Yes, and the prohibition against the burakumin in some cases originated as a sensible precaution about sharing hand-prepared and -eaten food with those who professionally worked with dead or disgusting things (see, e.g., tanners, butchers, night-soil collectors, etc.) That does not obviate the social fact that the evolution of those social rules ossified into much more comprehensive social ostracization, including a prohibition on intermarriage.
The opposite of foolishness is not wisdom, and the opposite of solipsistic conversion of others' cultures into American social orders a la Winfrey is not uncritical acceptance of the opposite narrative. I call the Indian orders "castes" because I speak English, not Hindi, and "caste" is a perfectly good English word. And I compare the American racial system to them not to impose one on the other, or the other on the one, but instead to try and get American commenters here to try and expand their view of our own "racial" divisions through contemplation of other groups which share some (not all) of our history's characteristics.
Whatever language one speaks (or doesn't), knowing the origins, especially when there is a misapprehension and the current word has a negative connotation, is very important, so that proper attribution can be made. Making the distinction between a word of Indian origin and a word of British origin deliberately super-imposed upon a culture, is necessary. For example, currently, there is a democrat-proposed plan afoot to ban all public illustrations of the Swaasthikaa. Even though the original Hindu Swaathikaa is vastly different from the one appropriated by the Nazis, this distinction has been swept aside by the Cultural Supremacists aka the "progressives of the democratic party'. Due to lack of knowledge about the origins of the original Swaasthikaa, the democratic party have been able to convince Semites and many others that this is a good thing and that they are on the side of the good and the just. Therefore, it behooves one to offer background information whenever possible so people get a more complete picture and are able to counter false narratives.
Origins are not useful when there is a clear modern context. It benefits no-one to discourse on swastika v. hakenkreuz when someone who is clearly not a hindu but instead an SS-larper shows up with jackboots. Similarly, etymological quibbles are not useful except as rhetorical smokescreens when there is a clear sociological phenomenon under discussion.
Origins are absolutely important when there is a bill under discussion proposed by Todd Kaminski -D to ban a significant religious symbol revered by a billion people.
Do you need to be Black in order to have an opinion on Black-related issues? How exactly is that relevant to the discussion? Please explain. What one is or isn't matters not one jot to a person passionate about objective standards. I would hope that I am compassionate enough to care equally about Christian crosses, Muslim customs, Jewish holidays, etc.
Anyone who cares about our Constitution and Constitutional Rights should care!
Yes, and the prohibition against the burakumin in some cases originated as a sensible precaution about sharing hand-prepared and -eaten food with those who professionally worked with dead or disgusting things (see, e.g., tanners, butchers, night-soil collectors, etc.) That does not obviate the social fact that the evolution of those social rules ossified into much more comprehensive social ostracization, including a prohibition on intermarriage.
The opposite of foolishness is not wisdom, and the opposite of solipsistic conversion of others' cultures into American social orders a la Winfrey is not uncritical acceptance of the opposite narrative. I call the Indian orders "castes" because I speak English, not Hindi, and "caste" is a perfectly good English word. And I compare the American racial system to them not to impose one on the other, or the other on the one, but instead to try and get American commenters here to try and expand their view of our own "racial" divisions through contemplation of other groups which share some (not all) of our history's characteristics.
Whatever language one speaks (or doesn't), knowing the origins, especially when there is a misapprehension and the current word has a negative connotation, is very important, so that proper attribution can be made. Making the distinction between a word of Indian origin and a word of British origin deliberately super-imposed upon a culture, is necessary. For example, currently, there is a democrat-proposed plan afoot to ban all public illustrations of the Swaasthikaa. Even though the original Hindu Swaathikaa is vastly different from the one appropriated by the Nazis, this distinction has been swept aside by the Cultural Supremacists aka the "progressives of the democratic party'. Due to lack of knowledge about the origins of the original Swaasthikaa, the democratic party have been able to convince Semites and many others that this is a good thing and that they are on the side of the good and the just. Therefore, it behooves one to offer background information whenever possible so people get a more complete picture and are able to counter false narratives.
Origins are not useful when there is a clear modern context. It benefits no-one to discourse on swastika v. hakenkreuz when someone who is clearly not a hindu but instead an SS-larper shows up with jackboots. Similarly, etymological quibbles are not useful except as rhetorical smokescreens when there is a clear sociological phenomenon under discussion.
Origins are absolutely important when there is a bill under discussion proposed by Todd Kaminski -D to ban a significant religious symbol revered by a billion people.
Yes, I'm sure the reason you care about swastikas is because you're a devout hindu.
Do you need to be Black in order to have an opinion on Black-related issues? How exactly is that relevant to the discussion? Please explain. What one is or isn't matters not one jot to a person passionate about objective standards. I would hope that I am compassionate enough to care equally about Christian crosses, Muslim customs, Jewish holidays, etc.
Anyone who cares about our Constitution and Constitutional Rights should care!
Bruh, the discussion is about whether the "black experience" in the U.S. is unique. You've really derailed things here and I'm done with it.