So instead, they fight in order to maintain the ability to engage in this sort of discrimination? Doesn't that do a whole lot more to make them seem inherently biased than supporting anti-discrimination efforts would?
The argument makes no sense to me. It really looks to me like it's not only a tacit admission that this discrimination is real, but that they want to ensure they can continue to treat certain people as second-class citizens.
AFAICT the caste system is just a subcategory of racism.
> According to geneticist David Reich, "while race may be a social construct, differences in genetic ancestry that happen to correlate to many of today's racial constructs are real."
It is all subcategories of tribalism, except the boundaries are blurred between skin tone, ancestry, traditions, diet, occupation, wealth, etc.
I can choose to join the vegetarian tribe, and I can choose to leave it.
I cannot choose the color of my skin or my race.
I don't think that is a valid argument. Laws are a hazzle to deal with etc.
It is also a sort of "have you stopped beating your wife?", "nothing to hide" etc.
I am buying caste discrimination is a big problem in the US though.
Would anyone object as strongly to a Unicorn ban as they would to a ban on caste based discrimination? We might think that the law is a waste in many ways, but no one could seriously object to the content of a Unicorn ban since it would have no real effect. The same would be true of explicitly making caste a protected class/race.
>The word appears in the Rigveda, where it means "colour, outward appearance, exterior, form, figure or shape".[4] The word means "color, tint, dye or pigment" in the Mahabharata.[4] Varna contextually means "colour, race, tribe, species, kind, sort, nature, character, quality, property" of an object or people in some Vedic and medieval texts.[4] Varna refers to four social classes in the Manusmriti.[4][5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varna_(Hinduism)
>The terms varna (theoretical classification based on occupation) and jāti (caste) are two distinct concepts. Jāti (community) refers to the thousands of endogamous groups prevalent across the subcontinent. A jati may be divided into exogamous groups based on the same gotras. The classical authors scarcely speak of anything other than the varnas; even Indologists sometimes confuse the two.[63]
The only argument against these bills that id be sympathetic to (that I don't really see that many people making) is that specifically focusing on caste might create a legal precedent that casteism and similar forms of discrimination aren't covered under existing statutes and lay the groundwork for other systems of discrimination to be shielded from anti-discrimination laws. But I don't see how just reaffirming that caste is a protected class is objectionable beyond, well, beyond the obvious reasons.
I certainly don't appreciate a bunch of casteist whackos with too much political power pretending to represent me as a part of the "Indian American community" to Gavin Newsom. Y'all can fuck right off with that bullshit.
I mean, your salary too is a form of classism, no?
Not a rhetorical question. And not asking for a friend.
Also, classism isn't a religion, even if it maybe is a feature of some. "I'm a classist" is not a legally-recognized reason to discriminate against anyone.
Disclaimer: IANAL.
The question is: when is it OK and when isn't it? Maybe it shouldn't ever be OK, if we'd be very consistent.
