Talk:Caste.html



WikiProject Sociology      (Rated B-Class)

Sociology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

WikiProject Human rights      (Rated B-Class)

Human rights portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Archives

/Archive 1

Doesn't labeling people by castes breed ASPD? Known 11:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Caste Requires Legal Sanction

Unless I the law recognizes and enforces social boundaries based on birth into a defined social class, there is no caste system. Caste practices may exist, but if they can't be enforced, the social boundaries they rely on can't hold. This doesn't mean that there aren't effects of caste practices that survive, or that classes based on one's momentary position in a given economy don't exist. Caste refers to the specific case where one's social class is fixed simply by classification, and that can only survive by enforcement. If not enforced, it's meaningless. Tmangray 19:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

You are simply wrong. look up a dictionary. By your definition this entire article is to be deleted because none of the countries mentioned legally sanction casteism.Rumpelstiltskin223 19:59, 1 January

2007 (UTC)

I agree with Rumpelstiltskin223. Tmangray, you are so wrong. India most certainly has government reservations on the basis of caste, but the law--the constitution--claims that caste is illegal. So do we have a caste system or do we not? Caste is a social system, not a legal system. The offenders are not the law makers, they are the people themselves. --Supriya (talk) 10:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The definitions are out of date. They are holdovers from the time when those caste systems were in fact enforced by law, and when the state and religion were, by law, intertwined. However, I will allow that "legal enforcement" includes instances where the law does not provide for effect challenge of surviving caste practices. But realistically, unless a caste practice can be affirmatively enforced, how can it be maintained over time? In the past when the law actually assigned classifications, rights and privileges were accorded based on that classification. Such things are increasingly unusual, and more often than not are employed as legal remedies AGAINST the effects of past practices. Tmangray 20:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Please provide Reliable Sources to back up your first statement, otherwise it is not wikipedia policy. What "you will allow" is a violation of WP:OWN. "Realistically", most countries with caste systems have only abolished them legally recently (ie sometime in the 20th century). Casteism going on in Japan, India/Pakistan, Korea etc is social inertia against modern law. In India, for instance, there were many kingdoms and Empires that abolished caste by law (Mughals, Marathas etc) but the practice remained thanks to the social inertia from the period when they WERE legally enforced (Zawabi under Delhi Sultanate etc.). Therefore, legal sanction is clearly not suitable as the SOLE criteria to define Casteism. We have to say legal and/or social. Rumpelstiltskin223 20:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Not Restricted to "Clans", "Gens"

Caste systems are not confined solely to tribal systems. Latin America's caste system, for example, had nothing at all to do with clans or gens, simply race. Japan also did not use tribal criteria. Tmangray 19:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

There is not much difference between race and tribe. Race is an artificial construct invented by 19th century Europeans to sugarcoat their ideas of tribalism.Rumpelstiltskin223 20:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between race and tribe. Race was created to refer to supposed subspecies distinctions within the human species, yes, with an eye to distinguishing Europeans from all others. On the other hand, tribalism is real and starkly distinct from subsequent forms of society. Tribal societies are entirely based on extended family affiliations whereas non-tribal societies are not. Tmangray 20:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

What is your WP:POINT? Rumpelstiltskin223 20:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I just stated it. Race and tribe are distinct terms and concepts. Tmangray 20:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Contemporary Latin America

There is no system of castes in Latin America any longer. The degree of racial mixture and the absence of official classifications makes the idea meaningless today. No one has a birth certificate any longer which specifies their race or caste. There persists racism based on one's appearance (which because of racial mixture is almost always deceiving) and economic status, and practices that echo the old caste system, but these are a far cry from a full blown caste system as once existed. In the old system, there's no way a person who was a Moslem, for example, could be the wealthiest person in Mexico such is the case today. The president of Venezuela is triracial today. Even the despots over the years have included people who would have been officially classified as undercaste before the various revolutions. Tmangray 20:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

By your logic, there is no system of castes in India any longer either. The degree of inter-caste mixture and absence of "official classification makes the idea meaningless today. No one has a birth certificate in India that specifies their race or caste. There persists casteism based on the person's last name and votebank politics and economic status, and practices that echo the old caste system, but htere are a far cry from the full blown caste system that once existed when Dalits' shadow would not be allowed upon an upper caste-ite. In the old system, there is no way by which an untouchable could ever have been the President of India, as was the case prior to India's present one. There are several Dalits in academia, industry, politics etc.Even despots like Narendra Modi are from very low castes. So, what's your point again? Rumpelstiltskin223 21:20, 1 January

2007 (UTC)

Latin America also includes Brazil, that had an diferent social system then that of Hispanic America.The title of this section is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.27.119.25 (talk) 13:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Then there is no caste system anymore in India, by your description. You may be right. There may be caste practices, but unless they are SYSTEMATIC, that is, fundamental and dominating social interactions in a regular way, it would be incorrect to call it a SYSTEM of castes. You can't call black white. How would you define the distinction between a class and a caste? The critical distinction is that one is immutable, based on birth and the other not. Tmangray 22:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood my argument entirely. I was applying your argument to India to show how fallacious it is. Just because there is no caste system mandated by law does not mean there isn't a social system of stratification based on historical beliefs in differences. The extent may have reduced because of the absense of state sanction, but the inertia still keeps it in the society. Many sociologists believe that caste and class are not as distinct as you say. For instance, the US library of Congress makes no distinction between caste and class.Rumpelstiltskin223 23:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

In Latin America, physical appearance (phenotype) and economic status are the common form of discrimination, not birth or legal classification. That is not caste. In the same immediate family, one sibling can be dark, another light, and another intermediate. They will be treated differently by some people who pay attention to that. Mostly these days, the trump card isn't even this, but socioeconomic status, mere class. Saying there is a caste system today confounds understanding of what the actual, historic caste system was like, and also confounds understanding the class society that exists there today. Tmangray 23:01, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:No Original Research. Rumpelstiltskin223 23:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all I would like to note that there was no caste system in Rwanda between the Tutsi and Hutu before Europeans came. When the Europeons came, they used their ignorant ideology and divided the once peaceful Tutsi and Hutu. So in a sense, the caste system in Rwanda was started by Europeans not Tutsi. Besides, the Rwandan Genocide was classified in this article as an uprising of undercaste Hutu against overlord Tutsis, and that is absolutely ridiculus. The people causing the genocide were the French-armed Hutu extremists who wanted to kill every innocent Tutsi and moderate Hutu. Besides at the time of the Rwandan Genocide the Tutsis were not "overlords"! Who wrote this?.

Even if Europeans are partly at fault for the Rwandan "caste system," Hutus and Tutsis have to shoulder most of the blame. THEY are the ones who discriminated each other, which led to the genocide. Europeans didn't make them do that. Chiss Boy 15:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Is there really a Caste System in Pakistan?

The entry on a Caste system in Pakistan is at the very least partly inaccurate. I am from Pakistan and while there are serious sectarian conflicts between different religious sects (e.g., Shia, Sunni, etc...) and problems between majority and minority tribal groups, these problems have a different root than the Caste system. I have tried to edit this entry three times now but someone keeps reverting it back to the original - incorrect - version with zero discussion. I hope through discussion this entry can be changed to something that represents the true situation in Pakistan.

My problems with the stated definition of caste issues in Pakistan are as follows: jobs are not prescribed or forbidden to different tribal/religious groups; although obviously poorer people tend to have more menial jobs. Intermarriage may occur within tribal groups but this is not the same thing as a caste system. It is rather that minority groups tending to marry within the same group - this happens anywhere in the world - including Scotland, where I currently live.

I have the following problems with the entry on Pakistan:

1. Calling Ahmadiyya, Mohajirs (NOT Mojahirs) and Punjabis, etc... different castes is wrong. They are either from different provinces in the country (analogous to the different nations in the UK) or from different religious sects. This is equivalent to describing e.g., Catholics, Protestants, Scottish and the Welsh in the UK as being different Castes.

2. Furthermore, Mukhtaran Mai is not from a low caste - she is from the Gujar tribe, a poor tribe - the men who attacked her were the village elders who came from a wealthier tribe known as the Mastoi. Mukhtar herself is a schoolteacher - not a "low" job by any description.

3. The discussion of the Hudood ordinance here is totally irrelevant as it is a legal issue and nothing to do with any Caste system at all.

I hope this is reasonable and does not offend any one while still generating reasoned and logical debate.

Thanks, Sraisa 20:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Indian Caste System

It seems that some Indian Wikipedians have to own up to the fact that there is (at least partially) a racist aspect to their caste system. Whether or not this racism existed before British rule, this racism does still exist today, and should be mentioned. Chiss Boy 15:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Hinduism tried to remove casteism. But failed in its attempt and still it coexist with hinduism other religions including islam, christianity in Indian subcontinent? When Ramayana and Mahabaratha states that the division on the basis of caste and discrimination is not acceptable to god, how it survived till date at least even in hinduism. Why did lord Ram visit Shabari and ate the food she gave if the philosophy of hinduism is in support of casteism. Was casteism in ancient time meant status as Karna was made a king by Dhuryodhana to help him to attain the status of a king to fight with another king. Why is birth in a particular community does not guarantee the caste, as happened with Karan and why is Mahabaratha highlighting such an incident, is it to state that casteism must not be a criteria based on birth? Why is that nowhere in the two epics the issue of untouchability never higlighted. Was it non-existant at that time. And why is that certain issues suggest even the non-existant of untouchability. 59.92.198.93 13:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Is it just me or is this rather prejudiced? "However, one significant blow to inherited social status in India came about with the abolition of royalty when India gained its independence from the British Empire. Ironically, India is in this regard ahead of several democratic European countries that still have kings, queens, princes, princesses, including its former colonial master Britain.24.197.174.13 (talk) 02:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Castes in Japan

snipped because it's utterly a nonsense which is based on a myth of the West. Japanese hierarchy has nothing to do with Indian caste. "Caste" is actually the White supremacy or the Aryan supremacy which defines "White" is superior to the people with darker skin. The "caste" of India is actually the same as the racism and hierarchy of the Anglo-Saxons world which also defines "Whites" are superior to the coloreds. Since Japan is racially homogeneous, and 99.99% of the Japanese are Mongoloids, it has nothing to do with such a White supremacy things.

In fact, generally speaking, the Burakumins of Japan usually have whiter skins than the skins of ordinary Japanese, and the genuine "Eta", the typical Burakumins are much richer than ordinary Burakumins since they own many exclusive businesses such as meat and butcher business, funeral service, financial business, show business, etc.. "Eta" were discriminated against because they were greedy rich making money by monopolizing such filthy businesses.

Also, those who claim they are Brakumins are not genuine Burakumins. They are merely poors of big cities. They are so-called "Ese-Burakumin" meaning "Pseudo-Burakumins" who are taking advantage of the Burakumin issues to get some benefit and official supports from the government.

So the actual situation of Japanese hierarchy is diametrically different from the Aryan supremacy of Indian caste and the White supremacy in the Anglo-Saxon world.

Castes in Korea

The definition of the word "Caste" is too enlarged. If one follows the extended definition of Caste, there is no country in the world that does not have caste system. It should be used specifically instead of as a common noun of the hierarchy. Korea is homogeneous country and there can not be racial discrimination characters like Indian Caste or Western racism in traditional hierarchy.And,the pre-modern hierarchy has totally disappeared in modern Korea society. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.157.75.134 (talk) 01:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hinduism section

Someone may want to correct the tone in this section. I'd do it myself, but I'm pretty clueless on the topic.-Wafulz (talk) 03:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Urgent Neutral rewrite needed immediately

• The article is not written in a neutral manner and breaks wikipedia policies.
• The article is heavily politicized and not written with a neutral political agenda.
• Attack pages on upper or middle class Hindus 500 million people. It attacks Hindusim and is extremist, hateful against many classes of Hindus.
• Neutral point of view. The article is not written neutrally, only explains one side of the subject and performs attacks on 800 million Hindus and Hinduism.
• No original research The articles contains many "novel narrative or historical interpretations." It is heavily politicized, contains original research and citations are taken out of context for politicization.
• Verifiability: I have checked the relevant books and certain citations and many do not verify and are fradualent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vniop (talk • contribs) 06:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Overhaul

Since the article on castes appears to be polysubjective, it may be a better idea to break it into several articles. Personally, I feel that this article is a great example of why merging articles together can be, while on one hand a way to 'clean up' WP, it makes reading articles almost impossible.

With that being said, I would propose the following changes made to the article:

• Caste separated into a definition article with a functional summary of castes and the implications of a caste system.
• Etymology section
• Description of caste rules
• Summary of caste relations, linking to full articles for each.

My feeling is that the caste system article would benefit from a format like this, as in its current state it's almost unreadable. redacting the article to the format may be a way to help it fit better into the WP:format, as well as making the article easier to site (in its current state, there are so many topics, there will undoubtedly be errors and needed citations regardless of how many rewrites are actually performed. Larshylarsh (talk) 05:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Something should be done. Vast sections of the article are completely unusable and should be deleted. For example, the Indian section, which is POV, completely unsourced, etc. Umdenken (talk) 18:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys, I made some edits to organize the section a little bit better - previously the section was completely discombobulated with various mentions of "jati" and "varna" and so on. I've tried to clarify the whole Varna/Jati business a little bit and added a couple of credible references. (Aditya) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.116.1.173 (talk) 00:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

European Castes

This section is substandard, and there is little scholarly basis for dividing medieval society into the castes provided (mercenary?). There is certainly a fair bit that can be written about European caste systems -- specifically, the Patrician vs. Plebeian caste system in Rome, and noble/commoner dichotomy later on, but what's written here needs to go. Plus, the citation seems sort of questionable. For one, "mercenary" has never been a caste, at least in any European hierarchy. 195.27.20.35 (talk) 06:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

6:58 P.M. E.S.T.

I am currious of the term astor in Lancaster, aster is to represent a Center perhaps of town, King John, the 1100's. Just a thought of study in if the two are related somehow, as of the experience of culture.David George DeLancey (talk) 23:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Caste must in all Indian Biographies

I think biographies of people from Indian Origin for e.g. Swaraj Paul should disclose their castes. Casteism has been a covert mask for socio-economic collusion in India since 12th century. --Dr. Known-- (talk) 16:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)