Hindu Caste Discrimination Issue In Seattle

[steve_bank]

Immigrants can bring with them their own prejudiec and bias.

Seattle is the first U.S. city to outlaw caste discrimination in a contentious decision opposed by some Hindus

Calls to outlaw discrimination based on caste, a division of people based on birth or descent, have grown louder among South Asian diaspora communities in the United States.

fortune.com

Seattle is the first U.S. city to outlaw caste discrimination in a contentious decision opposed by some Hindus​

The Seattle City Council on Tuesday added caste to the city’s anti-discrimination laws, becoming the first U.S. city to specifically ban caste discrimination.

Calls to outlaw discrimination based on caste, a division of people based on birth or descent, have grown louder among South Asian diaspora communities in the United States. But the movement is getting pushback from some Hindu Americans who argue that such legislation maligns a specific community.

Proponents of the ordinance that was approved by a 6-1 vote Tuesday say caste discrimination crosses national and religious boundaries and that without such laws, those facing caste discrimination in the U.S. will have no protections.

 

[bilby]

Immigrants can bring with them their own prejudiec and bias.

Not to Seattle they can't, at least, not according to the article you posted.

 

[Jarhyn]

Immigrants can bring with them their own prejudiec and bias.

Not to Seattle they can't, at least, not according to the article you posted.

It's almost like we could pass a law that simply says "discrimination on the basis of circumstances of birth or national origin is not legal; only decisions made based on immediate, identifiable, important circumstances are allowed."

It's almost like that would be enough.

While I will get a lot of argument from the "conservative crowd", I think the correct hiring decision for society is always going to be the least qualified person who can get the job done consistently well, and the best people for running a system of society and educating the future will be exactly those who are too qualified to be hired.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

But the movement is getting pushback from some Hindu Americans who argue that such legislation maligns a specific community.

So it's getting pushback from Hindu racists. No big surprise there. I'm also curious about that one dissenting vote. What was the person's opposition to the ordnance based upon?

 

[Oleg]

But the movement is getting pushback from some Hindu Americans who argue that such legislation maligns a specific community.

So it's getting pushback from Hindu racists. No big surprise there. I'm also curious about that one dissenting vote. What was the person's opposition to the ordnance based upon?

Indians are a curious group. In the West they’re strong promoters of diversity and mass immigration. But back home they’re ardent nationalists.

 

[Bomb#20]

I'm also curious about that one dissenting vote. What was the person's opposition to the ordnance based upon?

Hey Ken, wanna see my impression of Gandhi?

 

[Shadowy Man]

But the movement is getting pushback from some Hindu Americans who argue that such legislation maligns a specific community.

So it's getting pushback from Hindu racists. No big surprise there. I'm also curious about that one dissenting vote. What was the person's opposition to the ordnance based upon?

Indians are a curious group. In the West they’re strong promoters of diversity and mass immigration. But back home they’re ardent nationalists.

Perhaps ardent nationalists from any country are the least likely to become immigrants to others countries.

 

[TomC]

Perhaps ardent nationalists from any country are the least likely to become immigrants to others countries.

Pretty much this.
Indians in the U.S. are going to be a very small group, selfselected from the group that can find the wherewithal to immigrate here.

Not at all representative of most Indians.
Tom

 

[Patooka]

Perhaps ardent nationalists from any country are the least likely to become immigrants to others countries.

Pretty much this.
Indians in the U.S. are going to be a very small group, selfselected from the group that can find the wherewithal to immigrate here.

Not at all representative of most Indians.
Tom

A significant amount of expat Indians living in Sydney are Muslim. There's a reason for that as well.

 

[bilby]

Perhaps ardent nationalists from any country are the least likely to become immigrants to others countries.

Pretty much this.
Indians in the U.S. are going to be a very small group, selfselected from the group that can find the wherewithal to immigrate here.

Not at all representative of most Indians.
Tom

A significant amount of expat Indians living in Sydney are Muslim. There's a reason for that as well.

Most of the people I have met in both Sydney and Brisbane who describe themselves as "Indian" are Fijian Muslims, whose families were relocated from India as civil servants by the British, because the British people were seriously disinclined to accept work in some fly-speck South Pacific colony with zero mod cons.

Some came directly to Australia from India, but not the majority, as far as my (admittedly anecdotal) understanding goes.

 

[ZiprHead]

Most of the Indians I've met were Christian or Sikh Hindu.

My wife worked for a couple Indian employers. Pharmacists. They were all very nice people. One moved to Florida and wanted her to move there too to continue working for him. Her father was still alive at the time so she had to decline.

Any Indian person I've ever interacted with was a very nice person.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Immigrants can bring with them their own prejudiec and bias.

Not to Seattle they can't, at least, not according to the article you posted.

It's almost like we could pass a law that simply says "discrimination on the basis of circumstances of birth or national origin is not legal; only decisions made based on immediate, identifiable, important circumstances are allowed."

Where does religion fall under this criteria?

What I would like is you can't discriminate based on what you are unless it's very relevant, but you can discriminate based on what you choose. However, I would recognize that there are a decent number of jobs where part of the job is appearance/entertaining. I don't have a problem with a gym only hiring fitness trainers that appear fit--because the customers will aspire to be like the trainer and aren't going to want one that looks out of shape whatever they can actually do. (Reality: For most people the gym is more about illusion than reality.) I don't have a problem with an ethnic restaurant hiring front people that match it's ethnicity. The number of such jobs is small enough that nobody's going to be appreciably limited by it.

 

[Jarhyn]

Immigrants can bring with them their own prejudiec and bias.

Not to Seattle they can't, at least, not according to the article you posted.

It's almost like we could pass a law that simply says "discrimination on the basis of circumstances of birth or national origin is not legal; only decisions made based on immediate, identifiable, important circumstances are allowed."

Where does religion fall under this criteria?

What I would like is you can't discriminate based on what you are unless it's very relevant, but you can discriminate based on what you choose. However, I would recognize that there are a decent number of jobs where part of the job is appearance/entertaining. I don't have a problem with a gym only hiring fitness trainers that appear fit--because the customers will aspire to be like the trainer and aren't going to want one that looks out of shape whatever they can actually do. (Reality: For most people the gym is more about illusion than reality.) I don't have a problem with an ethnic restaurant hiring front people that match it's ethnicity. The number of such jobs is small enough that nobody's going to be appreciably limited by it.

Honestly, I do have a problem with fitness trainers who are only "fit" since having only "fit" fitness trainers is a false advertisement.

Not everyone can reach "fit" and seeing what the "fitness" regimen does for those people allows their peers to accurately gauge whether the program can help them become "more fit" rather than "absolutely fit".

Personally, I think religion falls partly under "circumstances of birth". Religiousity, on the other hand, is a different beast. When someone is excessively religious, never mind the specific religion, to the point where their religiousity impacts their ability to meet reasonable and low MINIMUM requirements, that's when I would consider it something that may be evaluated for appropriateness. The only time the actual religion enters into it is the existence of attested conflicts of interest from the religious belief.

I think the real standard is in the test: only decisions made based on immediate, identifiable, important circumstances are allowed. Does the racism of the customers count as important (wanting their waiter to be a stereotype based on the food choose)? Does the genetic advantage of the teacher count as "important" in gauging the specific effectiveness of a fitness program?

It's not like there will ever be law changes around hiring tendencies of businesses that play to stereotypes, but there it is.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What I would like is you can't discriminate based on what you are unless it's very relevant, but you can discriminate based on what you choose. However, I would recognize that there are a decent number of jobs where part of the job is appearance/entertaining. I don't have a problem with a gym only hiring fitness trainers that appear fit--because the customers will aspire to be like the trainer and aren't going to want one that looks out of shape whatever they can actually do. (Reality: For most people the gym is more about illusion than reality.) I don't have a problem with an ethnic restaurant hiring front people that match it's ethnicity. The number of such jobs is small enough that nobody's going to be appreciably limited by it.

Honestly, I do have a problem with fitness trainers who are only "fit" since having only "fit" fitness trainers is a false advertisement.

No, because all they are selling is an illusion, anyway.

Not everyone can reach "fit" and seeing what the "fitness" regimen does for those people allows their peers to accurately gauge whether the program can help them become "more fit" rather than "absolutely fit".

They can't judge anyway.

Personally, I think religion falls partly under "circumstances of birth". Religiousity, on the other hand, is a different beast. When someone is excessively religious, never mind the specific religion, to the point where their religiousity impacts their ability to meet reasonable and low MINIMUM requirements, that's when I would consider it something that may be evaluated for appropriateness. The only time the actual religion enters into it is the existence of attested conflicts of interest from the religious belief.

People can change faith.

I think the real standard is in the test: only decisions made based on immediate, identifiable, important circumstances are allowed. Does the racism of the customers count as important (wanting their waiter to be a stereotype based on the food choose)? Does the genetic advantage of the teacher count as "important" in gauging the specific effectiveness of a fitness program?

It's not like there will ever be law changes around hiring tendencies of businesses that play to stereotypes, but there it is.

I can see racism of the customer being a reason not to deal with them--it's a choice, I have no problem with a business deciding they don't want to deal with assholes.

 

[Jarhyn]

No, because all they are selling is an illusion, anyway.

You mean a lie.

People can change faith.

They can, but usually through no effort of their own except through lost faith and existential crisis, and most people have no control over where they settle there, following losses of faith.

I can see racism of the customer being a reason not to deal with them--it's a choice, I have no problem with a business deciding they don't want to deal with assholes

Consider, I am vehemently against permanent consequences. You know that. You have been party to me loudly stumping for leniency on permanent measures even for, well, complete and utter assholes.

I think that consequences should be applied only in events where someone fails to not be an asshole, and with measures to be proactive in monitoring for shitty behavior for individuals who are pretty bad assholes in generally.

I expect most intractable assholes would float on the "usually banned, waiting to be re-banned" but it's a better situation than treating people as if they cannot change.

I think part of the cost of doing business should be dealing with assholes in good faith even if they often return bad faith, but to check for bad faith. To trust but verify.

But the racism of the customer being talked about here is about the expectation that people who serve tables at a "Chinese" restaurant be "Chinese", and the customer not buying food at restaurants that don't have "ethnically matched" workers and food.

I don't think any manager should rightly play to those stereotypes even if it gets them marginally more business.

 

[Oleg]

But the racism of the customer being talked about here is about the expectation that people who serve tables at a "Chinese" restaurant be "Chinese", and the customer not buying food at restaurants that don't have "ethnically matched" workers and food.

I don't think any manager should rightly play to those stereotypes even if it gets them marginally more business.

Recall eating at a Chinese buffet / restaurant and the serving staff were all East Asian. But when the kitchen door swung open it was all hispanics. That was funny.

 

[TomC]

Immigrants can bring with them their own prejudiec and bias.

I know little about foreign places like Seattle so I'll just ask.

How can anyone noticeably discriminate by caste there? Sufficiently to require the government to step in?

To me, it looks like useless virtue signaling. Feel free to explain how caste discrimination is a problem, in Seattle.
Tom

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But the racism of the customer being talked about here is about the expectation that people who serve tables at a "Chinese" restaurant be "Chinese", and the customer not buying food at restaurants that don't have "ethnically matched" workers and food.

I don't think any manager should rightly play to those stereotypes even if it gets them marginally more business.

Part of what you're buying in a restaurant is the ambiance. Workers matching the theme of the restaurant (not always racial--there's a twins restaurant that hires identical twins) doesn't seem to be to cause a problem for society. It's inherently self-limiting to a low enough level not to matter.

I've had an experience like Oleg--seeing the back staff weren't a match. My wife has also had the experience of speaking Mandarin to a Chinese-looking waitress in a Chinese restaurant--and finding out she was American born and knew basically zero Mandarin.

 

[Jarhyn]

Immigrants can bring with them their own prejudiec and bias.

I know little about foreign places like Seattle so I'll just ask.

How can anyone noticeably discriminate by caste there? Sufficiently to require the government to step in?

To me, it looks like useless virtue signaling. Feel free to explain how caste discrimination is a problem, in Seattle.
Tom

Imagine a large Indian community living in some subset of Seattle.

Now imagine for a moment that there are facial, akin color, and name based cues that indicate when someone is of low caste.

Now imagine for a moment you are a grad student seeking a math or medical degree because your parents insist on behaving like stereotypes they insist you take one of those degrees.

Next, imagine someone in the department that you must take a class from is of "low" caste, and came to America to escape their caste, and is now decides that this is America and they will turn the tables on your "high caste" family by sabotaging your career, on the internal justification of "they had everything in India, they shall not take it in America".

You know run of the mill human pettiness with a racist twist.

Change any of the players from "high" to "low".

Adjust context to a medical campus, where Indians are over represented because of such cultural values and messaging.

It's NOT too hard to imagine in a world where cultures select industries based on ethnic stereotypes (and they do), that sometimes that density of representation in an industry may allow such racist bullshit to precipitate.

 

[Swammerdami]

Some of the writing seems to avoid specifics. The group seeking to outlaw caste discrimination are the Dalit people. These are the people once called "Untouchables;" and the official term Dalit translates literally as "Oppressed." These are the people that once were required to walk with a broom sweeping behind so that the upper-caste would not have to see the Dalits' footprints. Discrimination by caste may now be illegal in India but if you think such discrimination no longer happens let me sell you a bridge! (The caste system is a facet of the Hindu religion, so naturally many of the ancestors of low-caste tribes converted to Islam centuries ago.)

Caste is inherited (from father IIUC) so caste has a genetic component. I'll guess diction, customs and personal names may also be clues to caste. And I'll guess a little training with Google Images ("Brahmin" vs "Dalit") would allow us to get some accuracy just with obvious facial differences.

Much discrimination takes the form of snubbing or "micro-aggression" which may be hard to prove. But, although my personal knowledge of India or its castes is only anecdotal, I know and we should assume that this is NOT a made-up problem.

What the Dalit are asking for is to add the reddened words to anti-discrimination rules: "religion, race or ethnicity (or caste)." This seems a reasonable request to me. Upper-caste ("Hindu") Indians in the U.S. feel that they are themselves the victims of discrimination by Americans of European ancestry, and that calling attention to their own discrimination against lower-caste South Asians victimizes them. I think this objection should be dismissed.