This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
what does "meat eating" have to do with backward castes?
There is a impression in the world that Hindus are Vegiterians. I just wanted to point out that majority of the traditional hindus in all except a few brahmin sub-Castes do have the meat as part of their diet. Kashmiri brahmins serve lamb as part of their wedding feasts. Saraswat brahmins have fish as their staple food. In many festivals after the harvest season, even the meat dishes were offered to Devi and celebrated. TT 01:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Even urbanized literate communities such as Ckp (Bal Thackeray belongs to this community) offer meat as Prased on certain festivals.
I'm not saying that politicians aren't likely to try to use ANYONE as a vote bank, but we might want to provide some justification for the statement. It does seem to imply that 'backward caste' Indians are nothing more than a vote bank, or that they vote en bloc. Needs more body. - BalthCat 03:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
This article appears to be on the same topic as Other Backward Class, which is a more developed article. I think I personally lean towards deleting this article and re-directing. However, I leave this open in case anyone feels otherwise or wants to attempt to merge.-- Qball6 20:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I would also delete and redirect, but as stubby as this article is, it still touches on subjects the other one doesn't. Someone familiar with the topic should merge this content to the other article. -- Coffee2theorems | Talk 19:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Is most of the English speaking world, saying that "these rural laborers are very backward" would be pejorative and derogatory and not acceptable in Wikipedia. Wiktionary defines it as "Reluctant or unable to advance," "undeveloped or unsophisticated." No article would be allowed to keep such a description of African-Americans or Hispanics in the U.S. Such usage has been avoided by mainstream media since the 1960's. Why should it be allowed here? The beliefs of a religion are not automatically NPOV and acceptable. Is it actually acceptable to say such things in newspapers of general circulation in India? In the U.S. such terminology would only be found in papers from such organizations as the Ku Klux Klan or Christian Identity. The origin of the use of the term needs to be explained if it has a coined meaning other than the obvious one. Edison 16:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I am aware that the distinction backward/forward castes is still a widely and frequently used term in India and that different poeple understand different things by it, but in my opinion it does not qualify to be included in Wikipedia because it is an extremely pejorative distinction and only perpetuates the unequal and (negatively) discriminating power relations between the have and have-nots in India. Adivasis and Dalits have been fighting against this dichotomisation of Indian society since independence, when the caste system was officially abolished and its provisions condemned to be racist and worsening the lives of the majority of Indians. I therefore deeply regret that this more than awkward and inappropriate distinction found its way into Wikipedia and I strongly suggest its deletion. 62.178.209.203 15:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the term "backward caste" itself is highly awkward and inappropriate. Even though it is used by Indian media, internationally this term may be looked down as racist. Secondly, the contents of this article itself donot look genuine. By citing these castes as "vote banks" and naming lot of politicians, the article seems politically biased which is again against Wikipedia guidelines. And finally, the definition of "backward caste" is incorrect and misleading. Backward caste people are only "historically disadvantaged" and not "group of people in India who generally live off income derived from self employment on caste-dependent skills assignment" as described in this articla. It is indeed sad that this article found way into Wikipedia and I strongly propose its deletion.
While I agree that we should use the term that's officially and widely used, whether we like it or not, it's simply not true that objections to it are purely subjective or relativist (I take it that that's what the incomplete sentence "Just because it doesnt fit into your world view" is supposed to convey). The term "backward", used of people or groups of people, is pejorative; that's just a fact about the acceptation of the word. Look in any dictionary. -- Mel Etitis ( Talk) 09:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, you're simply wrong; "backward", applied to people, countries, etc., is pejorative in English. That it has a special use in certain circles in India doesn't affect that. "Nigger" is sometimes used, by black people, non-pejoratively, but that doesn't make it non-pejorative. -- Mel Etitis ( Talk) 13:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Im sorry but this statement doesnt make sense if something is fact, then any way of expressing it must be OK. What anyway? calling someone nigger is abusive, but calling him Afro-American is also pejorative? Can you first prove why this term IS pejorative? if it is so then why are so many castes still lining up to have themselves labelled "backward"?-- Deepak D'Souza ( talk • contribs) 07:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I stated very clearly that I was referring to "backward" as applied to people, countries, etc. — though, yes, calling a village "backward" is pejorative. Saying that it lacks infrastructure, that it is underdeveloped, etc, are acceptable alternatives. As for the comment that you misunderstood: it's not an excuse for calling someone a nigger to say "but he is black", and it's not an excuse for calling a person or place backward to say "but he is mentally handicapped", or "but it is underdeveloped".
Why do many castes want to be placed in this category? First, are the people involved native English speakers? Secondly, might it be that the political/material advantages outweigh the resentment at being called "backward"?
As for evidence, by the way, in the article on "challenged" in Pocket Fowler's Modern English Usage, ed. Robert Allen (Oxford University Press, 1999), "backward" is identified as a "potentially sensitive or offensive [description] of people". -- Mel Etitis ( Talk) 16:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
The Government of India forbids caste based discrimination. The follow article is termed Backward Caste and not Backward Class as mentioned by the Indian Government. Hence should be immeadiately deleted. BalanceRestored 13:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
This term is misinterpreted commonly and does not have any real significance. Kindly provide valid sources to support this article. BalanceRestored 07:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
See proposal and reasoning here. Please add your comments on the linked page, instead of here, to keep the discussion in one place. Abecedare 00:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
what does "meat eating" have to do with backward castes?
There is a impression in the world that Hindus are Vegiterians. I just wanted to point out that majority of the traditional hindus in all except a few brahmin sub-Castes do have the meat as part of their diet. Kashmiri brahmins serve lamb as part of their wedding feasts. Saraswat brahmins have fish as their staple food. In many festivals after the harvest season, even the meat dishes were offered to Devi and celebrated. TT 01:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Even urbanized literate communities such as Ckp (Bal Thackeray belongs to this community) offer meat as Prased on certain festivals.
I'm not saying that politicians aren't likely to try to use ANYONE as a vote bank, but we might want to provide some justification for the statement. It does seem to imply that 'backward caste' Indians are nothing more than a vote bank, or that they vote en bloc. Needs more body. - BalthCat 03:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
This article appears to be on the same topic as Other Backward Class, which is a more developed article. I think I personally lean towards deleting this article and re-directing. However, I leave this open in case anyone feels otherwise or wants to attempt to merge.-- Qball6 20:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I would also delete and redirect, but as stubby as this article is, it still touches on subjects the other one doesn't. Someone familiar with the topic should merge this content to the other article. -- Coffee2theorems | Talk 19:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Is most of the English speaking world, saying that "these rural laborers are very backward" would be pejorative and derogatory and not acceptable in Wikipedia. Wiktionary defines it as "Reluctant or unable to advance," "undeveloped or unsophisticated." No article would be allowed to keep such a description of African-Americans or Hispanics in the U.S. Such usage has been avoided by mainstream media since the 1960's. Why should it be allowed here? The beliefs of a religion are not automatically NPOV and acceptable. Is it actually acceptable to say such things in newspapers of general circulation in India? In the U.S. such terminology would only be found in papers from such organizations as the Ku Klux Klan or Christian Identity. The origin of the use of the term needs to be explained if it has a coined meaning other than the obvious one. Edison 16:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I am aware that the distinction backward/forward castes is still a widely and frequently used term in India and that different poeple understand different things by it, but in my opinion it does not qualify to be included in Wikipedia because it is an extremely pejorative distinction and only perpetuates the unequal and (negatively) discriminating power relations between the have and have-nots in India. Adivasis and Dalits have been fighting against this dichotomisation of Indian society since independence, when the caste system was officially abolished and its provisions condemned to be racist and worsening the lives of the majority of Indians. I therefore deeply regret that this more than awkward and inappropriate distinction found its way into Wikipedia and I strongly suggest its deletion. 62.178.209.203 15:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the term "backward caste" itself is highly awkward and inappropriate. Even though it is used by Indian media, internationally this term may be looked down as racist. Secondly, the contents of this article itself donot look genuine. By citing these castes as "vote banks" and naming lot of politicians, the article seems politically biased which is again against Wikipedia guidelines. And finally, the definition of "backward caste" is incorrect and misleading. Backward caste people are only "historically disadvantaged" and not "group of people in India who generally live off income derived from self employment on caste-dependent skills assignment" as described in this articla. It is indeed sad that this article found way into Wikipedia and I strongly propose its deletion.
While I agree that we should use the term that's officially and widely used, whether we like it or not, it's simply not true that objections to it are purely subjective or relativist (I take it that that's what the incomplete sentence "Just because it doesnt fit into your world view" is supposed to convey). The term "backward", used of people or groups of people, is pejorative; that's just a fact about the acceptation of the word. Look in any dictionary. -- Mel Etitis ( Talk) 09:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, you're simply wrong; "backward", applied to people, countries, etc., is pejorative in English. That it has a special use in certain circles in India doesn't affect that. "Nigger" is sometimes used, by black people, non-pejoratively, but that doesn't make it non-pejorative. -- Mel Etitis ( Talk) 13:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Im sorry but this statement doesnt make sense if something is fact, then any way of expressing it must be OK. What anyway? calling someone nigger is abusive, but calling him Afro-American is also pejorative? Can you first prove why this term IS pejorative? if it is so then why are so many castes still lining up to have themselves labelled "backward"?-- Deepak D'Souza ( talk • contribs) 07:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I stated very clearly that I was referring to "backward" as applied to people, countries, etc. — though, yes, calling a village "backward" is pejorative. Saying that it lacks infrastructure, that it is underdeveloped, etc, are acceptable alternatives. As for the comment that you misunderstood: it's not an excuse for calling someone a nigger to say "but he is black", and it's not an excuse for calling a person or place backward to say "but he is mentally handicapped", or "but it is underdeveloped".
Why do many castes want to be placed in this category? First, are the people involved native English speakers? Secondly, might it be that the political/material advantages outweigh the resentment at being called "backward"?
As for evidence, by the way, in the article on "challenged" in Pocket Fowler's Modern English Usage, ed. Robert Allen (Oxford University Press, 1999), "backward" is identified as a "potentially sensitive or offensive [description] of people". -- Mel Etitis ( Talk) 16:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
The Government of India forbids caste based discrimination. The follow article is termed Backward Caste and not Backward Class as mentioned by the Indian Government. Hence should be immeadiately deleted. BalanceRestored 13:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
This term is misinterpreted commonly and does not have any real significance. Kindly provide valid sources to support this article. BalanceRestored 07:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
See proposal and reasoning here. Please add your comments on the linked page, instead of here, to keep the discussion in one place. Abecedare 00:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)