Hmm, given that India was colonized by the Brits, ( and I have seen 'recently' an article on how native-born Indians beat a bunch of native-born Brits on a British history test), you might recall Wilberforce on slavery.
But I dont think anyone can claim that Christianity is a "solution" for solving the racial/caste inequity problem. Even if someone had brutally imposed Christianity or communism or whatever, on the entire people, caste system would still exist.
Which brings us back to Jim Crow in the US South ("the Bible Belt"), eh?
In practice there HAS been hyprocrisy in much of the US on this issue.
But there is a difference between hypocrisy on an issue, where at least the ideals exist, and having separate, unequal treatment DICTATED by the moral code.
For the last sentence, Christianity by definition should NEVER be "imposed" by force...and speaking of Islam, it was originally spread in large measure, by forced conquest.
Cheers!
Yeah, those guys were from IITs (Indian institutes of technology), probably quite famous for exporting brainy researchers to American grad schools ;)
IITs were not established by the Brits... they were established by Indian govt soon after Independence, to exploit natural inclination of pursuing science and technology related careers by Indian middle class.
IITs have an acceptance rate of only 2%, making them one of the most difficult univ in the world to get into.. and unlike Harvard or yale, that take students based on their GPA and other superficial stuff, without testing their problem solving aptitude (there is a stupid exam called SAT, but everyone knows its farcical as it doesnt even test students' engineering or physics skills)
Its an open secret that the majority of Harvard or even MIT undergrads would flunk an IIT entrance exam ;)
IIT's entrance exam, is perhaps one of the toughest in the world (comparatively harder than even Tsinghua or Univ of Tokyo, which have similar technology based entrance exams). And no wonder, those kids end up occupying top slots in some of world's most prominent corporations.
Which brings us back to Jim Crow in the US South ("the Bible Belt"), eh? In practice there HAS been hyprocrisy in much of the US on this issue.
Yes, there is hypocricy in parts of US, but atleast many Americans admit to that ;)
Racism is ubiquitous and multi-faceted, and most of the times not soliciting any religious/moral approval. Afterall, many black africans themselves indulged in blatant racism, even as a state policy. Like when Idi Amin, the former ruler of Uganda, expelled all people of Indian origin out of the country as they didnt fit into his vision of Uganda.. or what is going on currently in Zimbabwe, against white settlers, even though they have nothing to do with any colonialism of the past.
But there is a difference between hypocrisy on an issue, where at least the ideals exist, and having separate, unequal treatment DICTATED by the moral code.
There sure is.. afterall, southern baptists even claimed that slavery had a biblical sanction.. some supremacist upper caste Hindus claim a similar religious sanction. Of course, they are in a minority.
For the last sentence, Christianity by definition should NEVER be "imposed" by force...and speaking of Islam, it was originally spread in large measure, by forced conquest.
It shouldnt be, but in practice, it was imposed over indigenous peoples of latin America, polynesia, etc. through brute force and violence. History is testimony to that.