america's caste system

[Guest guest]

Namaste Mitra,

super piece, as Indians we must stop being defensive about our country -

traditions, the key is to decolonise our thinking, understand how the country

of our residence works, channelise our thoughts & wealth in the right direction

so as to create a POSITIVE image about Bharat.

cheers & om sanjeev

 

http://sulekha.com/articledesc.asp?cid=86551Is There an American Caste System?

Rajiv Malhotra Recently, I read an excellent book by Professor Uma Narayan

called Dislocating Cultures, in which she compares how dowry-deaths in India

are of high interest in the West whereas spousal-killings in America are not

given the same emphasis, despite that fact that statistically the percentage of

American women victims of spousal killings are at least as high as the

percentage of Indian women victimized by dowry-deaths. She explains that this

dichotomy and disconnect of understanding involves various factors: The

language of 'dowry-deaths' is so India-specific, to begin with, that it

precludes the equivalent American phenomenon to be within range of the radar.

Once thus framed, the issue of dowry-deaths then gets measured, studied at

various levels of scholarship, and gets a life of its own. America's equivalent

problems get exempted from examination, especially as the scholars place

themselves on a platform above the glass ceiling. This made me wonder whether

caste is a somewhat similar phenomenon. After all, every society has strata and

ethnic groups. In modern America, we call these 'demographic segments' -- there

are demographic segments such as 'inner city African Americans', 'rural

Hispanics', 'suburban whites', 'Asian immigrants', etc. and these are common

terms in consumer marketing. I wonder how different these are from India's much

studied castes. Yet, people give funny looks when the term 'caste' is suggested

pertaining to America. The book The Invention of the White Race by Theodore W.

Allen gives an interesting insight into how the demographic group we now

call'white' emerged. He writes: "[until the 17th century, the] white skin

privilege was recognized neither in the law nor in the social practices of the

labor classes. But by the early decades of the eighteenth century, racial

oppression would be the norm in the plantation colonies, and African Americans

would continue to suffer under its yoke for more than two centuries…African

bond-laborers were turned into chattel slaves and were differentiated from

their fellow proletarians of European origin. Rocked by the solidarity across

racial lines exhibited by the rebellious laboring classes in the wake of the

famous Bacon's Rebellion, the plantation bourgeoisie sought a solution to its

labor problems in the creation of a buffer control stratum of poor whites, who

enjoyed little enough privilege in colonial society beyond that of their skin

color, which protected them from enslavement…Such was the invention of the

white race." America's color-coding was based on the category of labor that one

was placed into. This is further elaborated in the book How the Irish Became

White, written by Noel Ignatiev, a cturer at Harvard. He describes how the

Irish, who were branded for centuries as the underclass in Europe, came to

America and used the labor color-coding system of the American society to get

reclassified as the white class. Especially in places where the slaves had been

freed, it became important for European immigrant groups to make sure that they

were distinguished and protected through labor unions that were racially

exclusivist. Blacks often became factory workers in large centralized

environments, whereas construction jobs such as plumbing, electrical, masonry,

and carpentry became the turf of specific European ethnic labor unions. Another

useful book is How the Jews Became White Folks, authored by Professor Karen

Brodkin at the University of California, Los Angeles. A Jewish woman herself,

she tells the story of how the Jews started this climb up the caste ladder of

America just fifty years ago to reach their present position, mainly by taking

control of specific professions. Caste systems in India evolved, just as they

have done in the US, as a labor group by the kind of work. This is why each of

India's castes corresponds to a category of labor, much like the modern guild

of American workers of a given profession, with its own procedures for

membership and strategies to compete with outsiders. In India, this

segmentation got perpetuated because training was done through work

apprenticeship under one's parents, thereby turning family lineages into

specialized labor. Perhaps, ancient rulers found it easier to negotiate with a

given category of labor collectively, much like the British created the

landowner class (zamindars) in India as a more efficient way to maximize the

collection of taxes. Most law firms in the US are owned by Jewish families;

most motels are owned by Gujaratis from India; and this kind of list goes on.

Communities evolve towards centers of skill, excellence, and specialized

assets. Bush and Gore are both political dynasties. Language is just another

quality passed on this way to the next generation, especially as it entails

learning at home from a young age. Pronunciation, accent, idiom, sophistication

in usage, and reference to prior literature with authority, all require great

mastery of language. Over time, certain language styles become prized as

belonging to'high' society. The way one speaks becomes a marker of social

status. In modern times, where one's works get published depends largely upon

one's language skill, and determines one's standing. The currency of language

was Sanskrit in ancient India and it is English in the modern world. Just as

Sanskrit usage was caste - related in India, English is turning into a device

for caste hierarchy around the world today. A key difference is that in India,

caste became explicitly codified, whereas in America social structure by

ethnicity or family lineage remains uncodified and subliminal. But what is

commonly not pointed out today is that India's smritis (codified rules)

pertaining to many topics including caste, were meant to be specific to a given

time, place and cultural context and not intended as universal 'commandments'

for all people at all times. They were more akin to a specific European king's

laws in a given kingdom. Naturally, there were hundreds of smritis made by

different people at different times, covering various aspects of social life.

Many smritis contradicted others and/or superceded others, just as one would

find among the myriad of codified laws across medieval Europe.

The advantage of the uncodified, invisible and often denied phenomenon of the

American caste system is that it does not become cast (excuse the pun) in

concrete. Rather, the lack of rules make it porous and not impermeable, and

open to change over time rather than static. On the other hand, something

subliminal rather than explicit is more dangerous as it gets applied

arbitrarily. Also, since most people who use it, deny its very existence, it

becomes difficult to have an honest debate on it so as to modify it. This is

the situation in America today. I wish American academicians teaching about

India would examine their own students to see how India's social structures

resemble modern America's. My experience has been that India's caste

discussions are locked into a 'South Asian' contained context, and that most

well educated Americans have a blind spot about their own caste system. Using

the same terminology forces the comparison. Note that 'caste' is not a term

indigenous to India, because the term jati is more akin to community. 'Caste'

is a term introduced by the colonialists and deserves to be re-examined.

 

Would India's affirmative action be better off defined in terms of

underprivileged labor classes and demographic communities, permitting and even

encouraging migration across them, as opposed to remaining in terms of static

caste boundaries that are assumed to be genetic? Understanding this American

caste system has important implications for Asian Americans. Indians have

traditionally been too introverted and due to that, have not studied the rest

of the world. But the dynamics of the West are important to understand, even to

deepen one's understanding of oneself. The field of academic scholarship and

teaching of Hinduism is dominated by Jews and Christians. Indians have been

content to be portrayed by others, and yet complain later when the portrayal

begins to play out in society -- be it in the form of peer pressure facing

their own kids growing up in the West, or as public opinion shaped by Marxists

of Indian origin, or in the form of aggressive proselytizing back in India.

East Asia has managed its branding in America much more actively. Thanks to

over thirty endowed Japan Studies chairs in USA, to The Asia Society, and to

millions of dollars spent annually for teacher training in America on how to

teach about Japan, the Japanese Americans are ahead of other Asians in their

climb up this caste ladder. Notice how the Japan bashing that was

characteristic of the early 1980s has mysteriously disappeared from the media.

China is second among Asian countries in this climb, having started only 15

years ago to negotiate their way in America. Indian Americans are doing well in

the high tech/professional caste as individuals. There is also the caste of

Indian'intellectuals' who write popular and serious books with great command of

the English language, small in number but large in visibility. Often, this

latter category has its training in the use of Western and/or Marxist metaphor,

as India's own English medium education system subverted the teaching of India's

classics - the Ramayana and Mahabharata - and of Sanskrit. These young Indians

often shy away from too much linkage with their own heritage, preferring to

classify themselves as 'South Asian' after leaving their parents' home. The

Hindu identity is still largely outcast in America or subverted in many

instances. Media, education and public images of Hinduism are often dominated

by negative stereotypes. Hence, most Indians have multiple identities, bringing

out the one that works best in a given situation. A Hindu who worships at home

in front of a Hindu deity and socializes with other Indian friends in very

ethnic settings, often erases every sign of such linkage when he goes to work

each day. Post-colonialists have written about a phenomenon called 'brown

shame' that was encouraged amongst Indians by the British as a way to dominate

Indians. But nobody has brought out the more recent phenomenon that I call

'Hindu shame'. To be openly Hindu is often seen as a matter of shame, as was

the case with Jews in Europe in the early 20th century. This demonizing has

worsened in the past five years and Hindus are now concerned about being

branded 'fascist', 'extremist', 'fundamentalist', or as some other negative

'ism' or 'ist' depending upon the particular writer's toolbox. Either Hindus

are described as world negating, based on narrow interpretations of select

textual passages, i.e. shown as having little or no interest in the affairs of

the world, as a sort of mystical escapism. Or, if they are acknowledged as

socially engaged, and hence not world negating, they are often depicted as

abusing women and poor, and generally backward in social practices. So Hinduism

is not seen as having the resources within itself to be progressive in a

socially responsible manner, the way the 'rational' West is seen to have. This

new Hindu American caste needs to learn from the successes of other American

castes noted above. This is especially important as the population of Indians

in America is projected to increase to ten million by 2050, and there shall

also be many non-Indians who continue to adopt Hinduism.

Discover your Indian Roots at - http://www.esamskriti.comLong Live Sanathan /

Kshatriya Dharam. Become an Intellectual KshatriyaGenerate Positive Vibrations

lifelong worldwide.Aap ka din mangalmaya rahe or Shubh dinam astu or Have a

Nice DayUnity preceedes Strength Synchronize your efforts, avoid

duplication.THINK, ACT, INFLUENCE, to Un write back.Create Positive

Karmas by being Focussed, controlling senses, will power & determinationNever

boasts about yr victory and successKnowledge, Wealth, Happiness are meant to be

sharedBe Open Minded, pick up what yu like from the worldBe Thick skinned,

internalize criticism, do what yu think is rightLet not the power of your enemy

deter yu, fortitude is what the Geeta teachesStop cribbing, ACTION is what the

Indian scriptures talk aboutTake the battle into the enemy camp, SET THE

AGENDA, be proactiveIn an argument, no emotions, be detached, get yr facts

right, then attack with the precision of a missile