>>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.

i think one has practical function in helping overcome oppression. the other is just an arbitrary grouping.

>>indian peoples are casteist
>
>indian people are casteist.

americans are racist and zionists. what do u think?

considering that about 30-40% of subcontinental population doesnt believe in it. (muslims, sikhs, buddhists, christians, tribals)

secondly, a system imposed by less than 5% (brahmins) of the population in which almost 50% (dalits, shudras, and tribals) of the people are suffering from that oppression/system.

>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.

in both your examples, both yt and men benefit from that priviledge, to different degrees. yt men are not oppressed by yt supremecay. men are not oppressed by patriarchy. they are dehumanized, but not oppressed.