4 ms·

> My assumption, when applied to India, would be that it would be an issue for the untouchables caste? afaik untouchables as a concept was mostly enacted aroun

> My assumption, when applied to India, would be that it would be an issue for the untouchables caste? afaik untouchables as a concept was mostly enacted around (british) colonial rule (when they instituted the caste system we see even to today), so might not apply to the time period they are talking about... (happy to be corrected on this if i misunderstand)

unmole 4y ago
> afaik untouchables as a concept was mostly enacted around (british) colonial rule (when they instituted the caste system we see even to today), so might not apply to the time period they are talking about... This is revisionist nonsense. Ancient texts, both sacred and secular both describe a extant caste system.
- msravi 4y ago
  Um, no, they don't. They describe a jaati system, and a varna system, both of which do not take the same meaning as caste. The british conflated the two, and invented caste. The jaati system was a system of hereditary professional guilds - so you'd have different jaatis for accountants (Kulkarnis for example), farmers (Vokkaligas), teachers (Upaadhyayas), etc. The professional skill was jealously guarded and generally not open to outsiders. And then you had the varna system which literally means category. This categorized people into 4 categories - Brahmanas, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, and Shudras based on their nature and actions, NOT profession. This was not hereditary. The british had zero idea of this, conflated jaati and varna into "caste" and made it rigid by bringing out voluminous reports that classified each jaati into a varna!
  - turtleyacht 4y ago
    This is interesting. Thank-you. Could you elaborate on the next piece from this idea? For example, from jaati and varna, what follows from that? Admittedly, a vague question but wanting to learn a bit more. Just saying this is the first perspective on HN I have read about caste being inaccurate, and wanting to understand this fresh context.
    - pySSK 4y ago
      It is revisionist nonsense.
    - msravi 4y ago
      Sorry for not responding earlier, but it'll take a lot more than a comment to elucidate this in any amount of detail. Plus this needs lots and lots of references from a vast many sources to put together. Will put it together in a post sometime.
  - unmole 4y ago
    Again, revisionist nonsense. Karna, one the greatest warriors of his time is not treated as a Kshatriya because of his birth. Shambuka, a Shudra is executed for daring to perform tapas. So much for the Varna is not hereditary theory. The Arthashastra makes it clear that privileges of being a Brahmin were accrued by birth. The Manusmriti describes the caste of the offspring based on the permutations of the parents castes in copious detail. Varna has always been hereditary. Anyone claiming otherwise is mistaken or making stuff up.
    - msravi 4y ago
      You should read the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute's (BORI) Critical Edition of the Mahabharata - which is the definitive edition, rather than relying on unsubstantiated translations. When Kripacharya asks for Karna's royal lineage (not caste) to let him take part in the competition, this is what Duryodhana says: Duryodhana said, “O preceptor! It is stated in the sacred texts that there are three ways to become a king—through noblebirth, through valour and through leading an army. If Phalguni is unwilling to ﬁght with someone who is not a king, I install him as king in the land of Anga.” Right there you have it. Different ways to become a King. None based on caste. Our history has had several, several, instances where "Kshatriyas" have not been kings. There are umpteen people who are regarded as Gods and among the greatest, who do not belong to the "upper castes." The author of the Ramayana, Valmiki, was a hunter - which is also regarded as a "lower caste." The author of the Mahabharata was the son of a fisherwoman, also regarded as a "lower-caste." Shabari, from whom Rama accepted half-eaten berries was a tribal inhabitant from a hunting clan - also deemed to be "low-caste." All these people have been looked upon as great beings, almost equivalent to Gods, and have been worshiped. So no, if there have been revisionists, it is the ones who have used distorted british translations, and mutilated our history.
      - kumarvvr 4y ago
        A small clarification. Nowhere in the Ramayana does it say that Shabari offered half eaten fruits to Rama. Because that is not good conduct. These are stories that evolved from poetry based on Ramayana. However, it is pertinent to note that Rama is a Kshatriya and Shabari was the disciple of Matanga Muni and Rama respected her due to her devotion and service to Matanga muni, and not for her caste or lineage.
monetus 4y ago
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste_system_in_India Seems like the British systems formed and formalized it, but that that itself was an amalgam of the cultural stratification that was sometimes already there. Multiculturalism turned monstrous... sad.
- rendall 4y ago
  > Seems like the British systems formed and formalized it Here is an extremely harsh critique of that perspective, from an upper-caste scholar of Indian history https://thewire.in/caste/caste-history-postcolonial-studies https://thewire.in/caste/caste-history-postcolonial-studies
- ch4s3 4y ago
  There have been a number of genetic studies[1] that can identify caste heredity going back to almost the time of the Vedas showing VERY little genetic mixing between the castes. [1] https://hms.harvard.edu/news/genetic-study-finds-caste-system-ancient-india-began-about-2000-years-ago https://hms.harvard.edu/news/genetic-study-finds-caste-syste...
  - monetus 4y ago
    I think the link through in that article is sadly dead, but I still found it. Wow, that is less intermingling than I would have guessed. I knew that caste had been there for ages, but it is still a bit astonishing to read that.
    - ch4s3 4y ago
      Oops, I may have chopped off a few characters. Yeah there were essentially only a handful of upper caste men gathering children with lower caste women and virtually no other mixing for thousands of years.
bryanrasmussen 4y ago
I've heard this before, but always found it doubtful, conquerors tend to enact systems that mimic those in their home countries.

unmole 4y ago

> afaik untouchables as a concept was mostly enacted around (british) colonial rule (when they instituted the caste system we see even to today), so might not apply to the time period they are talking about... This is revisionist nonsense. Ancient texts, both sacred and secular both describe a extant caste system.

msravi 4y ago
Um, no, they don't. They describe a jaati system, and a varna system, both of which do not take the same meaning as caste. The british conflated the two, and invented caste. The jaati system was a system of hereditary professional guilds - so you'd have different jaatis for accountants (Kulkarnis for example), farmers (Vokkaligas), teachers (Upaadhyayas), etc. The professional skill was jealously guarded and generally not open to outsiders. And then you had the varna system which literally means category. This categorized people into 4 categories - Brahmanas, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, and Shudras based on their nature and actions, NOT profession. This was not hereditary. The british had zero idea of this, conflated jaati and varna into "caste" and made it rigid by bringing out voluminous reports that classified each jaati into a varna!
- turtleyacht 4y ago
  This is interesting. Thank-you. Could you elaborate on the next piece from this idea? For example, from jaati and varna, what follows from that? Admittedly, a vague question but wanting to learn a bit more. Just saying this is the first perspective on HN I have read about caste being inaccurate, and wanting to understand this fresh context.
  - pySSK 4y ago
    It is revisionist nonsense.
  - msravi 4y ago
    Sorry for not responding earlier, but it'll take a lot more than a comment to elucidate this in any amount of detail. Plus this needs lots and lots of references from a vast many sources to put together. Will put it together in a post sometime.
- unmole 4y ago
  Again, revisionist nonsense. Karna, one the greatest warriors of his time is not treated as a Kshatriya because of his birth. Shambuka, a Shudra is executed for daring to perform tapas. So much for the Varna is not hereditary theory. The Arthashastra makes it clear that privileges of being a Brahmin were accrued by birth. The Manusmriti describes the caste of the offspring based on the permutations of the parents castes in copious detail. Varna has always been hereditary. Anyone claiming otherwise is mistaken or making stuff up.
  - msravi 4y ago
    You should read the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute's (BORI) Critical Edition of the Mahabharata - which is the definitive edition, rather than relying on unsubstantiated translations. When Kripacharya asks for Karna's royal lineage (not caste) to let him take part in the competition, this is what Duryodhana says: Duryodhana said, “O preceptor! It is stated in the sacred texts that there are three ways to become a king—through noblebirth, through valour and through leading an army. If Phalguni is unwilling to ﬁght with someone who is not a king, I install him as king in the land of Anga.” Right there you have it. Different ways to become a King. None based on caste. Our history has had several, several, instances where "Kshatriyas" have not been kings. There are umpteen people who are regarded as Gods and among the greatest, who do not belong to the "upper castes." The author of the Ramayana, Valmiki, was a hunter - which is also regarded as a "lower caste." The author of the Mahabharata was the son of a fisherwoman, also regarded as a "lower-caste." Shabari, from whom Rama accepted half-eaten berries was a tribal inhabitant from a hunting clan - also deemed to be "low-caste." All these people have been looked upon as great beings, almost equivalent to Gods, and have been worshiped. So no, if there have been revisionists, it is the ones who have used distorted british translations, and mutilated our history.
    - kumarvvr 4y ago
      A small clarification. Nowhere in the Ramayana does it say that Shabari offered half eaten fruits to Rama. Because that is not good conduct. These are stories that evolved from poetry based on Ramayana. However, it is pertinent to note that Rama is a Kshatriya and Shabari was the disciple of Matanga Muni and Rama respected her due to her devotion and service to Matanga muni, and not for her caste or lineage.

monetus 4y ago

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste_system_in_India Seems like the British systems formed and formalized it, but that that itself was an amalgam of the cultural stratification that was sometimes already there. Multiculturalism turned monstrous... sad.

rendall 4y ago
> Seems like the British systems formed and formalized it Here is an extremely harsh critique of that perspective, from an upper-caste scholar of Indian history https://thewire.in/caste/caste-history-postcolonial-studies https://thewire.in/caste/caste-history-postcolonial-studies
ch4s3 4y ago
There have been a number of genetic studies[1] that can identify caste heredity going back to almost the time of the Vedas showing VERY little genetic mixing between the castes. [1] https://hms.harvard.edu/news/genetic-study-finds-caste-system-ancient-india-began-about-2000-years-ago https://hms.harvard.edu/news/genetic-study-finds-caste-syste...
- monetus 4y ago
  I think the link through in that article is sadly dead, but I still found it. Wow, that is less intermingling than I would have guessed. I knew that caste had been there for ages, but it is still a bit astonishing to read that.
  - ch4s3 4y ago
    Oops, I may have chopped off a few characters. Yeah there were essentially only a handful of upper caste men gathering children with lower caste women and virtually no other mixing for thousands of years.

bryanrasmussen 4y ago

I've heard this before, but always found it doubtful, conquerors tend to enact systems that mimic those in their home countries.