The african-dalit connection is as absurd as the european-brahmin connection. Brahmins and dalits are the same race and that race is neither african nor european. Though in skin color both brahmins and dalits are far closer to africans than to europeans.

I did not say that caste = skin color……However, to say that there is absolutely no relation is insane

You appear to be thoroughly confused. Make up your mind: is caste based on skin color or not? What “nuance” reconciles this logical contradiction? The fact that your brahmin father is dark-skinned while your lower caste mother is lighter than him tells you what?

The real insanity lies in thinking that brahmins are a different ethnicity than other indians.

I think that any sane personal observation of people in India can show you this trend.

Francois Gautier, french convert to hinduism and certainly not anti-brahmin, is far more sane and objective than the delusional, macaulayite brahmins who imagine european origins in thrall of european theories:

http://www.rediff.com/news/2006/jul/03franc.htm

“I would like to say that after so many years in India, particularly in the cities, I am still not able to see the difference between a Dalit and a Brahmin, except if I see a Brahmin wearing a sacred thread and a Dalit in a loincloth, which is never the case in cities.”

Why do so many people have such a knee-jerk reaction to the idea that MAYBE color could have some connection to caste?

Beacuse the idea that varna was based on skin color, which you clearly subscribe to despite your “maybes” and “nuances”, is an insult to hindus. It demeans their religion as shallow, stupid, and wickedly racist. Because it screws up the minds of hindus, in particular the brahmins, and gives them a deep inferiority complex. Because it feeds the vanity and superiority complexes of non-indians, the great majority of whom are much lighter than hindus. But most of all because it simply isnt true. Varna was based on guna and karma.

The caste system as it exists is a farce and a fraud: if caste is based on skin color all brahmins are impostors since none are white-skinned; if it is based on profession, then the great majority of brahmins are frauds since most work in non-religious jobs; if it is based on guna then again most brahmins are undeserving, since few exhibit the characteristics of the sathwic guna.

This is all misconstruing what I said. Even Runoko Rashidi has admitted that he oversimplified the African-Dalit connection, and that the connection has more to do with social relationships than it does some construct of ‘race’.

Furthermore, I did not say that caste = skin color. In fact, my entire point was to say that there is a level of complexity with respect to the relationship of caste and skin color. So your examples don’t hold water. My father is from a Maharashtrian Brahmin caste that is relatively dark-skinned compared to all other Maharashtrian Brahmins. My mother is from a non-Brahmin caste that is extremely light with light eyes. I understand that caste is not a simple hierarchy of color.

However, to say that there is absolutely no relation is insane. For instance, I’ve seen at least one study that explores genetic origins and connections to Eurasians as they relate to caste. I think that any sane personal observation of people in India can show you this trend. Things may vary as you go to different regions, but that’s also because the history of South Asia is extremely long and has seen many variations, collapses, and re-entrenchments of the hierarchical system.

Why do so many people have such a knee-jerk reaction to the idea that MAYBE color could have some connection to caste? Again, I’m not bloody saying that caste=color, I’m talking about something more nuanced. I mean, look at the skin color issues within your own family group (if you’re desi). Most desi families have an obsession with light skin color and Euro features, and we know this obsession actually existed before the whites. So what’s that about? Undoubtedly Euro-American [neo-]colonization has exacerbated this phenomenon (and added an entirely new dimension to it), but do you think it’s really about some arbitrarily chosen value of light skinned-ness? Or that it’s strictly about class assignment (i.e. dark skin means you work outside)?

While the skin color system in India is not identical to the system of race in Europe and America, it is not correct to say that skin color has absolutely no relation to caste

If caste = skin color as the western-concocted aryan invasion theory propagates, then hinduism is a very superficial (skin-deep), non-spiritual, pernicious religion that needs to be stamped out. If brahmin = white skin then every brahmin is an impostor for none are white skinned.

A foreigner would be unable to tell indians apart by their caste just by looking at them. The lightest people in India are not brahimins by any means. Jatt sudras, parsis, many muslims, the mongoloids of the north-east and others are.

The lightest of the brahmins, the Chitpavans, werent even accepted as authentic by the orthodox, which should tell you how wrong this theory is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chitpavan

“Well known for their ‘European-like’ features of light skin and grayish to green eyes, results of recent studies [4,5,6,7] on the genetics of Konkanasta Brahmins have been quite interesting…….There is no mention of Chitpavans in Indian history prior to the reign of the Peshwas because they did not hold any powerful position in the political structure and were content more or less in performing clerical jobs unlike their counterpart of desh who were performing religious duties………Until the rise of Balaji Vishvanath Peshwa, who belonged to Chitpavan Brahmin sub-caste, they held a low position and were known chiefly as clerks in the Deccan. Even after several generations of living in the Deccan, with strict attention to Brahmin rituals and austere life, other classes of Brahmins refused to eat with them. One story is that when Bajirao II, the last of the Chitpavan Brahmin Peshwas (1796-1818), was in Nasik he was not allowed to go down to the Godavari river using the same flight of steps as the priests from the local Trimbakeshwar temple.”

The varnas were supposed to be based on the color of the gunas, not something as irrelevant to spirituality as skin color.

Amitabh, color is always a dangerous topic here

Okay, but then what utility does it have in determining who is a dalit? Eg. African Americans are 25% “white” but you can still tell who is considered “black” here. Can the same be said about Dalits? Also, take a few examples: Rajputs in North India are considered very high caste, but they are, in my experience, fairly dark; Ezhavas in Kerala are just above the untouchables in the Mallu caste hierarchy, but they are not darker, on average, than anyone else in Kerala, in fact they may be fairer. You yourself say different features can manifest in the SAME families kind of proves Ambedkar’s point about mixture.

To say this is misleading.

I don’t believe it is. Here is my point:

1)One cannot identify a Dalit based upon his skin tone. 2)Being darkest doesn’t necessarily make one a Dalit. 3)Dalits are not discriminated against because they are dark, or because they are considered a separate race. 4) A Dalit could ‘pass’ for a non-Dalit, at any given time.

Contrast this with the “race” marginalized peoples of the west.

it is not correct to say that skin color has absolutely no relation to caste.

Dr. Ambedkar, the father of the Dalit movement, vehemently dismissed the racial origins of caste. Check out what he had to say on this subject:

[2:] As a matter of fact [the] Caste system came into being long after the different races of India had commingled in blood and culture. To hold that distinctions of castes are really distinctions of race, and to treat different castes as though they were so many different races, is a gross perversion of facts. What racial affinity is there between the Brahmin of the Punjab and the Brahmin of Madras? What racial affinity is there between the untouchable of Bengal and the untouchable of Madras? What racial difference is there between the Brahmin of the Punjab and the Chamar of the Punjab? What racial difference is there between the Brahmin of Madras and the Pariah of Madras? The Brahmin of the Punjab is racially of the same stock as the Chamar of the Punjab, and the Brahmin of Madras is of the same race as the Pariah of Madras.

I generally agree with Dr. Ambedkar. The admixture of communities in India is ancient.

“Dont be silly quizman. It never occurred to hindus that burning widows alive was a horrendous crime until some British missionaries began pressing the East India Company to ban it. Some british educated indians like Ram Mohan Roy also joined the campaign, and they were staunchly opposed by orthodox brahmins. Note that the westernized Ram Mohan Roy rejected the polytheism and idol worship of his ancestors also.

Similarly, it never occurred to hindus that sacrificing little children to a goddess was an abominable practice.

Have the decency and intellectual honesty to give credit where its due.”

What a load of Bullshit.

“You never heard of Kali? Amazing. If the practice was not prevalent in large parts of India, primarily Bengal, why on earth would the British have felt the need to ban it?“

What a stupid question. Go educate yourself.

“China was never colonized by the British. Only a tiny fraction of it was, and that part has done extremely well.

So the question is: whats holding India back? Culture, religion, low IQ, or what? It cant be democracy since it has worked so well in many other places.”

What crap reasoning.

“What “basic human decency” do you find in the practices of untouchability, widow-burning and shunning, child sacrifice, temple prostitution etc that have plagued India for thousands of years?

Why did it take the British to pass laws against sati and human sacrifice? Dont hindus have their own law books, such as the famous Manu Smriti?“

Clearly you are uneducated. Read some books.

“Apparently so did Korea, South-East Asia and other non-european regions of the world. So again: why has the world overtaken India since it gained independence from the British?

Only sub-saharan Africa remains comparable to the Indian subcontinent in poverty, hunger, backwardness etc. ” — ROTFLMAO. Dude, you so need to read some books. The reason is so obvious.

“Nonsense. Japan for example did not even begin modernizing until a century and a half ago. As others have pointed out, in 1947 India was in better shape than a large portion of the non-western world. Yet now it finds itself near the bottom with subsaharan africa. Why?

What we are seeing is the usual desi drone excuses in response to this question:

1. We was robbed by the lousy brits. Sure, but they also left an India that was better set than many other regions of the world. So that still begs the question: why has most of the non-western world overtaken India since the British left?

2. India is too big. Well then break it up into manageable pieces. In any case, that ignores the fact that smaller subcontinental nations, even tiny Nepal, aren’t doing so well either. Sri Lanka is the best off nation in the subcontinent and it isnt exactly prosperous either.

3. Who says we are behind? This ostrich-like mentality is unfortunately widespread among too many desis. Call them the deluded “India Shining” jingos.“

Bad reasoning. Wrong facts.

“The problem with this excuse is that socialism/planned economy did not prevent the Soviet Union from becoming a global super power, while India under its License Raj was a beggar nation dependent on foreign handouts. Why? “

Soviet union an economic power. LMAO.

“This is the sort of lies/ignorant nonsense that too many indians feed their delusions with. Both Botswana and Namibia have nominal per capita incomes many times higher than India’s.

The palestinians look far better fed, clothed and housed than India’s middle classes.“

What ignorant nonsense and lies.

“You are grabbing at straws. There are dozens of countries in Africa.

Compare the nominal per capita income of the Indian subcontinent to any non-western region of the world: ASEAN, East Asia, Latin America and Africa. What did you discover?“

I discovered that you are an appologist.

“Are you denying that the Soviets accomplished far more under socialism than India did under democracy and the license raj?“

Soviet union was communist dictatorship with a far better literacy rate born through a people’s revolution. You nut job, don’t you get it.

“Whats your excuse for Bangladesh’s even greater poverty and backwardness? It certainly is smaller, more homogeneous and mono-lingual isnt it, so those excuses are inapplicable. Why dont you apply your race and DNA obsession to this issue? Or is that obsession with genetics only limited to skin color, “attractiveness”, and other such superficial racial attributes?“

Ha ha..you seriously lost it. Haven’t you ?

“Whaaaat???“

Whaaaat?????

“False.

BTW, there are some orthodox hindus including a Shankaracharya of Puri who wish to revive this “glorious” custom.“

False.

“What if the dalits all become english-speaking buddhists in a couple generations?“

What if ?

“And yet we have guys here blaming socialism for India’s backwardness! Casteism is the very anti-thesis of socialism isnt it?“

Isnt it ? You are so clueless.

“What? No one told you that sati was banned by the british? Or that the govt of independent India continued that ban?

BTW, in the wake of attempts by some orthodox hindus to revive this odious custom the govt of free India made abetting sati a crime punishable by death and even made the glorification of this ancient hindu practice a jail able offense.“

Atlast you got one wrong. The British actually influenced the decision here. The PMO called up 10, Downing street to get the nod.

“You are still grabbing at straws. Look at subsaharan Africa as a region. Ditto for the MIddle-East, South-East Asia and Latin America and you will get the true picture of where India stands. India lags behind every region of the world and is neck and neck with subsaharan Africa:“

Wrong.

“You said it was limited to bengali upper castes. Which is obviously false, and you must know it too. Most every literate indian is aware that sati was practiced by, and still is revered, among rajputs, for example.

The issue was not that sati is still practiced in India, it was that forcibly ending it is one of the beneficent legacies of british rule. Along with the ban against human sacrifice, the crushing of thuggery etc.“

False

“You don’t get bragging rights for wishful thinking.“

Yeah, glad you got that.

“It was a clever satire of the hindu fundamentalist, “India Shining”, “India is an IT superpower”, Macaulay-hating yet proudly “english proficient” masses yearning for an american visa or green card.“

Does that include you as well ?

“A hungry child is a hungry child regardless of “dollar’s equivalent” or any other spin you try to put on it.

And India is worse even than subsaharan Africa when it comes to child malnutrition. That should be the very minimum measure of HDI, dont you agree?“

Obviously I dont agree.

In the Mahabharata, Sage (I think) Bharadvaja says in a dialogue said that if the different skin colors denote different castes, then all castes are mixed castes –and this was at least 1800 years ago! So if there was any purity associated with skin tone, it looks to have been in abeyance in the classical period. India was already Brazil during the Roman Empire.

Manu, from the same time period, had to list ten or fifteen odd “mixed” varnas (several of which he openly sneered at) to give a proper accounting of the groupings in society. But still, people were getting it on, despite what the Brahmins may have thought of it.

The relationship of varna and race is principally upheld by the prononents of the Aryan Invasion Theory, and based upon a definition of varna as skin color. Whatever the “debate” may be, there is no operative relationship between untouchability and skin tone. Some African American activists like Runoko Rashidi tried to link the Dalits to other race marginalized communities in the West, but scholars, including Vijay Prashad, quickly disabused the activists. Dalits were discriminated against, yes. But it wasnt because they were the darkest of the dark.