--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung <no_reply@> wrote:
I am not at all a fan of the current caste system, by your essay quite misses the head of nail in your several attempted hard stikes at it. > > > > Turq, > > > The caste system was invented > to keep the currently ruling classes (and their > kids after them) in power, and the rest of the > people doing their bidding. End of story. Repeating part of my conclusion here, I do feel that you have pointed out a series of personal observations, some of which parallel my own, where some Indians (I have seen it in other cultures also) are racist and oppressive, and use their (possibly highly distorted and self-serving) interpretations long standing aspects of their culture justify such abhorrent human traits. However, I quite disagree that your observations can be reasonable or meaningful extrapolated to an entire culture or race. That to me is itself racism and biased "culturalism". I think the term âcasteâ has a huge baggage inherent in it and should be dropped -- even though I (raise the red flags), I hold it has some redeeming qualities in its essence, as I interpret it. Lets me temporarily term "genetic propensity" as a term to capture these redeeming values, and which excludes the horrid baggage implied to many from "caste". And Let me be clear, my term has nothing to do with (any negative if not all aspects of) genetic engineering or genetic determinism. The current mapping of the human (and other species genomes) and the emerging understanding of how these genes shape the physiological, neural, anatomical, cognitive, memory, learning, perceptual, motor skill, intelligence (all 8+ types) empathy, compassion, verbal skills etc ad infinitum,(summarized here out as "skills") aspects of each individual is massive. It appears to a simple mind such as mine that testing youths and adults through their lives to make them, their parents, peers, schools and employers aware of both special skills and deficiencies -- and the bulk of most -- mainstream skills -- is a wonderful and powerful tool to help all towards allowing all of humanity use, contribute, share, mentor and pass on their maximum potential. That someone with two parents as doctors MIGHT do will as a doctor is not a huge stretch. I know a number of such (at least one parent as doctors). Such a family provides a richness both nature and nurture qualities. That is it provides both a genetic propensity towards the skills that make a good doctor, and a home, growing, mentoring, social network, schooling enironment that culture such innate skills. That is not to say that this kid SHOULD OR MUST be a doctor. Perhaps genetic tests indicate many great grandparents, great-great uncles an aunts, etc were mostly artists. And he shows artistic skills. Then at a minimum, he should be given artistic "nuturing" opportunities to see if such skills flourish. And if most ancestors were robbers, rapists, drug addicts and/or politicians, then a strong genetic mapping of genes, neuro-receptor and transmitter mechanisms, etc that may contribute to depression, bipolar, schizophrenia, alcoholism, drug dependencies, and allsorts of other underlying conditions that might lead or encourage anti-social behavior could be identified and appropriate therapies initiated early in life. (Actually above could be done for all. For example, successful doctor could also be bipolar and have that reduce the contributions she might make in her life and profession.) The above genetic propensity paradigm embodies what IMO, is the essence of the ancient ideal of the caste system -- but which has been distorted horribly over the ages. But that is opinion, not a researched or reasoned conclusion. Regarding your (Turq) critique / essay, I find "Story" (your first paragraph) is the operative word here. Two major flaws here. First, something is not necessarily bad due to its reason / source funding leading to its invention. The internet was developed by fund and work by Dod and DoE.(1) The former a purveyor of death and destruction, the latter being primary funder / researcher on atomic energy. Ergo per (my take on) your logic, the internet is bad. Second, your case presents nothing about the genesis of the caste system -- but simply states your limited observation or unsubstantiated opinion the caste system has been perpetuated by certain classes. Any > "religious" or "spiritual" explanation for it > came afterwards, as a justification. OK. Are any other explanations of it possible? Or is this a straw man argument -- defeat these tow things, and in your view, is the whole system defeated? If so, I disagree. There are more arguments that could support a neo-system where genetics help people and guide them towards optimal (first for them, secondarily for society) career choices -- and the lifelong support systems and environments that can nourish that direction of choice. > > I started out as an elementary special education teacher > > 40 years ago, and I'll tell you this: the least endowed > > kid had as much emotional investment in life, had as many > > hopes and dreams and plans, had as big a passion to meet > > destiny -- as EVERYONE I'VE EVER MET. Yet, they needed > > a special educational structure to thrive and grow. Your observation so far supports my as well as your premise (each with end points quite diverse). > I would say instead that the teachers needed more > flexibility, and the ability to deal with kids one > on one, to do whatever was necessary to reach them. Again, you are supporting my point too. > Instead, what ususally happens is that those kids > who don't respond to the shitty educational status > quo they are fed are deemed "challenged," and stuck > with that epithet the rest of their lives, whereas > in reality it's the teachers who are "challenged" > for having so little imagination. So this is a valid, IMO, critique of some parts of the caste system (itâs not a universal, even if prevalent). I am hoping your critique of the caste system is coming soon. > > When a higher caste person looks upon any lesser caste and > > does not recognize this heroism, then that person, in fact, > > is failing to rise up to the responsibilities of his caste > > and is sinning -- sinning egregiously. O good, a reference to your main them. So hardly a critique of the caste system but rather an implied observation of a necessarily limited scope (one personâs experience, perhaps bolstered by anecdotal evidence offered by a few others) > > It's the caste system. Quite a jump. The implication of view imbedded in your above limited observation is either THE WHOLE caste system or the ESSENCE of the caste system. Hardly a reasonable or credible conclusion from your observations. (not to say a more reasoned and supported case could reach the same conclusion.) > When a "higher" caste person > looks upon a person of "lower" caste and sees only > a victim, they are using the system *as it was > designed to be used*. Well they may be using the caste system AS IT IS IN THEIR CLIQUE, but your points hardly support the "they the system *as it was > designed to be used*". I am guessing this is part of your humor, satirizing knuckleheads that actually do make such leaps of bogus logic. > I blame the caste system; If you are saying that you blame the (probably) highly distorted, abusive aspects of the caste system practiced by some cliques for whom you have had some potent yet quite limited observations, then this observation opinion is valid. Itâs valid as that -- an opinion-- hardly a universal that you could possibly be suggesting that anyone else be persuaded of based on your arguments. >it's an inhumane system > designed by quasi-humans devoid of either "seeing" > or compassion. "Designed" -- clearly this phrase is your delusion, or charitably your poetic license as writer. You offer no discussion, evidence or logic about whom or what "designed" the caste system. IMO the best you can say is that your vivid yet quite limited observations of a (probably) highly distorted, abusive aspects of the caste system as practiced in a foreign country (from its possible origin) as practiced by some cliques, by persons of limited compassion and who appear to have "issues" to be worked out is inhumane. >Sorry, but that's the way I see it. That, combined with the above analysis, could be one of your best biographical sketches yet offered -- by either you or others. > Better to drop the subject right here... Why is that? I hope itâs not because you prefer that alternative views to your definitive and absolute stand can't have pesky alternatives presented. > you aren't > going to like the things I have to say about > systematized forms of racism and oppression such > as the Hindu caste system, much less the people > who justify them... I applaud reasoned and empirical discussions denouncing systematized forms of racism and oppression. I just don't think that you have begun to make the case that the Hindu caste system as it was designed, or as it is practiced UNIOVERSALLY -- that is in all cases -- much less ALL people who practice it are racist and oppressive. I do feel that you have pointed out a series of personal observations, some of which parallel my own, where some Indians (I have seen it in other cultures also) are racist and oppressive, and use their (possibly highly distorted and self-serving) interpretations long standing aspects of their culture justify such adherent human taints -------------- 1The Internet is a worldwide network of thousands of computers and computer networks. It is a public, voluntary, and cooperative effort between the connected institutions and is not owned or operated by any single organization. The Internet and Transmission Control Protocols were initially developed in 1973 by American computer scientist Vinton Cerf as part of a project sponsored by the United States Department of Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) and directed by American engineer Robert Kahn. The Internet began as a computer network of ARPA (ARPAnet) that linked computer networks at several universities and research laboratories in the United States. The World Wide Web was developed in 1989 by English computer scientist Timothy Berners-Lee for the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN).
