I posted this here instead of CS, because it concerns racism, but am happy to have it moved anywhere appropriate.
I recently tried to read this book, but couldn’t get into it. I just didn’t see how the introduction of the concept of caste added anything to the discussion of race. To the contrary, I think it unnecessarily confuses things. I had a similar impression after hearing the author a while back on NPR. My wife read it to the end, and we’ve discussed it, and I’m not convinced I missed anything.
My impression was that this was the sort of instance in which an author thinks they are accomplishing something significant by applying different words to something that was previously understood and discussed using different terms. And then what might have been a modestly interesting magazine article was needlessly expanded to book length.
I guess when it came dow to it, I just didn’t understand her definition of “caste.” Or, at the very least, that definition added nothing to the racial dynamics I’ve experienced over the past 60 years.
I feel as though I am somehow impaired in my ability to appreciate the message, and I hoped some of you might be able to help me shed my ignorance. Make no mistake, I have no desire of denying the existence or pervasiveness of racism present and past.
Note: I did greatly enjoy and appreciate the author’s previous Warmth of Other Suns.
The most interesting thing about that book, I think, is how she distinguishes the concepts of “class” from “caste”. We often talk about the class divisions in this country when sometimes caste is meant.
As she puts it, the difference is whether it is possible to change to a different segment of society. Poor people and rich people, for example, are in different classes. A poor person can conceivably become rich; it has happened sometimes. Or a rich person can become poor.
On the other had, black people and white people are in different castes. A person born black will remain black his whole life, there is nothing he or anyone else can do about it.
But I have read WIlkerson’s 2010 book, The Warmth of Other Suns, her account of the massive twentieth-century migration of Black Americans from the south to the cities of the north and west.
It’s a journalist’s book rather than a historian’s, and it’s well worth reading. She tells the larger story through the personal stories of a number of the migrants (not exactly the right word, but I can’t think of a better one at the moment) and their families.
Man - is this just ANOTHER instance in which I’m wired differently than most other folk? Maybe I’m an elitist, but I would VASTLY prefer an intelligent mutually respectful person of color over an ignorant rude white person. So where does caste fit in for me?
Nearly everyone wants to consider themselves better than someone. If someone wants to use race as the basis for that distinction, what extra does caste bring into it.
I feel stupid that she writes as tho she is saying something profound, but I just don’t get it.
I read “Caste” from the recommendation of a friend. And I thought it was one of the most illuminating books I’ve ever read. (I then went on to recommend it to others).
I would encourage you to finish it. I don’t know how far you got into it, but I think the more you read the parallels with the “untouchables” in India, and the jews during the time of the Nazis in Germany, it may make more distinction between “caste” and “racism”.
For the Black experience in America, her definition and description of “caste” explains why equality for blacks is so much greater an uphill battle. And for me, explained why this concept of “caste” is like the root or foundation for the racism against blacks.
“Nearly everyone wants to consider themselves better than someone. If someone wants to use race as the basis for that distinction, what extra does caste bring into it.”
Her definition of “caste” indicates a “bottom level” - a “lowest” being from which there can be no group lower. The best example is of the immigrants from europe. In Europe, various “groups” were historically looked down upon: Irish, Italians, etc… But when people from these “lower groups” immigrated to the US at the turn of the century (1900’s), they quickly recognized that there was a group considered/treated even lower: the former slaves. By recognizing/acknowledging this “lowest group”, this actually raised their own “rank” in society. You may have been the scum where you came from, but here (in the US) you were no longer at the bottom. So it behooved you to acknowledge this other group as being at the bottom.
The concept of “caste” declares that there is this “lowest of the low”. And this concept/belief becomes ingrained in society. And that’s what distinguishes it from racism.
I’ll second everything cormac262 just said. I’ll emphasize the part in the book about the parallels between the US, India and Nazi Germany - while the parallels weren’t exact, they were extremely illuminating.
Made me totally rethink my opinion of Gandhi, and learn about B. R. Ambedkar, who was a fascinating figure.
Another great read along the same lines (but just about race in America) that I just finished is The Sum of Us by Heather McGhee. You’ll get mad about the world about a dozen times while reading it, but still come out of it hopeful (and having learned a lot).