From the BBC:
"In fact, it is doubtful that caste had much significance or virulence in society before the British made it India's defining social feature."
The UK establishment embraced multiculturalism when it was flat on its back economically; it has subsequently sold out many people who were loyal to it for shameful political expediency, e.g. the Ghurka and Windrush scandals: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gurkha_Justice_Campaign https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windrush_scandal
It’s an obvious chance to parlay some good from the UK’s colonial legacy, why would anyone oppose it?
Citation needed. I seriously doubt your balance of probabilities.
Britain pre-Windrush was on its knees.
Britain pre-EEC was "the sick man of Europe".
Please bring up some actual numbers to back your reactionary talking points, at the very least.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_largest_h...
The United Kingdom represented 6.42% of the world's economy in 1960 (highest point), falling to 3.42% in 2012 (lowest point). It accounted for 5.2% of the world's economy in 1820, 9.1% in 1870, and 8.3% in 1913. England, Scotland and Wales generated 1.8% of the world's GDP in 1600
Windrush arrived in 1948. That "mass immigration" is literally what brought Britain to its highest point.
Then the rest of the world was de-colonized, started working for themselves rather than for Europe, and here we are.
So the question again is: Do you genuinely believe that this drop in relative output was caused by inward migration, considering all the other historical factors?
I'm not sure why you're coming up with a fictional hair-care product. If you aren't comfortable sharing your answer, then that's fine.
I’m afraid I don’t understand the logic behind what you’re trying to say regarding the relationship of GDP and immigration. Obviously net inward migration can only raise the total GDP of a country. The question of what happens to average incomes is much more nuanced, but there’s a fair bit of evidence that low paid workers can be hard hit in the short term, whereas everyone benefits in the long term: https://fullfact.org/immigration/immigration-and-jobs-labour...
I am not suggesting that you’re a racist or anti-immigration, just that your views on the relationship between GDP and immigration are wrong. Besides that, they do nothing to refute my original point that we should not have different classes of citizen based on race and geography.
You are talking about the same Britain that voted in favour of Brexit because they got tired of looking at Eastern Europeans? The same that allowed Tommy Robinson to rise to fame through even the main media channels? The same one that you can be called a 'paki' in while just walking down the street with your family in 2020? The same one that still has glass ceilings in finance and industry if you're not white?
Britain is a utopia compared to many countries, but don't get carried away. Also, don't half-understand things about other nations and then try and sell them over her as fact. You are out of your depth.
My suspicion is the rise of darwinism (who was a brit) intersected with the rise of colonialism. Colonizers may not have been too accepting of the whole "everyone comes from adam and eve" narrative when they met locals they deemed to be savages and inferior. Not that I am saying darwinism is the cause,just that their greed and arrogance thrived on any ideology that can be abused to help them with their goals.
We know that throughout human history, there had always been slaves. Whether they were from war conquests, prisoners, or what not. And maybe, some of them eventually got their freedoms, after serving for a term. Basically, they came and went, and no one thought anything of it.
But, what truly made the British and American system of slavery so evil, was that it became codified into laws. And written on papers, and enforced by the military, and police. And financed by the banks. This was truly, predatory capitalism, of the highest order. Thus, slavery became institutionalized.
This elevated slavery, from something that unfortunately happened to random people like prisoners, to completely enslaving, subjugating, humiliating, and genociding, a specific race of people, purely based on the color of their skin. And all this, happened in a democracy.
https://modernguidetohinduism.weebly.com/the-caste-system.ht...
I would suggest that 19th Century Indologists conflated and confused two different types of descriptions of caste hierarchy in the Hindu canon. The Vedas, Upanishads, and Puranas are descriptivist, and rather matter of factly report a stratified society, where privilege and wealth was inherited largely within the family. This is no different than any other Iron Age society anywhere in the world.
There is also a prescriptivist strain within the canon, that suggests that the status quo is indeed optimal. The varna system described in the scriptures is not too dissimilar from the paradigmatic society of Plato's Republic: a hierarchy based on rule by Philosopher-Kings, and a division of society led by people best suited to it. Each person has innate qualities that endear them to one or the other major occupations, and society is most harmonious when people do the jobs best suited to them. The Vedas also suggest that these traits are largely familial, though this is not watertight. The scriptures are full of examples of people who transcend the varna of their family, and conversely there are no shortage of wicked brahmins and kshatriyas. Nor does the historic record show varna as a hindrance to social mobility in Ancient India. The Shunga dynasty was founded by a Brahmin, and the fabled Nanda dynasty by an erstwhile barber. The most famous of all ancient Indian dynasties, the Mauryan, was founded by a former slave, who belonged to a lineage of lowly peacock hunters. For contemporary Indians, these kings were not interlopers, but rather their military prowess proved that they were indeed Kshatriyas. The son of a Kshatriya King will likely be a king, but not always, nor must a king always be the son of a kshatriya. Usually, but not always. Indeed, the Bhagavata Gita, the definitive text for Hindus, states that all humans are born as shudras, or lowly, and it is their qualities and actions in life that elevate them. The British, however, took an obscure text, the Manusmriti, and used that as the authoritative matter on caste. The manusmriti is indeed vitriolic about keeping societal classes separate, but the class of smriti texts have no inherent authority.
As to the point that enlightenment is open only to brahmins, the considered opinion of the acharyas is that this is not true, and I can only think of a single textual example where this is a stated opinion of a (minority) Hindu school. A 16th century compendium of religious sects by a Gaudiya scholar stated that another school (madhva) held that enlightenment is open only to demigods and brahmins, and is understood more as a criticism of their beliefs. Every school after the bhakti movement of the 8th century has explicitly stated that worship and moksha is open to all, regardless of caste, or gender. I think the confusion arises from debates starting from the 8th century, if moksha is only possible for sanyasis, or renunciates. Sanyasis can be from any caste, or any gender. Some schools did indeed believe that renunciation is a necessary prerequisite to enlightenment, and is not possible for the lay public.
Worst of all, it does not cite a single authoritative source. NOT a single acknowledged source.
I have seen low effort papers written by middle school students with better citations than this nonsense.
I just feel sorry of you at this stage.
Try being a non-white boy dating a white girl. Do you think racism doesn't rear its head in that case?
In any case, this is pretty blatant whataboutism. The article is about the UK, not about other countries, and racism in other countries does not make racism in the UK less bad.