I've yet to hear any good arguments against this ban. Sounds like people are simply upset that this is being made into an issue? Which sort of suggests that it is, in fact, a real problem; since it implies that there are those who benefit from an existing status quo.
Interested to hear from the SA members of HN on this one.
It’s an issue on its way out because unless you’re from a hyper local part of the same part of the country you can’t even tell what caste someone is. If you let it lie as is the issue will not make it past the first generation immigrants let alone the second. If you codify it legally it’s going to drag on forever.
Why would it need to be the 60's? There's plenty of groups today who support weakening or repealing the Civil Rights Act, and those groups increasingly get the attention of elected officials at all levels.
Having said that, it is very easy to discriminate against someone with a different skin color. But a different caste? I truly do not know how anyone who have any idea what caste a person belonged to, or comes from. But I am very curious.
You can’t just forget racism because the superficial differences are too stark. The caste system is akin to Europeans forgetting who was a serf and who was nobility. Something that can be left in the past. Do you want to have laws that prevent discrimination against former European serfs?
I think it's way worst than that. The caste system has deep spiritual roots in Hinduism that are over 2000 years old. Certain upper (high Brahmin, presumably) castes would literally have to perform purifying rituals if they even laid eyes on someone from one of the lowest(?) castes. No such parallel exists in Europe afaik.
Source: the origins of political order, F. Fukuyama
No, like 20 years and only in the very small percentage of people where you have people from the same part of India working with each other, they decide to carry over caste politics from India and take the step to bring it into their professional lives. This is a very small number of people.
Codifying it just makes it so people are required to remember their labels for the benefits that come from identifying as a victimized community and pass those labels on to their kids. It’s fucking terrible.
> it just makes it so people are required to remember their labels
Why do you think you need to know your label? If someone thinks you're of a given caste and discriminates against you, that's still wrong, regardless if they got the label right.
For example, someone shouted some things at me (wrongly) assuming I was Jewish. That's shitty regardless and would be illegal in some circumstances.
I’ve answered this already. If there are benefits associated with a particular label (affirmative quota, social welfare benefits) then it incentivizes an individual to know their label.
> Mr. Sinha told me that he was concerned that the addition would make South Asians like him more vulnerable to unfair accusations of discrimination.
Basically, most people can't be accused of caste discrimination, since they are completely unaware of caste markers. This understandably makes the people who could conceivably be accused of it less-than-happy because it's another thing they have to think about when hiring, promoting, etc.
I'm not SA but have tried educating myself. In terms of this ban within the context of the USA, I think it could be argued that there is 1A protection of religious freedom since the caste system is defined in the Varnas of Hindu texts. This conflict with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness would probably need to be hashed out in courts.
I would be surprised if a freedom of religion challenge could succeed here, since that would open the door to people discriminating on any number of things, based on religious views.
The Bible describes slavery and has rules around how to treat slaves. But Christians cannot keep slaves based on beliefs derived from ancient texts.
The Constitution forbids the government establishing or promoting a specific religion, and civil rights laws protect people from discrimination based on their faith. But those laws don’t allow religious people or organizations to operate outside the law.
Americans can believe whatever they want and worship in their own way. They cannot mistreat other people because their religious tradition tells them to.
I don't think any of your comments here help elucidate anything. Just because the Bible talks about slaves, it does not codify that every descendant of a slave is a slave. At least, not to my knowledge. Your comment seems very unhelpful in the context of how these things are decided in the USA. The precedence that religious customs such as Sikhs wearing kirpans have been ruled in favor over anti-weapon laws. The state can pass whatever laws it wants. It is up to the courts to decide these challenges.
> Just because the Bible talks about slaves, it does not codify that every descendant of a slave is a slave.
The traditions and rules in the Bible are somewhat more complicated than "every descendant of a slave is a slave," because the Bible (like Greek and Roman law) recognized different kinds of slaves, with different rights. As to your comment, see Leviticus 25:44-46 and Exodus 21:1-36. For example: "If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's..."
> Your comment seems very unhelpful in the context of how these things are decided in the USA.
The Constitution only prohibits the government establishing a state religion, or favoring any specific religion, as I stated in my original comment. It does not get into specifics like religious customs that conflict with secular laws. However US courts only recognize the secular laws of the US; Sharia, the Bible, Catholic Canon Law have no standing or force in US courts. The argument that the Hindu holy texts predate the US Constitution and American laws means nothing in US courts.
> The precedence that religious customs such as Sikhs wearing kirpans have been ruled in favor over anti-weapon laws.
Not sure what that means or what you refer to. The ruling regarding kirpans has to do with carrying a (ceremonial) knife into a Federal workplace. The decision to allow kirpans hinged on the same agency allowing other sharper and longer knives under their policy, not really a question of freedom of religion. In any case the issue was not can someone practice the Sikh faith in the US, but can someone carry a potential weapon into a workplace (or on a plane, or on a campus) just because their religion calls for carrying such a potential weapon. The answer is "it depends." If someone's religion says they have to carry a sharpened scimitar or a Glock 9mm they aren't going to get the same kind of allowance.
> The state can pass whatever laws it wants. It is up to the courts to decide these challenges.
At issue was an IRS workplace security policy, not a law enacted by Congress. But I get your point.
> Sounds like people are simply upset that this is being made into an issue? Which sort of suggests that it is, in fact, a real problem
"Your denial there is a problem proves how big the problem really is." - I've heard this trick before. I know nothing about caste discrimination in the US, and concede it may indeed be a real problem. But your logic is unsound.
"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
Really simple concept. They are discriminated against in their country of origin as a matter of fact and to think that discrimination ends because they are now in America is weird.
Sad that we need laws to force people to treat others with respect, dignity, and fairness.
I had to fire a programmer once over this. I promoted a woman on my team over a man who wanted the job. She got the promotion because she deserved it, and the rest of the team respected her. The man told me “I can’t work for a woman, especially not one from a lower caste.” So I told him he should find another job.
29 comments
[ 3.7 ms ] story [ 106 ms ] threadInterested to hear from the SA members of HN on this one.
Having said that, it is very easy to discriminate against someone with a different skin color. But a different caste? I truly do not know how anyone who have any idea what caste a person belonged to, or comes from. But I am very curious.
Source: the origins of political order, F. Fukuyama
What difference do the origins make, all that matters is if you have a generation that can’t tell the difference it all dies.
So 25-50 years? That doesn't sound great for people affected today.
> If you codify it legally it’s going to drag on forever.
Why do you think codifying a ban would make the banned thing last longer? (Given you say it's naturally dying anyway)
Codifying it just makes it so people are required to remember their labels for the benefits that come from identifying as a victimized community and pass those labels on to their kids. It’s fucking terrible.
Why do you think you need to know your label? If someone thinks you're of a given caste and discriminates against you, that's still wrong, regardless if they got the label right.
For example, someone shouted some things at me (wrongly) assuming I was Jewish. That's shitty regardless and would be illegal in some circumstances.
None of those are included in the bill: https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB403/id/2840105
But they were not prevented from happening without the bill either.
> Mr. Sinha told me that he was concerned that the addition would make South Asians like him more vulnerable to unfair accusations of discrimination.
Basically, most people can't be accused of caste discrimination, since they are completely unaware of caste markers. This understandably makes the people who could conceivably be accused of it less-than-happy because it's another thing they have to think about when hiring, promoting, etc.
Regardless, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_Liberty_and_the_pursuit_...
Entirely correct. I just meant that as a catchall for the various actual legal protections that are meant to encapsulate that ideal.
The Constitution forbids the government establishing or promoting a specific religion, and civil rights laws protect people from discrimination based on their faith. But those laws don’t allow religious people or organizations to operate outside the law.
Americans can believe whatever they want and worship in their own way. They cannot mistreat other people because their religious tradition tells them to.
The traditions and rules in the Bible are somewhat more complicated than "every descendant of a slave is a slave," because the Bible (like Greek and Roman law) recognized different kinds of slaves, with different rights. As to your comment, see Leviticus 25:44-46 and Exodus 21:1-36. For example: "If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's..."
> Your comment seems very unhelpful in the context of how these things are decided in the USA.
The Constitution only prohibits the government establishing a state religion, or favoring any specific religion, as I stated in my original comment. It does not get into specifics like religious customs that conflict with secular laws. However US courts only recognize the secular laws of the US; Sharia, the Bible, Catholic Canon Law have no standing or force in US courts. The argument that the Hindu holy texts predate the US Constitution and American laws means nothing in US courts.
> The precedence that religious customs such as Sikhs wearing kirpans have been ruled in favor over anti-weapon laws.
Not sure what that means or what you refer to. The ruling regarding kirpans has to do with carrying a (ceremonial) knife into a Federal workplace. The decision to allow kirpans hinged on the same agency allowing other sharper and longer knives under their policy, not really a question of freedom of religion. In any case the issue was not can someone practice the Sikh faith in the US, but can someone carry a potential weapon into a workplace (or on a plane, or on a campus) just because their religion calls for carrying such a potential weapon. The answer is "it depends." If someone's religion says they have to carry a sharpened scimitar or a Glock 9mm they aren't going to get the same kind of allowance.
> The state can pass whatever laws it wants. It is up to the courts to decide these challenges.
At issue was an IRS workplace security policy, not a law enacted by Congress. But I get your point.
"Your denial there is a problem proves how big the problem really is." - I've heard this trick before. I know nothing about caste discrimination in the US, and concede it may indeed be a real problem. But your logic is unsound.
"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
I had to fire a programmer once over this. I promoted a woman on my team over a man who wanted the job. She got the promotion because she deserved it, and the rest of the team respected her. The man told me “I can’t work for a woman, especially not one from a lower caste.” So I told him he should find another job.