Literally the first thing you wrote in your comment is dismissive of the existence of the problem..

But then your supposed to finish reading it, and have some charity in your interpretation. The gp implicitly recognizes their epistemic bias by affirming they should be open to scrutiny.

This is extremely important. One should take a good faith approach during a discussion. I see the opposite happening far too frequently these days, and it makes having productive conversations neigh impossible.

That's the reason why things should not be taken out of context. It's not like every Indian on the planet is a witness to casteism.

Context then.

> I am Indian-American (born into a brahmin family if that matters) and personally haven't noticed casteism, barring the occasional idiot in our communities.

Translation: I don't see a problem.

> Having said that, we (Indian-Americans) should be open to criticism and scrutiny.

Translation: even though I'm open to criticism, I don't see a problem.

> We are a very successful lot - arguably the richest immigrant group in America - surely we can be secure enough to confront some of these bad things. We need to stop being defensive and touchy about such charges.

Translation: blah, blah, blah . . . me, me, me. Nothing about the problem.

Sometimes, when you read a sentence to the end, the meaning changes.

You should try that sometimes

This doesn't change the fact that your first sentence is very poorly worded and undermines the point you're trying to make in the second sentence.

He left a factual statement of his own experience. It's not poorly worded.

It's entirely fair to point out that different castes would see and experience casteism very differently...but sheesh, it's tiresome to see a bunch of (probably white) keyboard warriors show up and argue with in Indian American about what it's like to be Indian in America.

I'm an Indian-American as well. Don't make assumptions.

In any case, there are some deeply problematic aspects to Indian culture, including that of my own community, and criticism of them is warranted, no matter the demographics of the critic.

It might be poorly worded, and the OP appears to be unaware of the fact that their being a member of the upper caste means they’re unlikely to witness casteism.

But they have shown an openness to learning. Instead of responding, like some commenters have, by getting mad at their potentially ignorant sentence, it’s a far better approach to, like some other commenters have, educate them about the fact that the very nature of privilege means that as part of the privileged class you get to live life being oblivious about the class distinctions.

That is indeed the privilege of the privileged. And the burden of the unprivileged is that they do not have the luxury to live their lives while being oblivious to their lack of privilege.

They are providing scrutiny and criticism of your position. Specifically that you might be in a privileged position where you are unlikely to see the negative effects of casteism. While it is meaningful to say that you don't see it, it's not meaningful in the way you intend it. It's demonstrating the problem that this is trying to solve.

I'm a White person from Utah. Saying that I don't see Racism is missing the point. Of course I don't see Racism, it's well hidden from me as a part of my culture. And above and beyond that the Racism I do see is actually the hiding of clear discrimination such that it is invisible to me.

The first step to solving a problem is admitting you have a problem.

Unfortunately, criticism/scrutiny on the internet is not always nicely couched. So people will be direct like this commenter was.