I don't know.  That is controlled information.

I was just qualifying your comment.  I know next to nothing about Dubai (other than how to go bankrupt by building a building).

I lived there. I know what a real dictatorship is like, and what it is to live in a country where some people can act regardless of the laws.

Dubai, It's nice if you have cash, almost anything you want (with the exception of normal rainfall). That's were the Saudis go to drink and do other things they can't do in Saudi Arabia. Lots of Russian, Filipina (or Pinay), Indian, and Pakistani women there. Foreigners are the lower level workforce with a smattering of business people on the high side.

Even if you have cash, you are still treated like a 2nd-class citizen when it comes to the law. Locals can violate speed limits and smash into your car, you will be held responsible.

On the other hand, yhea. The Paki/Indi/Pinos are treated like 3rd-class citizen, so I guess I should be grateful. I am just not used to a cast system.

It may be coming to a place near you. When you have the government mandate one insurance plan to you while they have quite a different one for themselves, both paid by the taxpayer, you're well on your way. More to come.

That isn't even close to a cast system as I've seen it. Stop creating chimera. the USA are still a very bright and free democracy.

Note my usage of "may" and "on your way". If you need further clarification I'd be happy to oblige.

The USA used to have a strong cast system. Hell, it still might have one, depending on how the hispanics are treated in many areas.

But the Gov vs the people? nah.

We shall see. Seems a few of those cases gearing up right now.

Hispanics?  I will grant you racism, but there was never a caste system there.  The only caste system was with slavery and that was abolished 150 years ago (except in the democrat party).

Well, when you have a portion of the population that is relegated, by racism or economics, to sub-par jobs and constant povrety, that laws apply differently than them, you have a cast system. Technically, Indians in Dubai are supposed to be treated as well as I. But they weren't.

And discrimination still existed by law in many states until the 60s regarding the blacks. That is a soft- cast system that endured. Technically, even if officially abolished, the cast system still remains in India (but is degrading slooooowly)

Edit: technically, you could say that until the 60's, French-Canadians were a sub-cast of the Canadian society. English-canadians will deny it at all cost.

Granted, it wasn't as bad as the blacks in the USA, but it still wasn't very fun and quite humiliating. You always remember when you have been told "speak white".

I didn't realize the French were not white. What language did they force the Native Americans (living in Canada that is) to speak. Or is that just a problem in the US, because Canada was uninhabited when the French arrived?

1) Canada was inhabited, obviously. Come on, you really thought it was just an emtpy land while the USA were buzzling with natives?

2) Yes, they forced the natives to speak english. Specially in what is now Manitoba, as there was a lot of Natives and Metis who spoke french. They have been all slaughtered and assimilated by the Canadian Mounties. Their leader, Louis Riel, has been hanged.

3) I never understood why they told us that. Yes, "Speak White" is kinda stupid when we were white too, but maybe it was taken from the American's south.

Or maybe it was to push the point that because we spoke french, we were of a lesser race than them. Anyway, you would be treated like any other person until the moment you opened your mouth and spoke french, or with a french accent. If you want more information about that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speak_White

I suggest we declare all illegals 'legal', give them free healthcare, and send the bill to Mumble.  He's quite happy to pay for someone else's needs.  Won't affect his lifestyle at all.

I need to tell that to my BIL - he will get a kick out of it!  Especially since he is of Mexican descent and is an officer in a major corporation.  In California.  Maybe I will tel lthat to Bill Richardson.  Governor of New Mexico?

I agree with both points.  However, unlike the jim Crow laws of the US, India, while socially still embracing the caste system, at least legally have repudiated it.  I give them a lot of credit for it.  You cannot change minds with laws, but it is a start.

You chould have moved south with my ancestors.  Down to the bayous of louisianna.

of course not - he is on the dole as it is.

Your point being? We had Wilfried Laurier in the 1900s as PM of Canada, it didn't changed our sub-cast status. What's relevant is how, on average, the cohort is treated by other members of the society when it comes to rights and privileges regarding work, law and education.

Are the sub-standard jobs in the U.S. are mostly done by a specific ethnicity? If so, then you have yourself a cast system. As unintentionnal as it might be.

Interesting phrase.  What would those be?

The ones with minimum salary, no marginal benefits whatsoever. Usually also worked by illegals.

I cannot comment on the canadian sub-class (or lack there of) as I said, my ancestors bailed on it long ago.  However, I can comment on it here.  There is racism, there is discrimination.  Just as there is discrimination against Catholics, Jews, one legged polo players and red haired, green eyed color blind parachutists.  But that does not make them a subclass.  Unless they want to play the role.  Laws can make them that way, if passed or not enforced,  But discrimination is just that.  Discrimination.  not a definition of a class.

And your last statement is patently false.  In the first place, who does a job is not proof of who is allowed to do it.  You can use it to establish an hypothesis on perhaps some discrimination, but not as proof.  Are men discriminated against when it comes to secretarial work?  hardly. 

And the second reason is that the occupiers of those jobs are less educated.  In other words, they cant do anything else.  And so who are the less educated?  for the most part, illegal immigrants (they did not have access to education in their native lands).  That we share a long border with Mexico means that most are from taht country (Mexico makes US laws about illegal border crossings look like a cake walk compared to what they do on their southern border).  And of course, if you are a blond haried, blue eyed mexican, you are still classified "hispanic" (don't laugh. I know some).  Again, making assumptions without investigating the underlying symptoms is very dangerous - and usually wrong.

Sure I knew that. It's just that if one reads to the talk on this site and elsewhere, one would be lead to believe the US is the only nation on earth to abuse the "native" (more correctly the first inhabitants) populations. I just find that laughable. Name me a country, and I'll give you the name of a peoples that were displaced, subjugated, or eliminated. Of course the US is the only bad guy that matters.

An interesting side bar to this is that, for the most part, English colonies removed the natives (Canada, US, Australia, NZ), while Spanish (and Portugese) Colonies interbred with them.  We can see where those colonies are today, and I am not implying the policy is the reason.  But the reason for the disparity is a good topic for a future discussion.

Yes, I have always wondered about that.

Note that some interbreeding also happened in the north, like in Canada with the Metis. But in general the settlers in the English colonies kept away from the Indians.

I think in the Spanish colonies (include the Portoguese colonies) simply differentiated differently.

The English and French saw "European" on the one side and "Indian" on the other.

The Spanish saw "noble" on the one side and "peasant" on the other.

Hence the English/French/Germans/Dutch never mixed with the other, while Spanish peasants mixed with Indian peasants (and Spanish nobles simply had no reason to mix with Indian nobles).

I believe it had a lot to do with the actual mechanics of the respective "European" presence. In the Spanish controlled portions of the New World, they arrived specifically for the exploitation of the people and for the resources, especially gold and silver. The Spaniards never so much wanted to settle the land. It was easy, even in relatively small groups, through force of power, to get what they wanted, including many native women. IMO many Spaniards saw their time abroad as part of their duty and the cost of doing business.

The English and French on the other hand, came to settle. Sure in the beginning exploitation may have been the motivating factor, but lack of gold and silver lead to a change of plans. Indians were displaced by sprawl over time. Early settlers on the frontier were at the mercy of the natives. Sometimes it was peaceable sometimes not. These settlers brought their own women had had little need to "take" native women, besides due to their small numbers the Indians would have easily wiped them out for trying. I'm sure interbreeding occurred, just on a much smaller scale than the horny Spanish soldiers with nothing better to do with their free time.  

Funny. I always thought that Canada received a lot of flak for it's mistreatment of the natives...

But then, if the USA are going to completely ignore us save for a few quick jokes and occasional outrage at a few points taken out of context (seal hunting, Ann Coulter), they might as well ignore us for the bad things too