or meaning warrior.
The caste name also differs from region to region. I am not sure if the person you mentioned is the same caste or a different one.
Caste does not say your ancestors did that job, caste meant a person from a particular caste could only do that job and could not take up other jobs, people from other castes could not take their jobs and were disqualified because you were not born in a particular list of families.
Some castes were prohibited from getting an education and were killed for this.
Yeah exactly, nowadays (especially in the US)... it's not easy to tell what caste a person is from.
If someone doesn't want to share their caste, that's very easy to do.
Hence... discrimination amongst indians is usually around where in india you're from, what language do you speak (tamil, hindi, marathi, etc.), what tier college you went to (IIT?), obviously gender, and other factors.
Comparing Caste to race is completely wrong and it's a red herring.
Having every indian fill out what caste they are on their job application doesn't solve the problem.
While the factors you mention are relevant, caste ranks higher than those, maybe lower than religion. Its pretty easy to tell someone's caste just from their last name (at least for North Indian Hindus). I have an uncommon last name that makes hard for most people to tell my caste but it also means lots of people have come up to me talking shit about our other low caste co-workers, assuming I'm high caste (I'm not). This phenomenon seems to exist purely with immigrant South Asians and disappears completely after first generation.
It's a difficult thing unless you have access to their official/historical documents. Family name can be a starting point. But it's not enough to full ascertain someone's caste. One thing you can do is to avoid using food preferences and skin color to figure out the caste. These have only led to more anecdotes and distract attention from the actual discrimination.
> We need to stop being defensive and touchy about such charges.
I think it’s a human trait in general. People often don’t handle when a piece of their culture is by and large rejected as backwards and wrong. Often a lot of doubling down happens and you end up with some really nasty fringe groups. Often people evolve and adapt and it’s a success story.
> I am Indian-American (born into a brahmin family if that matters) and personally haven't noticed casteism
Same (I'm also indian but I'm vaishya). But I have a bunch of white dudes telling me that it happens all the time!
I've seen much more discrimination on other factors - mainly around what state you're from (since someone from chennai obviously has a completely different culture than someone from delhi)
Religion is already a protected category. Arguably caste falls within both religion and race categories, but it is better to make it explicit until case law and state and federal legislation catch up.
In parts of the US, Catholics or Jews were not allowed to hold office well into the 1870s, so your example is not as hypothetical as you seem to think.
It does not matter what religion the discriminator is, it is the act of discrimination based on a protected characteristic (in this case religion) which is illegal. Imagine a Jewish boss rejecting Jewish candidates because he does not want his company to get the reputation of being only for Jews to apply to, that would still be illegal discrimination, even if they are of the exact same religion.
Before you accuse me of making up a contrived example, that was exactly why the New York Times downplayed the Holocaust during WWII despite by that time uncontrovertible evidence, because they did not want to be perceived as a Jewish news outlet engaging in special pleading:
> It does not matter what religion the discriminator is, it is the act of discrimination based on a protected characteristic (in this case religion) which is illegal
There is a nuance here. Sunni-shia is a sect rather than a religion.
There is a difference between:
1. A Muslim manager rejecting a Muslim candidate (without knowing or paying attention to their sect)
2. A Sunni manager rejecting Shia candidates while hiring Sunni candidates
1 is covered by current law while 2 is not (this is why Seattle passed this ban but for castes)
Your example won't apply here as the candidate won't be rejected due to being Muslim but rather being Sunni or Shia. If there were sects in play in the Judaism case, then that is an accurate parallel.
This is out of topic: Also, shouldn't laws go beyond just discrimination? Shouldn't we legislate towards prevent violence given the past and present of Sunni-shia violence? Discrimination in jobs seem tame compared to outright violence.
I personally don’t mind any amount of criticism and scrutiny if it means an end to the evil scourge that is casteism.
However what I do mind is when this criticism is mixed with religion and culture bashing (in this case Hinduism) by ill-informed people who read hot takes on the news.
Case in hand, the Seattle ordinance. The councilwoman proposing the ordinance went to great lengths to assure people that it doesn’t target a single religion and yet here’s a BBC article[0] that manages to convey an extraordinary amount of misinformation in one line on the third paragraph. This is exactly what people were concerned about and exactly what is playing out.
Edit: Text from the article “ The caste system in India dates back over 3,000 years and divides Hindu society into rigid hierarchical groups.” There are many flaws with this statement but Hacker News is probably not the best place for history lessons.
The caste system exists outside India. In Japan, people who were falconers, butchers, leather workers and other "ignoble" or "cruel" professions under Buddhism were branded as untouchables, burakumin in Japanese, sometimes also eta or hinin, literally meaning "subhuman". Somehow the lord who employed the falconer was not cruel or ignoble, funny how things work out...
The issue is that Americans with half-baked knowledge think that all Indians have a caste assigned to them, or that India has a national level caste allocation policy. For Americans who hate India, this gives them more ammo to hate us.
>I am Indian-American (born into a brahmin family if that matters) and personally haven't noticed casteism, barring the occasional idiot in our communities.
That's the Indian equivalent of "I was born into a white family and I personally haven't noticed racism, barring the occasional idiot..."
Would be really great if you could spend 20 minutes reading up on Indian culture before lecturing us on what our issues are.
I'm not saying discrimination doesn't happen. But from what I've seen, it's rarely about caste and usually about other factors (read my other comments in this thread for context)
"Brahman, also spelled Brahmin, Sanskrit Brāhmaṇa (“Possessor of Brahma”), highest ranking of the four varnas, or social classes, in Hindu India. "
... did you think a quick google would confirm what you're saying? I'm confused.
What you're doing is kind of like a white American lecturing an Indian about how, in spite of what they may know already, racism in the US is overblown.
I never said nor implied discrimination doesn't happen. I'm saying it's far more complicated than just what caste you're in... and you're chasing the wrong thing if you just go after caste.
1) I'm not brahmin. I'm Vaishya. And my last name makes that extremely obvious.
2) It's not obvious what caste you're from. What is obvious is where in india you're from, what college you're from (indians care a TON about college rank), what cultural upbring you had. It's far more likely to get discriminated on that.
Again, you're taking your knowledge of American politics and applying that to India.
India has a far richer history (thousands of years vs. 250 years) and far more areas to discriminate over.
You are 1) completely clueless and 2) incredibly arrogant about issues you know nothing about. So yeah, not really interested in talking to you further.
I never said you were. I certainly wouldn't have imagined you were dalit with your attitude, but I wouldn't have put a bet on Brahmin either.
>It's not obvious what caste you're from. What is obvious is where in india you're from, what college you're from (indians care a TON about college rank),
I thought you were trying to emphasize just how NOT like the US Indian culture is? Going to Harvard is, y'know, kind of a big deal in the US too, even if the officer who just pulled you over can't tell at a glance.
>what cultural upbring you had. It's far more likely to get discriminated on that.
I mean, I'm no expert on India but I'd bet pretty good money that a lot of this parallels "acting white" in the US - which is often used as cover for the underlying prejudice.
And that fury you are exhibiting about "how I wouldn't know because I'm not one of them"... yeah, white Southern Americans have been like that to me too (I'm not American).
Prejudice and social hierarchy reinforcement is more of a human trait than a cultural one, and similar patterns are exhibited in different cultures.
As an Indian, coming from a lower caste family, this makes me happy. India already banned caste discrimination years ago and it had a positive impact on marginalized communities. The next step might be to follow something akin to caste-reservations that we have in India, to level the playing field for communities that have been marginalized for centuries. Advocating for more lower-caste Indian representation in private companies can be a good start. It can be a part of DEI initiatives that we have seen so many companies embrace.
Overall, this is a positive development. But we still have a long way to go!
There was only one case brought by Equality Labs, the Cisco case, which was thrown out. Any perceived discrimination also will be made out to be caste discrimination as there is money to be made, benefits to be had.
Upper caste manager dings lower caste employee for performance --> caste discrimination
Upper caste employee talks back to lower caste manager ---> caste discrimination
I think the point is that the people in US companies who are caste sensitive -- often after growing up in an Indian household-- are using their positions of power to hurt some castes. Remember that many of the big (and small) tech companies in the US are run by the Desi.
That caste reservation system you mentioned is fundementally flawed. For example, it will favor children of low caste individual who already benefitted from the system and is at economically very priviledged position over children of a high caste individual who are economically disadvantaged.
> That caste reservation system you mentioned is fundementally flawed.
The caste reservation system has been pivotal in bringing social issues faced by the lower castes to mainstream politics. Only when some lower caste members made it up the social ladder through reservations, were they able to articulate their issues and lend a helping hand to others in their social groups.
> For example, it will favor children of low caste individual who already benefitted from the system and is at economically very priviledged position over children of a high caste individual who are economically disadvantaged.
Economics does play a certain part in social dynamics. But social advantages trump any economic disadvantages. Even though a lower-caste member might be in an economically advantageous situation, they are still subject to the social dynamics, put in place by the upper echelons of the hierarchy, that are antagonistic to their upliftment. This justifies caste-reservation so that we, as a humanitarian society, can lift up everybody.
In America, should the caste reservation system give more good jobs to lower-caste Indians at the expense of higher-caste Indians, or at the expense of all other demographics, or at the expense of white people?
The idea of Indian workers in tech getting more representation sounds a little silly. I don't know the breakdown of percentages per caste, but it would be interesting to see if they are still each massively over-represented vs. other groups. The only way it would make any sense would be at the expense of other castes (which I also don't really agree with either, since in a way it is just reinforcing the caste system by relying on it as a criterion/metric), while also reducing Indian representation as a whole
> at the expense of higher-caste Indians, or at the expense of all other demographics, or at the expense of white people?
I am assuming you mean: demonstrably meritorious members of socially priviledged groups. Well, what gets lost in the discussion of merit is how an individual achieves it and how social factors that are outside their hand influence them in reaching or never-reaching their true potential. Reservations, in my opinion, should be seen as lending a hand to individuals who find themselves subject to antagonistic social structures that are a product of divisive and elitist thinking spanning hundreds of years. It is not a tussle, so as to say, between one group versus another, but a collaboration between the two halves of society (one which enjoyed a higher position in the social hierarchy for centuries and the other which was exploited) to realize the best in all of us. This might understandably entail priviledged members of society letting go of some of their priviledges they enjoy due to their birth in a certain family.
But you still end up with the problem where your caste determines your privilege; the only difference is which caste benefits. Wouldn't it be better to work toward a system where the caste has no impact on your opportunities?
GOD NO, I have seen this in India where someone from a so-called low caste only has to get 50% in exams to become a doctor whilst other castes have to get 70% or higher. It creates a system where merit goes and instead you get stupid people into high roles.
Anyone should get a role if they get the right scores, not because of their surname
This is why America was intended to be a melting pot: so that cultural baggage could be left behind.
Complete waste of resources just to demonstrate how progressive the city is.
I don't understand your comment. We agree that caste discrimination is bad and should be "left behind," but you don't want laws passed about that?
It feels like you're saying "things should be this way, so I assume that they already are" rather than "things should be this way, so let's construct laws that encourage that."
If you start with the presumption that anti-discrimination laws already exist, then you may see this law as merely performative -- it didn't outlaw anything that was actually permitted prior.
But it could also be that such a redundant law is part of an broader acculturation process, and so has more cultural, rather than legal value.
But... caste based employment discrimination is (arguably in court) permitted in the US. Discrimination protections are only for categories specified and caste isn't specified.
It's been drifting from melting pot to multiculturalism for (at least) the past few decades - distinct independent cultures that interact with each other, without leaving the baggage behind.
From what I understand, it is a problem in the tech sphere. But caste is not a protected class because it should not exist here. So, depending on how this law is written, it could extend anti-discrimination protections to groups that otherwise don't have it at the moment.
I disagree that America was intended to be a melting pot. That idea came later. It was intended to be a federation of Christian, culturally English states.
I don't think anything was intended, it just happened due to historical facts. US in the meantime invented its own class systems - income/wealth you have, university you went to etc.
And of course skin color in the past that it still struggles to shed off (every US person of asian origin I've met while backpacking complained to me how its great the progress black minority receives, but they feel left behind and much more exposed to racism).
People really don't need much to look down on different others, I'd say its still part of human nature.
every US person of asian origin I've met while backpacking complained to me how its great the progress black minority receives, but they feel left behind and much more exposed to racism
Is there any group in the US who doesn't feel, on average, that they are the most discriminated-against?
Most of the people of Asian origin I've met have been happy that the civil rights fought for mainly by black Americans before them helped them as well. This is an economic class issue. Lower class people of any race are more likely to hate other races and blame them (and other people generally) for their problems.
A melting pot means that everything (everyone) assimilates to the majority. That's not really what America was intended to be, but it is what a large part of the population wants it to be.
> This is why America was intended to be a melting pot:
That's really a concept that manifested much later in American history. By no means was it intended to be a "melting pot" from the very start, or even the first 1/3 of its existence.
How is it simultaneously a good thing for caste systems to be annihilated in immigrant communities, and a bad thing to annihilate caste systems in immigrant communities?
Seattle is doing tons of stuff. They recently upzoned a huge amount of the city, approved ranked choice voting, approved social housing, expanded rail, fixed a major bridge failure before it failed, and plenty more.
Crime rates are down, the city has grown astronomically, etc.
Look at these graphs. Crime has consistently fallen.
The article you linked is discussing a recent uptick after a stable period of low crime. They've cherry picked the statistics to not show the huge drop in crime over the past 40 years.
I have. I've lived here for nearly 40 years. I've been active in politics here and I've experience with both the data and the anecdotes.
Seattle has less crime then it did 40, 30, and 20 years ago. The past three years were exceptional and the report does indicate increased rates of violent crime.
But we had a global pandemic, a contentious election, a spotlight on police brutality, etc.
I guess you can make the call, whether you think that's a trend or an anomaly, but when I look at the data I see us having a crime rate half of what it used to be, with an uptick in the most unusual years in a generation.
Read this report by a group strongly incentivized to and rewarded by a creation of the perception that crime is high, about how high you should perceive crime to be.
When you learned how to use primary sources did they teach you to take them at face value without any consideration of the purpose, goals, constraints, and motivations of the people who created them?
I'm curious what other source you would even reference in this situation? Also do you really think the police intentionally misreport numbers that make themselves look bad?
I doubt there's a single trustworthy authoritative source that presents a complete picture. I'm not saying completely ignore or dismiss what the police say, but consider it in its context as one piece of information, published by an organization with its own needs and biases, rather than the single defining instance.
Police definitely lie a lot, and invest significant resources in outreach and PR, which we would straightforwardly call propaganda if someone else was doing it. The motivations are probably more complex than just what makes them look bad. And the mechanisms are probably more sophisticated than simply publishing completely false data in a report.
> Also do you really think the police intentionally misreport numbers that make themselves look bad?
Social housing is a horrible idea and it only passed because voter turnout is so low. Seattle is doing a lot of nothing and anyone living here can tell you that.
Metro resident since 2015 here, aside from rising home prices just about everything has gotten better for me. Expanded transit, light rail will be within walking distance of my house in 2 years, better food and restaurants, incredible schools for the future with kids, etc. That doesn't happen because people sit around with their thumbs up their butts.
This is a huge peorblem across the board. It goes unnoticed in corporate culture as everyone is focused on diversity based on color or origins. There is also a major discrimination issue between regions of India. North vs south. I have seen South Indian promote, hire etc other South Indians.
“ One of the most striking findings of this report is the exceptionally high rates of discrimination reported by those of Caste-oppressed background in places of employment. 67% of Dalits surveyed in the diaspora reported being treated unfairly at their workplace because of their Caste. 12% of Shudras also report the same.
To show this in contrast with other protected classes of people, data from national surveys report that approximately 40% of women experience discrimination in the workplace based on gender. However, unlike categories such as gender, no specific legislation exists to protect people from workplace Caste-ediscrimination. This is an area of concern that companies that work with and hire South Asian American immigrants should consider when crafting HR policies to create safe and equitable workplaces.
Employees feel that Caste is not well-understood by other Americans, feel their concerns will not be given weight, and fear being dismissed or suffering other negative consequences to their career. Ultimately, they often do not report their discrimination or correct their situation.”
Equality labs survey is anything but scientific. The participants were not carefully sampled. They say it was "community organized", which basically means it was a link that was propagated by activists to like-minded people to participate and pass the link on to. They don't explain their methodology in their report. See a rebuttal here [1]
Caste discrimination does exist, but not to the extent the report projects.
I don't. I've seen this[1] passed around as an evidence to show a much lesser prevalence of caste-based discrimination, but I haven't myself examined this in depth.
> Muslims report the greatest degree of religious discrimination by far (39 percent), followed by Hindus (18 percent), Christians (15 percent), and believers of other faiths (9 percent). Sixteen percent of Indian Americans report being discriminated against by virtue of their Indian heritage. And, finally, 5 percent of all respondents report having encountered discrimination due to their caste identity.
Also note that one of the founders of this organization has called for “dismantling” Hinduism and to ban festivals like Holi. How anyone takes this report or the organization behind it seriously is beyond me…
Look for Prof. Andre Beteille work. His father was French and mother a Bengali Brahmin (French had a few colonies in India). M N Srinivas has done a lot of empirical work on caste. Every student of anthropology study caste .
There is a quite a lot of data on both Indian villages and caste system but caste is the offices is not well studied, IMO.
By the way, caste takes a lot of shapes. There have also been attempt to study racial divide in US South from caste perspective (a social category rather than a biological one).
PS: I am a high caste Indian living in India who has more than interests in caste system.
PPS: Mention of caste triggers most Indians, even those who are not living abroad. My wife (south Indian Brahmins) feels somewhat annoyed with my interest in caste. I won't ask my fellow Indians about caste, ever!! It triggers them more than saying bad thing about Modi.
Is any of his work about caste in the US or Seattle?
PPS: Mention of caste triggers most Indians, even those who are not living abroad. My wife (south Indian Brahmins) feels somewhat annoyed with my interest in caste. I won't ask my fellow Indians about caste, ever!! It triggers them more than saying bad thing about Modi.
I know the feeling. Asking for data on caste discrimination in US triggers the other set of Indians more than saying any good thing about Modi/India.
My guess would be that not a lot of people have done work to collect concrete data around it. Problems like these really go unnoticed, even most samples from urban-young crowd in India will say, "why do we need reservation?", "there's no caste discrimination".
Idk, I’m indian and I’ve absolutely never encountered anything close to caste based discrimination in the US.
The thread seems to be a bunch of non-indian people (white dudes) talking about what they heard from “second hand” sources.
But whatever. Hopefully I won't have to start filing TPS reports on my caste.
I'm not saying discrimination doesn't happen. But there's literally dozens of factors that indians like to use to discriminate against each other (what language you speak - we don't all speak hindi, what state you're from, religion, gender, and a bunch others)
Half the time it's impossible to tell what caste someone is from. (Not the case for me - my last name gives it away - but again, I've never had someone discriminate against me based on my caste)
Do you live in Seattle? Literally the top comment from the linked thread is by someone in Seattle who says it's a big problem
Maybe it's only a problem in Seattle and not other cities in the US. Might be why Seattle is the first/only US city to implement such a policy
Being Indian is only half of it, if you live in Birmingham, Alabama you probably have no idea what it's like in Seattle, Washington
I am neither Indian nor live in Seattle so I can't and won't say in any direction, but it's important not to dismiss what others say they're experiencing out of hand just because you haven't experienced it
Caste followers have a lot of undue social advantage over the oppressed groups (like in any other form of discrimination). Admitting that it exists would be the first step to giving up those undue privileges. It's perhaps that subconscious bias that leads them to 'caste denial'. People from most upper castes will swear that it doesn't exist outside of rural and uneducated areas of India. But ask someone from the lower (oppressed castes) and they will tell you the very many innocuous-looking ways in which caste based discrimination is meted out to them. Caste is never mentioned - but the treatment follows a predictable caste pattern. People in US are unlikely to hear these stories because a large population of Indians there are the wealthy privileged ones. So, these denials backed by anecdotal evidences should be taken with a lot of skepticism.
Ah apologies. We maybe live in the same area (I am in #1 in the US I think by most accounts), so you might be my neighbor :)
And yes, not Seattle. I don't live in Seattle. I didn't mean offense. I just worked at a lot of companies with very diverse cultures, and not picking on Indian people, but I have experienced this "problem" (it is a problem but it wasn't a problem for me, so I dunno) several times.
NYC, NJ, and Dallas haven't passed laws around it, so maybe it's not an issue there. Maybe, like I said, it's a particular issue in Seattle and not as much elsewhere
I have noticed with India born Indians that they have questions they'll ask to try and figure out each others' caste. Things like where they lived and grew up in India, what they're parents did, etc.
It's completely alien for someone that's spent an overwhelming amount of time in western countries.
There is a lot of casteism in Punjabi Sikh songs about Jatt caste being superior, just listen to the lyrics like "Jatt da muqabala". I hope this will now be used to identify casteist people of all castes who make remarks against other communities.
What about discrimination against North Indians by South Indians? If you are from North India and a South Indian manager screwed you over, please comment here. I would like to know if its a trend. Counter examples are not helpful.
North and South both screw each other over. And people of the same race / region / caste / creed screw over others belonging to the same group. This is universal and will never change. What this legislation does is line the pockets of the people putting their pens to paper for it while piggybacking on a divisive issue.
And yeah, I've had good friends from almost every state in India. Some of them were weird about it, most don't really care. So-called "nationalists" will screw you over in any region if you're a migrant.
Anyway, it's not a binary issue. It's just something that happens, and it's not possible to legislate.
I applaud the action, but also, I don’t think this is the right way to enforce this. This should be enforced on grounds of racial background for max effect, since it is an established precedent.
Making it illegal does not make it go away. Like racisim has not ended. They need to bring in reservations in education and govt jobs, a strong act like the sc/st act to ensure marginalized people get their due.
It does give you recourse if it does happen though and over time it at least gets quieter and more subtle. If we'd applied this same logic to the Civil Rights Act in the 60s we would be much further behind where we've made it to today.
> They need to bring in reservations in education and govt jobs
No that would be idiotic because most of the time the discrimination has nothing to do with Caste.
Different areas of india have completely different cultures (languages, foods, customs, etc.)
Most of the discrimination is based on where you're from (do you speak tamil vs. hindi vs gujarati...)
People want to hire people who are similar to them. Chasing caste is the wrong issue.
India has thousands of years of cultural history & practices. America has...250 years?
Applying your mental models from American politics to India (which is far more complicated) and then forming a strong opinion (without knowing anything about indian culture) is hilariously idiotic.
There's far more things indian discriminate on other than caste. Location, language, family group, language-spoken, wealth, etc. And obviously political views.
Half the time you have no idea what caste someone is.
[1] As an Indian who does not come from an upper caste and has worked in Seattle, I have yet to experience any instance of caste even being mentioned in Indian circles, let alone experience any semblance of discrimination or see it happen near me.
I'd believe it if someone told me IITians didn't eat with those from other universities. Or that 2nd gen Indian-Americans didn't eat with 1st gen immigrants. But this sort of thing is practically unheard of. Our Indian circle is pretty huge, and I haven't ever even so much as heard a whisper about this.
I find that Americans have some bizarre views and opinions about India. Like they read some colonial era British report about the nation, watched slum dog millionaire and that's it. India has changed an insane amount since independence, and it has changed even more than that just in the last 20 years.
I consistently find that HN threads about India are among the lowest quality of discourse on this forum. Highly opinionated while still being misinformed. The worst combination.
________
Hot take, but Americans have an internalized hubris about their civilizational understanding of anything past their own borders. They seem incapable of understanding social dynamics from a non-white-vs-black-American racialized lens.
I am not just generalizing, I am actively calling this out as universal. You see it at even the highest level of intellectual discourse, and the so-called 'woke' might be the worst of them all.
India is a civilizational nation with a population base & internal diversity that has matched or exceeded Europe over multiple millennia. (not just after our population explosion). Americans will demand a PhD before believing whether Mary Antoinette asked people to eat cake, but will readily accept any loud mouth's opinion on an entire subcontinent & parallel civilization. Take a seat. It's complicated, nuanced, and will take at least a few hours to even scratch the surface of. Yes, that's just how it is when you try to understand a nation as vast and alien from an outsider's lens.
I'm feel like bickering today, so I will use some choice words. The worst of them all are the 'coconuts'. It is a derogatory term for those who are 'brown on the outside, white on the inside'. More specifically, people who have limited their interactions with India and Indians to merely their filter bubble, yet they feel entitled to an opinion about India, just by the virtue of the color of their skin. To each their own, but to then stand on a pedestal and claim to be the authoritative voice on 'what Indians are like' is preposterous. This is 1.5 billion people we are talking about here. I can find an anecdote to support anything I'd like.
I specifically call out America (and Anglo-nations), because EU-Europeans have more humility. There is a certain rage that they too feel, when stereotypes bleed across national borders, and that's when both countries speak the same language, eat the same food and are genetically identical. They see the same distances on an Indian map and intuitively understand the implications for diversity & mutual differences. Even Mercator's best efforts can't hide how vast this land is. Americans seem to have no muscles for that kind of nuance. And yes, I am claiming this is a universal experience among Americans. [2]
[1] Copying part of my comment from the other thread yesterday.
[2] This is not to say that Americans are worse people. I have in fact repeatedly defended the US as the least racist country in the world. But cultural exchange is hard, and every culture has their own blind spot. 'The interweaving of identity, caste & class dynamics among Indian diaspora' is the perfect collision of these blind spots and the struggles of cultural exchange.
I understand, from a project management perspective, the need for a concerted, coordinated push to penalize widespread discrimination against a particular category of people. But I do not understand, from a legal perspective, why some groups are protected from discrimination while others are not.
What the people who introduced legislation don't realise is how they have been made to be used as useful tools, take all the focus on the number of hate attacks on Hindus away from attention and focus on some minor disagreements that are not really present in day to day society for most.
I mean its pretty stupid when rather than trying to reduce racism against Hindus and Indians, some useful idiots have been used in the Indian community to shoot themselves in the foot.
Funny how the United States is speedrunning ""sensible"" legislation without considering what it entails in the country the practice originates from. And yep, once enforced it's never going away. I guess people can now look forward to ever-convoluted steps for mitigating issues caused by this, and it'll fill the coffers of anyone that puts his stake into it. Better for the lawmakers, crap for literally everyone else.
BTW, to anyone that hasn't lived in India: you don't understand how extensive """caste discrimination""" is or how it impacts society. You just don't.
