Caste, race, and slavery: On comparisons between race in the United States and caste in India, and to forgotten assumptions behind the legal categories

IF 0.5 Q3 LAW
Martin Fárek
{"title":"Caste, race, and slavery: On comparisons between race in the United States and caste in India, and to forgotten assumptions behind the legal categories","authors":"Martin Fárek","doi":"10.35295/osls.iisl/0000-0000-0000-1330","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"While diving into the background ideas about caste and race as legal categories, a researcher will discover an important disagreement between scholars: For some, caste is certainly connected with race, whereas for others, caste and race are separate concepts which refer to distinct realities. The aim of this article is twofold: To consider the validity of several characteristics which are ascribed by many authors as common to caste and race, and to analyse background assumptions that enabled the comparison between caste and race as such. The important question, connected with both these aims is about the emergence of the idea that the ancient “Hindu nation” was divided into two peoples, and castes as a system are reflecting the original division in modern India. We will closely examine comparisons made between the advent of Aryans in India and slavery in the United States and Africa. Finally, we will reconsider the European ideas of human evolution and equality of men, which served as a contrasting board for explanations of caste as a form of slavery.","PeriodicalId":36457,"journal":{"name":"Onati Socio-Legal Series","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Onati Socio-Legal Series","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl/0000-0000-0000-1330","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

While diving into the background ideas about caste and race as legal categories, a researcher will discover an important disagreement between scholars: For some, caste is certainly connected with race, whereas for others, caste and race are separate concepts which refer to distinct realities. The aim of this article is twofold: To consider the validity of several characteristics which are ascribed by many authors as common to caste and race, and to analyse background assumptions that enabled the comparison between caste and race as such. The important question, connected with both these aims is about the emergence of the idea that the ancient “Hindu nation” was divided into two peoples, and castes as a system are reflecting the original division in modern India. We will closely examine comparisons made between the advent of Aryans in India and slavery in the United States and Africa. Finally, we will reconsider the European ideas of human evolution and equality of men, which served as a contrasting board for explanations of caste as a form of slavery.
种姓、种族和奴隶制:美国种族和印度种姓的比较,以及法律类别背后被遗忘的假设
在深入研究种姓和种族作为法律类别的背景思想时,研究人员会发现学者之间的一个重要分歧:对一些人来说,种姓肯定与种族有关,而对其他人来说,种姓和种族是不同的概念,指的是不同的现实。本文的目的是双重的:考虑许多作者认为种姓和种族共有的几个特征的有效性,并分析使种姓和种族之间的比较成为可能的背景假设。与这两个目标相关的一个重要问题是,古代“印度教国家”被分为两个民族,而种姓制度反映了现代印度最初的划分。我们将仔细研究雅利安人在印度的出现与美国和非洲的奴隶制之间的比较。最后,我们将重新考虑欧洲关于人类进化和人类平等的观点,这些观点作为解释种姓作为一种奴隶制形式的对比板。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Onati Socio-Legal Series
Onati Socio-Legal Series Social Sciences-Social Sciences (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
20.00%
发文量
66
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信