3 ms·

I once described the caste system as “racism invented by people who look alike” and my girlfriend from Madya Pradesh (Central Indian Province) thought that was

by codyb 6y ago

I once described the caste system as “racism invented by people who look alike” and my girlfriend from Madya Pradesh (Central Indian Province) thought that was very apt. Humans are great, until you let them form groups, once that happens you’ll get tribalism and prejudice almost every time as far as I can tell. Even sports’ fans will beat eachother up sometimes.

scarmig 6y ago
I'm increasingly hearing the idea (from Hindu nationalists?) that the caste system was the invention of the British, not anything indigenous. If anyone's in the know, I'd be curious to hear what's broadly accepted among historians nowadays.
- AlotOfReading 6y ago
  This isn't my area, but my understanding is that like most things related to history (especially Indian history), it's complicated. There are a lot of very old antecedents, but the modern caste system probably "originated" with the later Mughals. The British Raj took those scattered, vaguely related systems and codified them into what we recognize today.
- rayiner 6y ago
  It can’t be a British invention. My understanding of Bangladeshi history is that we converted to Islam to escape the caste system. That predated British rule by hundreds of years.
- gen220 6y ago
  The scholarly opinion of this question has been quite dynamic over the last century. Nowadays, the consensus seems to be that Caste was definitely a thing before the Raj took over, but it was more fluid and regional, and was not the centralized, static hierarchy it is today. There were other power structures (feudal, religious, etc) that were not colored by caste, and competed with caste to triangulate people. The British Raj took calculated steps to centralize, formalize, and entrench the caste system, shaping it into a form that is recognizable today, where it is strictly tied to opportunity and wealth. It’s worth noting that is a common pattern of colonialism: to divide the colonized people against themselves along arbitrary, existing lines and elevate an arbitrary group, aligning the interest of that group with the interests of the colonizers. It’s a timeless and tragic human story. I’ve only started researching this subject, so if anybody would like to correct or qualify anything I’ve said, I welcome it.
  - tempestn 6y ago
    > It’s worth noting that is a common pattern of colonialism: to divide the colonized people against themselves along arbitrary, existing lines and elevate an arbitrary group, aligning the interest of that group with the interests of the colonizers. It’s a timeless and tragic human story. The Tutsi and Hutu of Rwanda immediately come to mind.
- quantummkv 6y ago
  What classical Hinduism had was the varna system, where you were a member of a particular varna according your jobs and qualifications (for eg, bhramans were supposed to be learners and teachers of scriptures, analogous to professors and phd's today). And even this varna system was debated and discusses throughout classical Hinduism, as with every other idea in Hinduism was. But overtime, especially when people of different cultures and languages interact, things can become twisted and lost in incorrect translations, whether through genuine error,any inherent biases of the translator or malicious intent. And also overtime, cultures can evolve in response or in interactions with outside forces (especially the Islamic and later European invaders over a 1000 year period) that would seek to implement their own hierarchies and systems. Infact, the indigenous Indians were treated as second class citizens in empires established by outside invaders (Jaziya collection is common example of this). But what generally makes the system as being attributed to the British is due to the Divide and Conquer strategy implemented by the British. Dividing the populace becomes a lot easier if you can mutate or deepen existing lines in the system. But truthfully, the exact lineage is very hard to find, especially for a culture that is not only 5000+ years old but has also been interacting with and assimilating just about every other global culture during that 5000 years period (Indians have been interacting with everyone from Chinese, SE Asians, Romans, Greeks, Persians, Mesopotomians, Africans, Arabs, Ancient Egyptians, Turkic Nomads, etc)
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- yread 6y ago
  Buddhism started in India and from the beginning it criticized castes, so yes they were there and they were not fair http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/dharmadata/fdd53.htm http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/dharmadata/fdd53.htm

by codyb 6y ago

scarmig 6y ago

I'm increasingly hearing the idea (from Hindu nationalists?) that the caste system was the invention of the British, not anything indigenous. If anyone's in the know, I'd be curious to hear what's broadly accepted among historians nowadays.

AlotOfReading 6y ago
This isn't my area, but my understanding is that like most things related to history (especially Indian history), it's complicated. There are a lot of very old antecedents, but the modern caste system probably "originated" with the later Mughals. The British Raj took those scattered, vaguely related systems and codified them into what we recognize today.
rayiner 6y ago
It can’t be a British invention. My understanding of Bangladeshi history is that we converted to Islam to escape the caste system. That predated British rule by hundreds of years.
gen220 6y ago
The scholarly opinion of this question has been quite dynamic over the last century. Nowadays, the consensus seems to be that Caste was definitely a thing before the Raj took over, but it was more fluid and regional, and was not the centralized, static hierarchy it is today. There were other power structures (feudal, religious, etc) that were not colored by caste, and competed with caste to triangulate people. The British Raj took calculated steps to centralize, formalize, and entrench the caste system, shaping it into a form that is recognizable today, where it is strictly tied to opportunity and wealth. It’s worth noting that is a common pattern of colonialism: to divide the colonized people against themselves along arbitrary, existing lines and elevate an arbitrary group, aligning the interest of that group with the interests of the colonizers. It’s a timeless and tragic human story. I’ve only started researching this subject, so if anybody would like to correct or qualify anything I’ve said, I welcome it.
- tempestn 6y ago
  > It’s worth noting that is a common pattern of colonialism: to divide the colonized people against themselves along arbitrary, existing lines and elevate an arbitrary group, aligning the interest of that group with the interests of the colonizers. It’s a timeless and tragic human story. The Tutsi and Hutu of Rwanda immediately come to mind.
quantummkv 6y ago
What classical Hinduism had was the varna system, where you were a member of a particular varna according your jobs and qualifications (for eg, bhramans were supposed to be learners and teachers of scriptures, analogous to professors and phd's today). And even this varna system was debated and discusses throughout classical Hinduism, as with every other idea in Hinduism was. But overtime, especially when people of different cultures and languages interact, things can become twisted and lost in incorrect translations, whether through genuine error,any inherent biases of the translator or malicious intent. And also overtime, cultures can evolve in response or in interactions with outside forces (especially the Islamic and later European invaders over a 1000 year period) that would seek to implement their own hierarchies and systems. Infact, the indigenous Indians were treated as second class citizens in empires established by outside invaders (Jaziya collection is common example of this). But what generally makes the system as being attributed to the British is due to the Divide and Conquer strategy implemented by the British. Dividing the populace becomes a lot easier if you can mutate or deepen existing lines in the system. But truthfully, the exact lineage is very hard to find, especially for a culture that is not only 5000+ years old but has also been interacting with and assimilating just about every other global culture during that 5000 years period (Indians have been interacting with everyone from Chinese, SE Asians, Romans, Greeks, Persians, Mesopotomians, Africans, Arabs, Ancient Egyptians, Turkic Nomads, etc)
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
yread 6y ago
Buddhism started in India and from the beginning it criticized castes, so yes they were there and they were not fair http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/dharmadata/fdd53.htm http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/dharmadata/fdd53.htm