Hacker News Reader

Historically speaking, most ancient societies had something similar, one way or the other. What is really interesting, is that India is the only country I know of, that codified that system religiously and carried it into the 21st century.

Not to say that there is an society without discrimination and social disparity. But only a few take it to the level the Indian caste system does.

That shows how tricky racism is, doesn't it? In the US it is African-Americans, in the UK Pakistanis and Indians, in Germany Turks and in France people from the Maghreb states. In India it is Muslims and castes, in China the Uigurs, in the Muslim world Suunits and Shiits (hope I spelled that right). In Turkey Turks and Kurds. And it all sucks. And it goes on and on, where ever you go.

Just saying, only because one Dalit wrote the constitution doesn't make the inherent discrimination and racism go away.

You don't have to look all that far back, Japan had a codified and brutally enforced (instant death penalty) case system until the late 1800s:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edo_society

Virtually nothing of it remains today though, although there are some traces of discrimination against the burakumin (Japan's untouchables) and some (rare) names are associated with the nobility. Generally speaking, though, you can't tell somebody's former caste from the name: a Maeda could be a direct descendent of the samurai clan, a retainer or peasant in the Maeda lands who adopted the name, or some random person anywhere in Japan who happened to live near the front (mae) rice paddy (-da) since Japanese names tend to reflect places, not occupations. Those few who care about "pure blood" have to hire a private investigator to ferret out burakumin traces.

> African-Americans, in the UK Pakistanis and Indians

It’s worth differentiating here. The experiences and outcomes and attitudes towards Pakistanis are very different to those of Indians in the UK. Indians are by far the most successful ethnic minority in the UK while Pakistanis are the least. Three of the most senior positions in the UK government are occupied by people of Indian descent—Priti Patel, Rishi Sunak, and Alok Sharma-all members of the Conservative Party.

Thanks for pointing it out!

Indians were descendants of middle class and entrepreneurial Kenyans,Ugandans expelled from those countries partly because they dominated them economically. They brought money and expertise with them. The Pakistanis were poor and uneducated by comparison.

There was a striking example of this in the COVID mortality statistics [1]:

> The data shows those males categorised as black are over 4.6 times more likely to die than their white counterparts from the virus. They are followed by Pakistanis/Bangladeshis (just over four times more likely to die), and then Chinese and Indians (just over 2.5 times).

People of Indian and Pakistani background are not significantly genetically different, but there is a substantial difference in how likely they are to die of COVID.

I am a bit skeptical that the difference is due to differential discrimination. I don't think most British racists are smart enough to distinguish people of Indian and Pakistani background. My hunch is that it's due to different patterns of immigration: if Indian immigrants were more likely to be middle-class, and to move to suburbs and small towns, whereas Pakistani and Bangladeshi immigrants were more likely to be working-class, and to move to inner cities, then that would produce the kinds of demographic difference that could explain the COVID disparity.

[1] https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-its-impact-cannot-be...

This mortality question is one that really intrigues me. Minorities have higher rates in the US and the UK for example. I didn't see any numbers for Germany so far, and France isn't collecting data based on "race" (for lack of a better term).

What would really be interessting is to break the mortality down by income and poverty. And than compare it to income an poverty based on race, where such numbers are available (so obviously not France). My hunch tells me mortallity is first related to social and financial circumstances, which are themselves directly related to race / being a minority / being poor. Maybe nitpicking, so, because it still tells us something about discrimination, doesn't it?

This is pretty much what the ONS have done [1]:

> We used binary logistic regression models to estimate whether the risk of dying from COVID-19 is greater among the Black and other minority ethnic groups than among the White ethnic population, after taking into account a number of geographic, demographic, socio-economic, living arrangements and health measures from the 2011 Census.

> Adjusting for these factors substantially reduces the odds of a death involving COVID-19 relative to those of White ethnicity for all ethnic groups. [...] In the fully adjusted model (Panel B), Black males and females are 1.9 times more likely to die from COVID-19 than the White ethnic group. Males of Bangladeshi and Pakistani ethnicity are 1.8 times more likely to die; for females, odds of death are reduced to 1.6 times more likely. Individuals from the Chinese and Mixed ethnic group have similar risks to those with White ethnicity.

Adjusting only for age, black men are 4.2 times more likely to die than white men. Adjusting for all the factors they thought of, they are 1.9 times more likely to die.

The fact that even the fully adjusted model still has a large and significant difference between Indian and Bangladeshi/Pakistani people suggests to me that there are other non-genetic factors that aren't included in the model.

> Maybe nitpicking, so, because it still tells us something about discrimination, doesn't it?

Yes, absolutely.

[1] https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsde...

> I didn't see any numbers for Germany so far, and France isn't collecting data based on "race" (for lack of a better term).

Germany doesn't either (by law, not just policy or habit, since the war) - quite an interesting article I saw recently reported that (in particular) black women in Germany are unhappy about it, because it (is perceived to) stymie support or positive action and such. Which, of course, was not the intended effect of banning the collection of such data at all!

However the first non-white chancellor in the Uk, before Rishi Sunak was Sajid Javid, a Pakistani, as is the mayor of London, Sadiq Khan. But wouldn’t it be fair to say the most successful Indians in the Uk come from higher castes? How successful are the Gugurati Kuchi background Indians compared to the Ugandan immigrants and higher caste Hindus.

Yes, and there are many prominent people of Pakistani origin in the UK [0]. I think it makes sense that people who immigrate with expertise, capital, and an entrepreneurial mindset are more likely to find financial success in the first couple of generations than those who don't, which correlates with caste and family history etc.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_Pakistanis

> in the UK Pakistanis and Indians

Eh?

See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_the_United_Kingdom#2...

Especially the part about "Paki-Bashing" in 80s.

I get what you were explaining, but i disagree with these parts

> How would you expect the people in those times to be okay with touching those who used to clean up toilets by hand, carry the waste on their backs?

The trouble is, this wasn't something people chose to do by choice - it was thrust upon them initially and eventually conditioned to accept as "their duty" to the society through religious conditioning. (Read Gandhi's commentary justifying this type of work)

There is enough written about this and if you are interested you can easily look up about this online and in libraries.

> traditionally descendants did the same business as it was easily taught to kids

Even this was thrust through years of conditioning my friend. They were not "allowed" to take up any other profession - they could be dead, if they dared to do this. The references for this go far back to scriptures and other religious literature my friend.

> dalit's were not working in lower level because they were untouchables, but they were untouchables because they worked in the lower levels

Not true, read the comment above, they were forced into lower level work initially.

> Indian society let Mr. B R Ambedkar (who was born Dalit) to write constitution of India - that speaks volumes.

You haven't read Ambedkar have you ? :) Indian society didn't "let" Mr. B R Ambedkar to write the constitution, he rose to that position through sheer intellectual power! He was very very ahead of his times my brother! He faced many many challenges throughout his rise due to his origins being from lower class, he rose in spite of it.

A man of such calibre, resigned when in a position of power because he didn't believe in certain ideas put forth for discussion while making amendments to the constitution etc. He felt that would jeopardize the efforts he had put in to make the constitution equal for all - and undermine democracy! Such was the man!

Thanks for your reply. Can you explain this one a little bit?

> One more example in the context of "untouchable" and Brahmins to help you understand the point of not touching others - If lady in a Brahmin house is preparing food in the morning (she will always take bath first), NOBODY (her parents, kids, husband, whatever) in the house is allowed to go to the kitchen, touch her or even drink water from there until they take bath. Please try to think about this.

Are you referring to someone who is a dalit servant in a wealthy house? That's how I'm reading it at the moment but realize you could mean it a few different ways.

In a strictly traditional Brahmin household, it's the responsibility of the housewife (who is also a Brahmin) to prepare the food for the family.

I think parent means that it's not racism and that there are similar activity based segregation rules within the same family living in the same house

It is a kind of racism my friend - it is not mentioned in the Hindu scriptures that those who are born to a Brahmin are also by birth brahmin. But in reality, that's how it is - a person is born into a caste, by birth.

For example, if a brahmin person has a baby, then that baby is brahmin by birth. But this is not what the scriptures prescribe. The scriptures mention the caste system by the nature of work one adopts.

But as you can see, it was easily corruptible. Even in 2020, there are brahmin people who explicitly state that they are the superior caste with no repercussions when the constitution mandates equal rights to its citizens. If this is not racism, what is ? Calling some fellow human being as inferior ?

Sorry this was confusing bit. As sbmthakur said - in a Brahmin family, when Brahmin lady is cooking stuff - other people in her family who are also Brahmin and blood relatives are not allowed to go near her, touch her, or in short "contaminate" her Kitchen, food etc.

> I don't know if 'ironic' is the right word but here in comments I read someone mentioning "HR wouldn't support lower level employees" in the comment in the context of "dalit". Guess what "dalit" are? "lower level employees in the society" (those who cleaned up waste).

You need to look within yourself - with the above comment you are putting yourself down in front of people. Such a bad outlook. Reeks of racist / casteist attitude. Seek some help, and read good books to get out of this pathetic attitude towards fellow human beings.

Well, the issue is it became hereditary, due to corruption.