I wish the author could explain why he chooses to disclose that he is a _Bramhin_.
The author seems to have emigrated to a different part of the world but still mentions labels used for the longest running discrimination of humans in history.
> He wouldn't hurt a fly, literally. If he caught a creature inside the house, he would carefully open the window and toss it out. Even when a cobra came out of the grass in the monsoons, he would not let us hurt it. Raised in a strict Maharashtrian Brahmin household and then in the College of Engineering in Pune, he was well-read but hadn't seen much of the real world before entering the Indian Military Academy in Dehradun.
The first three sentences paints a picture of a man of unusual ethics. The tidbit about his Bramhin background explains why he is that way.
An Indian might be able to infer the Brahmin tidbit from the first part. But as an European reader like myself, it is relevant to know that the ethics is rooted in religious upbringing and not just eccentricity (which would be the typical explanation for why a person would behave like that in Europe).
Raised in a strict Maharashtrian Brahmin household
That sentance adds background about the father's upbringing. It's no different from saying someone grew up in a secular Jewish household or that their parents were born again Christians.
"Secular jew" is not meaningless at all, it speaks about ethnic and cultural heritage.
Incidentally, before anyone says "if you're secular you're not Jewish" being "secular" does not exempt someone from prejudice, they would still be identified as "a jew" by racists, as this story of a Secular Jew, "born into a family of secular Jews" makes clear: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#1933:_Emigrati...
> I like to say that I'm a "secular Christian"
You could say that. Although Christianity is less rooted in ethnicity than Judaism is, but if your family are predominantly Christian for many generations, and it is your cultural background, then it would be accurate. Even meaningful.
Firstly that is reductive, simplistic; ancestry and culture is not the same as "a gene". And lumping "Christian" and "black" as the same kind of category regarding genetics is just very odd indeed.
Second it's not entirely accurate, as any online genetic testing service will give a good estimate at e.g. percentage of Ashkenazi heritage.
Thirdly and most importantly, it's not an answer to the above even if it was true, as it doesn't engage with the real existence - both for good and bad - of the ethnic heritage as given in the recent historical example above.
Or, as the other reply put it: "as a (secular) Jewish person, I'm still eligible for citizenship of Palestine/Israel, and also eligible for targeting by white supremicists/neonazis". Neither of those two groups are going to ask "how often do you go to temple?" regarding someone's perceived Jewishness.
I'm sure I have a lot of Ashkenazi in me. And of course I'm proud of my genes. And proud of my ancestors. I'm fine with people self-identifying as Jewish, or Black, or (myself) Read-headed. The risk is when other people put those labels upon you. When you label your tribe, you not only label yourself but also those who may prefer not to be labeled.
I am certain that "race", as meaningful, well defined categories with clear, sharp edges, exists only in the minds of racists.
From the rest of us, don't ask for a simple definition, as it's an illusionary, fuzzy concept.
But it's all very well to say that you "prefer not to be labelled", that it's simply a matter of "self-identifying". It would be good if that was all it was, But you might not be able to avoid categorisation. You can't entirely ignore the definitions of racists who wish you harm.
I seriously do count my blessings that there's no racism against red-heads where and when I live. I know there was in medieval times. I can easily imagine such nonsense still existing.
I'm genuinely curious here. There's literally a wikipedia page linked below for that term. So what did you hope to gain by not even googling it before asking, in what comes across as a belligerent or dismissive way?
Vouched for this purely because I’m confused what you’re confused about.
There are innumerable households where you follow certain traditions/culture, that come from previously religious influences, without actively practicing. This is common across all religions, across the world. Even within religious families, people end up moving on from some rituals while keeping others. Nothing odd about it, it’s normal and expected the way society functions.
This isn't really what the above poster was saying, but "secular Jewish" can also refer to practically nonpracticing ("atheist" or "agnostic") or even practicing a different religion entirely. Since Jews are an ethnoreligious group, the identifier often refers to people with a Jewish ethnic background, vs people who are Jewish as a religion.
No, it's more about ethnicity and religion being intertwined. Judaism also references an ethnic group historically tied to the practice of the religion, but not necessarily. If you want to talk about people who are "ethnically jewish" but not "religious jewish", you can say something like "secular jewish" or "nonpracticing Jew".
I am a nonpracticing Jew myself. I don't identify with any of the religious or cultural aspects of Judaism (although I have some educational background). But as a Jewish person, I'm still eligible for citizenship of Palestine/Israel (though not interested for political reasons), and also eligible for targeting by white supremicists/neonazis
My guess is that it tied to the “don’t harm anything” story? I was curious to see how people with these different extremely rigid belief systems adjust in the military.
I’m also “Brahmin” by birth but a beef eating atheist so don’t give a crap about it. But grew up around enough relatives that cared and never understood how they reconciled trying to be strict in some areas but being lax in others.
That’s why I was curious about how they adjust in the military.
> never understood how they reconciled trying to be strict in some areas but being lax in others
IMHO you’re describing all humans ever. We all live with constant choices between conforming and rebelling - religious, societal, etc. It’s not that surprising?
No but in this case it’s seemingly dogmatic stuff, like hey cook meat in different pans from the pans used for vegetarians, but then eat at restaurants where you couldn’t obviously enforce that.
In the US, we might say "Upper class," or "Privileged," or "Established family."
I suspect that was what he meant, but sometimes terms don't age so well. There's a whole bunch of terms that were commonly used throughout our South, that would be considered insults or racist dog-whistles, these days.
What do you know about the caste system? Do you similarly police posts that say, “he grew up on a nobleman’s estate in England,” or “grew up on a farm in Alabama,” just because those are associated with historical oppression?
This smearing of Hindus and Indians with accusations about caste are ridiculous and par for the course on HN where Indo-phobia is pretty commonplace (see any discussion of US work visas, for example).
I don’t know, sectarian conflict is a tale as old as time and afflicted pretty much any religion. But I guess in other cases it wasn’t about “pride” but more animosity?
Millennia of sectarian strife in a region that has always exceeded the population of the "white" world since Europe was covered by hundreds of meters of ice?
I suppose you could measure a star against a lightbulb...
I wish the author could explain why he chooses to disclose that he is a _Bramhin_.
The author seems to have emigrated to a different part of the world but still mentions labels used for the longest running discrimination of humans in history.