7 ms·

> the 10% that think it's a big problem get the biggest platforms. Don't you think this might have something to do with the representation of low caste Indians

> the 10% that think it's a big problem get the biggest platforms. Don't you think this might have something to do with the representation of low caste Indians in the US, and that they have to be their own advocates? Minorities have to make disproportional noise to get issues that affect them to be heard to the same degree as others. That's just how it is, otherwise our systems would always only advocate for the majority and every single minority would group would be systemically disadvantaged.

newsclues 4y ago
- jamiek88 4y ago
  This is not engaging seriously with OP, the argument or indeed this forum.
- kajecounterhack 4y ago
  Way to paint with a broad brush. So every climate activist is a bitter loser? Would you consider Martin Luther King Jr. to be a bitter loser?
thghtihadanacct 4y ago
...and how is it we americans accept low/minority caste indians ( i am guessing we are talking about citizens from India as opposed to indigenous)? I am in tech on the west coast and wouldnt know the difference. From my perspective Indian migrants from india are indian. I know no castes. This is subjugation they have brought with them and I am not privy or party to. I also have no ability to fight or side with it since I DO NOT see it ... cuz I have no idea. I think to side with your point ... the vocal extremists have the mic.
- baruch 4y ago
  From what I read so far the discrimination is not wasps but rather by other Indians. So no one is saying you are discriminating one care or another but that such discrimination exists even if you don't see it.
  - thghtihadanacct 4y ago
    I hear ya ... and I am not excusing it since im blinded and immune to it. I am saying tho, that it also isnt enforced here anymore than sharia law or the jewish or other hindu/religious law. It will never hold up in court. I feel strongly (im always open to being wrong) that part of coming here (USoA) is freeing yourself of those burdens (we got our own problems that you gotta deal with now). I dont burden myself with that knowledge as I find it useless. If someone drags it here with them they need to understand its their baggage.
    - baruch 4y ago
      I have no beef in this, I'm not living in the US and not Indian or south Asian. The thing that is the issue, again from the little I read, is that such discrimination is brought by other Indians on the Dalit and it's most defyingly bit something they want imported. I didn't figure or yet what is wanted and how but it's not like this is sintering you can blame them for.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - kelnos 4y ago
      I feel like you're making comparisons that aren't really apt. Attempting to enforce sharia law in the US in some communities is quite a bit different (and more difficult) than quiet, difficult-to-prove workplace discrimination. > If someone drags it here with them they need to understand its their baggage. If you're a low-caste Indian working in the US, and your high-caste boss discriminates against you, I think you'd feel pretty pissed at someone trying to claim that you're dragging your baggage with you. It's the high-caste boss that's doing the dragging.
    - 4y ago
- kelnos 4y ago
  That's... kinda a irrelevant, though? I don't "see" caste either (I have a close Indian friend who has educated me on the topic, but I don't know the details well enough to, say, identify someone's caste by how they look or by their last name), but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist among the people who perpetuate its evils. Something like 90% of the Indian immigrants in the US are high-caste (big surprise, lower-caste Indians are less likely to be able to get work visas and travel), so of course this is a minority problem. Certainly not all of that 90% wants to perpetuate the caste system here, but I expect it's not easy to be vocal about it. Doesn't make it any less worthy of investigation, though.
  - rajup 4y ago
    > Something like 90% of the Indian immigrants in the US are high-caste (big surprise, lower-caste Indians are less likely to be able to get work visas and travel), so of course this is a minority problem. Why do you think this is the case despite one of the most active affirmation programs in the world (just search "Reservation in India" on Wikipedia)? Something like 50-60% of seats in colleges and jobs in the government are reserved for lower castes (not a typo, the Wikipedia page should link you to official Indian constitution websites). I am from India and I genuinely don't know the answer myself.
    - pcthrowaway 4y ago
      I'd imagine it's due to a systemic disadvantage. Even if there are programs in place today to attempt to bring equity to the situation, the past and inherited poverty shape us and influence the opportunities we might have.
      - rajup 4y ago
        Systemic? I just pointed out the rights and privileges guaranteed lower castes in the Indian constitution. How much more un-systemic does it get? The past and inherited poverty: for how long? It’s been 70+ years since India’s independence…
nostrademons 4y ago
There's a collectivist, political, external-locus-of-control assumption to your point. Not everybody thinks of the world in those terms. A lot of minorities are too busy making money to worry about representation or group rights. You can make a lot of noise, or you can spend that time developing skills and a track record that will get people to pay you a lot of money. A lot of industries are based on the idea of "I don't care if people think they're superior to me as long as they pay me." The savvier ones even exploit this: "I'll get people to think they're superior to others because they pay me" (see: Apple, Rolls Royce, DeBeers, BMW, Louis Vitton, and every other luxury brand). American society is uniquely suited to this sort of mercenary economic climbing, because it brings together lots of people who have no knowledge of each others' previous social hierarchies anyway.
- kajecounterhack 4y ago
  > A lot of minorities are too busy making money to worry about representation or group rights. You can make a lot of noise, or you can spend that time developing skills and a track record that will get people to pay you a lot of money. Por que no los dos? This is such a tired take -- how is activism at odds with getting good at what you do and working hard? You can absolutely do both. In fact, some of the most helpful activists are folks who made it and give a helping hand to others (e.g. successful black businessmen teaching other black folks to be successful businessmen; successful women in tech helping other women to succeed in tech). You do realize that this very "capitalism as the great equalizer" take ignores that being underrepresented / disadvantaged also very negatively affects one's economic prospects. Say I'm a woman -- looking at that rare woman in tech who's overcome many sexist hurdles / gotten lucky enough to make it to the top, are you telling me I should be cool with my odds being shittier? White folks already love yelling about affirmative action because it lowers your already-low odds so very slightly when it comes to Ivy League college admittance. But you'll tell minorities "shut up just work hard activism is stupid" in the same breath. > There's a collectivist, political, external-locus-of-control assumption to your point. First of all, minorities ARE collectives even if we don't all contribute equally to our collective causes. And representation is political because policy shapes how we are treated and what our lives look like. A democracy by design favors the majority, so minorities need to be politically convincing that their needs are important too. It's okay to work hard at this, it's okay to want the world to be more meritocratic. Frederick Douglass could have lived as a free black person and had a much better life than other black folks in the US. There were other free blacks who did less for the collective. Instead, he gave a crap about activism, and used his education and ability to make a difference. Wasn't that great? Plenty of white folks running plantations at the time were inconvenienced by this guy saying black folks should be free and that slavery is bad, and I'm sure they said "you're free why do you give a damn." But some people do give a damn about the people around them and the world they hand to their progeny. Not every activist is their minority's Frederick Douglass, but you can certainly be a point along that spectrum of activist, in accordance with your ability and concern. Saying that minorities should be "too busy making money" to give a crap about how their children will be treated is some hot garbage. > American society is uniquely suited to this sort of mercenary economic climbing, because it brings together lots of people who have no knowledge of each others' previous social hierarchies anyway. Guess I won't convince you of the many glass/bamboo/whatever the fuck ceilings that exist, but it seems obvious that people are _absolutely_ bringing knowledge of previous social hierarchies. Talk to some {black folks, women} in tech and see what kind of bullshit they have to put up with that you don't have to. How many female founder stories can you find that talk about counterparts assuming something due to their gender? You simply cannot escape social prejudice and hierarchy (oh wait, you can, if you're a white male! maybe this is why you're confused).
rayiner 4y ago
My point is more about the notion that the activists represent the views of the minority group. With respect to Indians, you have two levels: Indians as minorities with respect to Americans, and lower castes as minorities with respect to other Indians. At the first level, the Indians who say there’s lots of discrimination against Indians—the folks getting Apu cancelled—get a lot of air time, but aren’t representative. My point is that the same thing may apply to low caste Indians too. The views of this Dalit activist may or may reflect the experience of low caste Indian Americans.
- kelnos 4y ago
  > My point is more about the notion that the activists represent the views of the minority group. But aren't often those the people who need that sort of representation the most? Even if 90%[0] of Indians aren't discriminated against, the 10% who suffer discrimination absolutely deserve representation and redress. [0] Apparently 90% of Indian immigrants in the US are high-caste, so funny how that statistic might seem to line up. This of course makes sense, since low-caste people are probably less likely to be able to obtain the education and financial resources necessary to move to a different country.
  - rayiner 4y ago
    > But aren't often those the people who need that sort of representation the most? When you engage in activism on behalf of $GROUP you’re affecting the relationship of everyone in the group with the larger society.
    - kajecounterhack 4y ago
      Working as intended. Consider PETA vs the Humane Society. One is hated, the other is not. Does PETA not have a right to exist? Their distasteful antics didn't change the relationship between me and the Humane Society though they both advocate for animal welfare. On the other hand, if you are successful at being convincing (and loud enough) for a minority community you can achieve a lot of good! LGBTQ+ activists have made the lives of young non-binary folks so much better in just the last 30 years: they are a minority, but they were loud and convincing that "maybe we should treat people equally (e.g. right to marry) even if their sexual proclivities are different from our own!" Groups that really change the shape of society ultimately have to be loud if they're underrepresented, and make a lot of people uncomfortable. Frederick Douglass was a free black man, which was rare for the time. He used his very minority voice to make a racket that helped propel centuries of social change for the better. Would you prefer he didn't succeed / couldn't have a platform? It's still up to loud minority communities to actually be convincing, after all. All the hate campaigning like those "god hates fags" stuff won't ever get anywhere because it's not convincing to most people.

newsclues 4y ago

jamiek88 4y ago
This is not engaging seriously with OP, the argument or indeed this forum.
kajecounterhack 4y ago
Way to paint with a broad brush. So every climate activist is a bitter loser? Would you consider Martin Luther King Jr. to be a bitter loser?

thghtihadanacct 4y ago

...and how is it we americans accept low/minority caste indians ( i am guessing we are talking about citizens from India as opposed to indigenous)? I am in tech on the west coast and wouldnt know the difference. From my perspective Indian migrants from india are indian. I know no castes. This is subjugation they have brought with them and I am not privy or party to. I also have no ability to fight or side with it since I DO NOT see it ... cuz I have no idea. I think to side with your point ... the vocal extremists have the mic.

baruch 4y ago
From what I read so far the discrimination is not wasps but rather by other Indians. So no one is saying you are discriminating one care or another but that such discrimination exists even if you don't see it.
- thghtihadanacct 4y ago
  I hear ya ... and I am not excusing it since im blinded and immune to it. I am saying tho, that it also isnt enforced here anymore than sharia law or the jewish or other hindu/religious law. It will never hold up in court. I feel strongly (im always open to being wrong) that part of coming here (USoA) is freeing yourself of those burdens (we got our own problems that you gotta deal with now). I dont burden myself with that knowledge as I find it useless. If someone drags it here with them they need to understand its their baggage.
  - baruch 4y ago
    I have no beef in this, I'm not living in the US and not Indian or south Asian. The thing that is the issue, again from the little I read, is that such discrimination is brought by other Indians on the Dalit and it's most defyingly bit something they want imported. I didn't figure or yet what is wanted and how but it's not like this is sintering you can blame them for.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - kelnos 4y ago
    I feel like you're making comparisons that aren't really apt. Attempting to enforce sharia law in the US in some communities is quite a bit different (and more difficult) than quiet, difficult-to-prove workplace discrimination. > If someone drags it here with them they need to understand its their baggage. If you're a low-caste Indian working in the US, and your high-caste boss discriminates against you, I think you'd feel pretty pissed at someone trying to claim that you're dragging your baggage with you. It's the high-caste boss that's doing the dragging.
  - 4y ago
kelnos 4y ago
That's... kinda a irrelevant, though? I don't "see" caste either (I have a close Indian friend who has educated me on the topic, but I don't know the details well enough to, say, identify someone's caste by how they look or by their last name), but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist among the people who perpetuate its evils. Something like 90% of the Indian immigrants in the US are high-caste (big surprise, lower-caste Indians are less likely to be able to get work visas and travel), so of course this is a minority problem. Certainly not all of that 90% wants to perpetuate the caste system here, but I expect it's not easy to be vocal about it. Doesn't make it any less worthy of investigation, though.
- rajup 4y ago
  > Something like 90% of the Indian immigrants in the US are high-caste (big surprise, lower-caste Indians are less likely to be able to get work visas and travel), so of course this is a minority problem. Why do you think this is the case despite one of the most active affirmation programs in the world (just search "Reservation in India" on Wikipedia)? Something like 50-60% of seats in colleges and jobs in the government are reserved for lower castes (not a typo, the Wikipedia page should link you to official Indian constitution websites). I am from India and I genuinely don't know the answer myself.
  - pcthrowaway 4y ago
    I'd imagine it's due to a systemic disadvantage. Even if there are programs in place today to attempt to bring equity to the situation, the past and inherited poverty shape us and influence the opportunities we might have.
    - rajup 4y ago
      Systemic? I just pointed out the rights and privileges guaranteed lower castes in the Indian constitution. How much more un-systemic does it get? The past and inherited poverty: for how long? It’s been 70+ years since India’s independence…

nostrademons 4y ago

There's a collectivist, political, external-locus-of-control assumption to your point. Not everybody thinks of the world in those terms. A lot of minorities are too busy making money to worry about representation or group rights. You can make a lot of noise, or you can spend that time developing skills and a track record that will get people to pay you a lot of money. A lot of industries are based on the idea of "I don't care if people think they're superior to me as long as they pay me." The savvier ones even exploit this: "I'll get people to think they're superior to others because they pay me" (see: Apple, Rolls Royce, DeBeers, BMW, Louis Vitton, and every other luxury brand). American society is uniquely suited to this sort of mercenary economic climbing, because it brings together lots of people who have no knowledge of each others' previous social hierarchies anyway.

kajecounterhack 4y ago
> A lot of minorities are too busy making money to worry about representation or group rights. You can make a lot of noise, or you can spend that time developing skills and a track record that will get people to pay you a lot of money. Por que no los dos? This is such a tired take -- how is activism at odds with getting good at what you do and working hard? You can absolutely do both. In fact, some of the most helpful activists are folks who made it and give a helping hand to others (e.g. successful black businessmen teaching other black folks to be successful businessmen; successful women in tech helping other women to succeed in tech). You do realize that this very "capitalism as the great equalizer" take ignores that being underrepresented / disadvantaged also very negatively affects one's economic prospects. Say I'm a woman -- looking at that rare woman in tech who's overcome many sexist hurdles / gotten lucky enough to make it to the top, are you telling me I should be cool with my odds being shittier? White folks already love yelling about affirmative action because it lowers your already-low odds so very slightly when it comes to Ivy League college admittance. But you'll tell minorities "shut up just work hard activism is stupid" in the same breath. > There's a collectivist, political, external-locus-of-control assumption to your point. First of all, minorities ARE collectives even if we don't all contribute equally to our collective causes. And representation is political because policy shapes how we are treated and what our lives look like. A democracy by design favors the majority, so minorities need to be politically convincing that their needs are important too. It's okay to work hard at this, it's okay to want the world to be more meritocratic. Frederick Douglass could have lived as a free black person and had a much better life than other black folks in the US. There were other free blacks who did less for the collective. Instead, he gave a crap about activism, and used his education and ability to make a difference. Wasn't that great? Plenty of white folks running plantations at the time were inconvenienced by this guy saying black folks should be free and that slavery is bad, and I'm sure they said "you're free why do you give a damn." But some people do give a damn about the people around them and the world they hand to their progeny. Not every activist is their minority's Frederick Douglass, but you can certainly be a point along that spectrum of activist, in accordance with your ability and concern. Saying that minorities should be "too busy making money" to give a crap about how their children will be treated is some hot garbage. > American society is uniquely suited to this sort of mercenary economic climbing, because it brings together lots of people who have no knowledge of each others' previous social hierarchies anyway. Guess I won't convince you of the many glass/bamboo/whatever the fuck ceilings that exist, but it seems obvious that people are _absolutely_ bringing knowledge of previous social hierarchies. Talk to some {black folks, women} in tech and see what kind of bullshit they have to put up with that you don't have to. How many female founder stories can you find that talk about counterparts assuming something due to their gender? You simply cannot escape social prejudice and hierarchy (oh wait, you can, if you're a white male! maybe this is why you're confused).

rayiner 4y ago

My point is more about the notion that the activists represent the views of the minority group. With respect to Indians, you have two levels: Indians as minorities with respect to Americans, and lower castes as minorities with respect to other Indians. At the first level, the Indians who say there’s lots of discrimination against Indians—the folks getting Apu cancelled—get a lot of air time, but aren’t representative. My point is that the same thing may apply to low caste Indians too. The views of this Dalit activist may or may reflect the experience of low caste Indian Americans.

kelnos 4y ago
> My point is more about the notion that the activists represent the views of the minority group. But aren't often those the people who need that sort of representation the most? Even if 90%[0] of Indians aren't discriminated against, the 10% who suffer discrimination absolutely deserve representation and redress. [0] Apparently 90% of Indian immigrants in the US are high-caste, so funny how that statistic might seem to line up. This of course makes sense, since low-caste people are probably less likely to be able to obtain the education and financial resources necessary to move to a different country.
- rayiner 4y ago
  > But aren't often those the people who need that sort of representation the most? When you engage in activism on behalf of $GROUP you’re affecting the relationship of everyone in the group with the larger society.
  - kajecounterhack 4y ago
    Working as intended. Consider PETA vs the Humane Society. One is hated, the other is not. Does PETA not have a right to exist? Their distasteful antics didn't change the relationship between me and the Humane Society though they both advocate for animal welfare. On the other hand, if you are successful at being convincing (and loud enough) for a minority community you can achieve a lot of good! LGBTQ+ activists have made the lives of young non-binary folks so much better in just the last 30 years: they are a minority, but they were loud and convincing that "maybe we should treat people equally (e.g. right to marry) even if their sexual proclivities are different from our own!" Groups that really change the shape of society ultimately have to be loud if they're underrepresented, and make a lot of people uncomfortable. Frederick Douglass was a free black man, which was rare for the time. He used his very minority voice to make a racket that helped propel centuries of social change for the better. Would you prefer he didn't succeed / couldn't have a platform? It's still up to loud minority communities to actually be convincing, after all. All the hate campaigning like those "god hates fags" stuff won't ever get anywhere because it's not convincing to most people.