Talk:Caste
|
|
I have moved the following from the article to the talk section, because it needs a lot of work before it belongs in an encyclopedia article:
- In humans, the cast system in India was initially based on the nature of work people did. There were four main castes. Bramhins were the knowledge-workers, Kshatriyas were the warriors, Waishyas were the traders, and Shoodras were the labourers. In very old times, caste was decided by work, but later on the system disintegrated into one where caste was decided by birth. Although no longer strictly enforced in modern India, the caste system retains some degrees of social impact in various regions.
There is a LOT of discussion among anthropologists and historians as to the origins of the caste system -- debates ranging from its origins in early Indian history to its largely being a construction of British colonial rule. "In very old times" is such a vague and meaningless statement that it seems almost to parody an encyclopedia article. I am not sure that the caste system in India was originally determined by work and only later determined by birth; Dumont identifies three defining features of a caste system: hierarchy, division of labor, and social segregation. One could argue that until all three features are in place, one does not have a caste system.
The article defines Indian castes in terms of occupations (knowledge-workers, warriors, traders) and then says that "In very old times, caste was decided by work" -- so what work one did was determined by what work one did? This sounds circular. My understanding is that what makes the caste system the caste system is that what work one does is determined by one's birth.
To say that the system "disintegrated" smacks of non-NPOV.
In any event, the article needs to distinguish between "caste system" as a kind of social system, versus Hindu India as a particular example of a caste system. It must also provide a more precise historical account, as well as account for current scholarly debates.
By the way, in English, at least, the spelling is "caste," not "cast;" also "Vaishya" (ot Waishya) and "Shudra" (not Shoodra). Also, I think it should read "Among humans" or "In human society," not "In humans."
Oh, yes -- "caste" comes from the Portuguese word for "chaste" which suggests that group caste endogamy and social segregation are more essential characteristics of caste systmes than a division of labor. Indeed, among humans almost every agricultural or industrial society, and all state-level societies, are characterized by complex divisions of labor (see the eponymous book by Durkheim); the "caste system" refers to something far more specific. -- SR
- Portuguese casta=lineage or race, casto=chaste, and both are of the same origin. But the first is a much more likely source for the modern English word. Imc 21:29, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
"Much of what we know of the caste system in India was documented and codified during the period of British occupation and rule (e.g. Herbert Risley's The Tribes and Castes of Bengal, published in 1892). "
Is this quote above from the article just confused, or is it a bit Eurocentric? Did no one know anything about it before this time, or record anything recently? Imc 21:22, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Agrees. It appears to be the result of unconscious Euro-centrism. I modified the paragraph slightly. Still not sure, if it is factually right to claim that caste system was "unknown" before the British rule.
| Contents |
'Disputed' message
User:Rrjanbiah has added the following message to the article
(The neutrality of this article is disputed. Template:Message box
He has mentioned in the edit summary that the POV stems from the edits of User:LordSuryaofShropshire. I dont see any edit wars between the two users recently. Neither is there a discussion about the said POVs on this talk page (I can see only one side of the argument in the above space). It would be great if he could mention in the talk page as to what is being disputed here. Chancemill 09:27, May 26, 2004 (UTC)
The following thread has been copied from User Talk:Rrjanbiah
Caste
Hi Rajesh,
Could you please specify in the talk page of the article, the specific points of dispute ? Correct me if I am wrong, but I see one version of the argument there, but nothing to counter that for a NPOV/disputed message on the main page. Many Thanks Chancemill 09:03, May 26, 2004 (UTC)
- Not sure, why couldn't you find the POV in that article. There are lots of... Say for example [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Caste&dummy=1&diff=2990686&oldid=2985977) --Rrjanbiah 09:33, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
- I see a lot of information there, some of which I know are true, some of which true but may not be verifiable, and some not true. If you find anything objectionable, please go ahead and edit the article (you can do it better by quoting relevant sources, for counter arguments) - putting a disputed message on top seems to me a bit premature at this stage. Chancemill 09:38, May 26, 2004 (UTC)
- I do not want to edit the article 'coz many people (IIRC you too) were keep on tilting the article in favor of Brahmin and Hindu point of advocacies. It may be premature, but it is totally a POV. Perhaps could add it is the point of view of few Wikipedians alone? --Rrjanbiah 09:49, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
- If you are not prepared to discuss the specific points, I am afraid the disputed message cannot stand. Thanks Chancemill 09:53, May 26, 2004 (UTC)
Actually much of the history of caste system cannot be traced though it remains one of the most important things that need to be talked about as far as Indian history is concerned. Actually, to say that caste is based on occupation is not entirely correct. Also, it is not the degeneration of the original four varna system. Caste is the carrying over of tribal ways of society organization into the modern period. Added to this was the varna system which was superimposed on the existing social organisation. Moreover, regarding the part played by islamic and british rule on the system, my opinion is that they resulted in the hardening of the system, though no one can say that they created them. British with their imperfect knowledge of the existing system and its flexibility, unfortunately imposed the status quo on the existing system. As a result, a system which was flexible became very rigid.
Caste system acts like a buffer as far as the society is concerned, helping new entrants to get easily used to the system. For example, rajputs started as several clans outside the pale of the society but were effectively absorbed into the society without any friction. Caste plays the role of an intermediate form of social organisation not opening up the individual directly to the topmost authority of the land.
This can't be right
Most of the links to articles on specific caste groups are erroneous. Some go to articles on persons, some on moslem groups like shia, some are even worse.
Rudolf 1922 22:17, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Please lend a hand w better links, if you can :) Sam [Spade (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit§ion=new)] 22:20, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, you're right. There is no caste based on religion; all religion have all castes. In some religion esp Islam, some people immediately drops their Hindu caste after conversion. My friend who is Jacobite says it is a denomination (he belongs to another caste). There are also Christian brahmins and etc. I didn't fix it as I had a conflict with the whole content sometimes ago. --Rrjanbiah 04:38, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I removed the following two sub-sections, as I consider them outright silly, as others have noted above. In addition I still have the feeling that the article needs a lot of work but don't know enough of it to do it myself. -- Pjacobi 17:31, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Christian Castes
Muslim Castes
Quick Changes
I changed the subheading of 'Indian Caste' to 'Hindu Caste' perhaps an even better change would be 'Hindu Cast in India'. India has sizable populations of non-hindus, and it is not factually to paint this as an 'indian' caste but as a Hindu one. --ShaunMacPherson 15:45, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
--- The above statement is not factual and should be changed back to Indian Caste. The caste system is very much an Human thing rather than Hindu. For example the eters caste in Japan.
April 07, 2005
Purity and contamination
I thought the Hindu caste system has much to do with preserving purity and avoiding contamination. E.g. not touchhing corpses, or blood, not eating in the company of lower caste people. I do not see this reflected in the article. Andries 15:55, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Please edit as necessary. Be bold! [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] Spade (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit§ion=new) wishes you a merry Christmas! 22:02, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Caste and Nature
Thus, one sees that the original conception of caste was that people who acted a certain way, fell into a certain category. If one were born into a Brahmin family, but drank and had no respect for one's fellow living beings and God, one was simply not a Brahmin. This view is supported by a reading of the Bhagavad Gita which held that caste was a function of practice, rather than based on birth. All three acharayas, Sankara, Ramanuja, and Madhva all subscribed to this view.
Wasn't there also a caste system in Europe? born a cobbler sons will be cobblers and so on? (i read a book that had cobblers saying that)this is not noted in the article, not even mentioned. This caste system exists only in India as far as i know yet when I went to "Caste System" it sent me here. Dwarf Kirlston 01:18, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Quick Edits
Added the following :
In certain states the caste-based affirmative action has been carried too far creating a situation where the Brahmins are now the oppressed caste!
Reference :
Dalits In Reverse : outlook India http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20050411&fname=Brahmins+%28F%29&sid=1 [07 April 2005]
deleted text
There are numerous societies, however, in which immutable caste is combined with a very high degree of social mobility. Furthermore, the concept of caste cannot be limited to societies in which caste is legislated, such as the southern states of the United States until 1965, since the caste distinction separating Negroes (now called African Americans) from all other United States residents is no less forceful now in the lives of the members of this caste than in the past. Other examples of caste combined with social mobility: traditional Igbo society in Nigeria; Twareg society at present; Japan. Although frequently caste is associated with occupation, especially when first instituted, caste identification and enforcement has often survived the complexities of modern economies.
In course of time the difference of vocation, and the greater or less exposure to the scorching influence of the tropical sky, added, no doubt, to a certain. admixture of shudra blood, especially in the case of the common people, seem to have produced also in the Aryan population, different shades of complexion, which greatly favored a tendency to rigid class-restrictions originally awakened and continually fed by the lot of the servile race.
The word occurs in the Veda in the latter sense, but it is used there to mark the distinction, not between the three classes of the Aryan community, but between them on the one hand and a dark-colored hostile people on the other. The latter, called Dgsas or Dasyus, consisted, no doubt, of the indigenous tribes, with whom the Aryans had to carry on a continual struggle for the possession of the land.
(The state of Tamil Nadu reserves 69% of its college admission seats instead of 50% as mandated by the Central Government)
- The above is a variety of deleted text from thruout the article. All of it was deleted due to being POV, but is likely still factually accurate. Please have a look and see if you can reword it and find a place for it here or elsewhere. Thanks,
- Sam Spade 12:30, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)