Re: Question for caste people: Do you mind Scheduled Castes and Tribes
Thanks for the reply on the genetic question, please explain further "person's family lineage is defined by his clan, or gotra, and not by caste. "
I should have chosen my words carefully. It is true that caste indeed is hereditary, but not in the case of marriage. I will give you an explanation. The explanation would be meaningless without the context. Here is the total paragraph:
Caste preferred marriage is not a cause for genetic diseases. This is because a person's family lineage is defined by his clan, or gotra, and not by caste. This research article nowhere mentions that. The research itself is based on poorly understood premises (well, it is from Harvard, no surprises there).
We were discussing increase in genetic diseases. We also know that incest leads to increase in genetic diseases.
Now, the Harvard article (in collaboration with some folks in CSIR) uses the premise that people marry within their own caste. This is true. The Harvard article goes further to suggest that genetic diseases happen because of marrying within the caste. This premise is a false premise. The reason being, two people belonging to the same caste, does not make them belong to the same family lineage. Two people belonging to the same gotra are people who belong to the same family lineage.
As a matter of tradition, which is strictly followed in India by a vast majority of the people, we check the previous 7 generations of the prospective bride and groom, to see, whether there is any common ancestor. Some people do this for 11 generations. Some do it for 13. This exercise is carried out even if the bride and groom are of the same caste. Therefore, the Harvard article's argument stands null and void.
You can read more about
Gotra, and I must say, the Wikipedia article is more informative than that Harvard article.
Let me put it down simply:
- Majority of Indians marry within the same caste. True statement.
- There is an increase in genetic diseases in India. True statement.
- There is an increase in genetic diseases in India because majority of Indians marry within the same caste. False statement.
So, you have two choices. Either you take my word, or you take the word of that Harvard article. I leave this up to your judgement.
[HR][/HR]
For second post:
IMHO you need to see it comparatively, you need to see on which percentile your country is standing in a normal composed by the countries and their level of relative poverty, taking also in consideration factors like Gini coefficient.
GINI index is important, but cannot be seen in isolation. One needs to get the holistic picture. Being a student of mathematics and statistics, I know how such indices can be used to one's advantage.
While economic inequality — as measured by the Gini coefficient — within regions varies little from the poorest regions to the more fortunate, the Gini coefficient does not capture the gender and social inequalities that persist in India. These inequalities severely constrain the extent to which certain groups in the population are able to participate in and benefit from the process of economic growth.
Read full article:
Poverty Analysis - India: Achievements and Challenges in Reducing Poverty
[HR][/HR]
If in both terms UK is above then I don't see the problem on their articles, take in consideration that I know your situation, I lived in south america, in Bolivia, I know when they (as we say in italian) put their finger in the wound, but the wound is there and until what they say is truth ,even if in a sensational way, I won't talk back. If a German says to me that I'm living in a corrupt country what can I say to them? That Berlusconi isn't corrupt? That we don't have 33% more corruption than them?
What can you say to them? Follow my example. Agree that you have corruption, just like I agree that India has 30% poverty.
Proof:
No, that percentage is true.
My point is, why focus on the 30% and ignore the 70%?
@Dovah got it right. Thanks
@Dovah.
It is also there in the post you responded to:
Now, let us go back to the 30% figure you presented, which I agree with.
[HR][/HR]
I will transform the negative input in a stimulus to improve, something like stress ans eu-stress.
I agree. Criticism is a window of opportunity to improve oneself. You must also remember, that you cannot make one happy, if his intention is to constantly find flaws. If his motivation is to put you down (due to his own insecurities, or jealously), he will fish out some obscure fact, and hold it up against you.
You can, however, remind the Germans, that they have legalized corruption. Tell them how a German company was blacklisted by India because they tried to offer bribes. Giving bribes is legalized in Germany, and the bribe money is tax exempt. So, just because corruption is legalized in Germany, does not make the corruption go away. So, remind them to set their own house, and laws, in order, before they pontificate at others. If they complain, tell them they have a victim mentality.
[HR][/HR]
But what I'm realizing is that in your mindset ,please take no offense since it is not intended, there is a lot of victimism.
I will post further on this but I'm tired(hard day) and I have to see the documentaries as I wrote I would have done.
No offense taken. Disagreement is part of a debate. If there is no disagreement, there will be no debate.
Putting Britain and India together, it is quite true that India is a victim, and the Brits, the perpetrators. We would like to move on from those colonial days, but I wonder whether our Brit friends are amenable to that idea. They need to constantly remind themselves who the boss is (sign of insecurity and envy), so they keep sending us aid, and they keep talking about our poverty.
I respect the truth, but not when part of the truth is highlighted, and the other part is purposefully ignored. If you see that as a mindset of victimism, then, you are entitled to your opinion. I do not wish to change your perspective, because, you are probably more likely to trust western media.
Here is an interesting article:
Why no applause for 138 million exiting poverty?
When China reduced people in poverty by 220 million between 1978 and 2004, the world applauded this as the greatest poverty reduction in history. Amartya Sen, Joseph Stiglitz and all other poverty specialists cheered.
India has just reduced its number of poor from 407 million to 269 million, a fall of 138 million in seven years between 2004-05 and 2011-12 . This is faster than China's poverty reduction rate at a comparable stage of development, though for a much shorter period. Are the China-cheerers hailing India for doing even better?
Read full article:
Why no applause for 138 million exiting poverty? - Economic Times
Now, do you see why I see many western articles as propaganda? Please see your post with reference to this alleged propaganda about caste:
I dislike writing on Soul treads but I would like you to answer this:
Why if castes are western propaganda the indian population have so many specific genetic diseases related to castes?
And I'm speaking of scientific method not social analisis.
Genetics Proves Indian Population Mixture | HMS
Same happens for example with Amish and Diaspora Jews.
[HR][/HR]
P.S. The brits(for how much I despise them) trough ESA did things like the Rosetta mission that is way further a simple orbit of Mars, and that was launched 10 years ago.
I was comparing British press and the British readership vis-Ã -vis India. ESA is not a country. I sincerely want the Brits to stop giving aid to India and use that money towards sending their own spacecraft to Mars, and demonstrate to the world the credulity of their inane claims, instead of trying to take credit for our hard work. As of today, they haven't been able to even toss a pebble into Moon's Orbit. Again, I want Britain (not ESA) to toss that pebble and then claim credit.
