>BUT lumping different peoples into one group is problematic,

i think someone else said the same thing to you below. i.e. you can't have it both ways, objecting to being included with arabs and persians, and at the same time objecting to people not using larger categories that included all colonized people.


>indian peoples are casteist

indian people are casteist.

i mean, this strikes me as a statement of utter banal obviousness, as obvious as saying yts are racist and men are sexist. because rather obviously, one is speaking of a dominant paradigm in a society which shapes the views of the vast majority. that x or y is an exception who proposes to change the rule brings warmth to my heart and everything, but it doesn't falsify the statement as such.


>whats "mendacious?"

lying, false.