Theodore Larkin

April 25, 2013

English 2:30
Mary Grabar
George Schuyler and Untouchability
George Schuyler was a black journalist who was a strong proponent for African
American rights. Schuyler was known for his social commentary on issues regarding racial
discrimination and segregation. In the mid-1920s, he accepted an offer from the Pittsburgh
Courier, a Black newspaper published in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Schuyler wrote in a weekly
column in which he discussed his views on social trends and events pertaining to African
Americans at the time. On February 2, 1957, the Courier published an article by Schuyler
commenting on the analogous plights of the Indian untouchables and African Americans. He
comments on the heinous practice of untouchability in India in relation to racial discrimination in
the United States. This essay highlights many parallels between the plight of the black American
and the untouchable Indian, but Schuyler ultimately argues that in many ways Black Americans
have a better chance to overturn the racism of new country then their lower caste brethren in
India.
Untouchability is the act of ostracizing a minority group of people based on an
identifying characteristic such as religion, race, or language. In India, this group of people is
known as the Dalit, from the Sanskrit word meaning "crushed" or "broken." Since the countrys
roots, Dalits have been discriminated against and socially segregated. When India was first
settled, these untouchables, as they have become known, were indigenous to the land. Given
the Hindu caste system, the Dalits were unable to be incorporated, and were thus victimized as
an inferior group of people.

Social organization and societal evolution in Hinduism does not rely on the idea that the
religious question of existence is solved through a belief in God, as is believed under Christianity
and Judaism. Instead, Hindus believe that each human soul is a product of God himself. When an
individual dies, he or she is born again into a caste according to his or her life actions. If a person
acts righteously in compliance to Hindu laws, he or she will move up a caste. On the other hand,
if a person acts sinfully, he or she will be demoted in caste. The untouchables, who represent
about one quarter of the total Indian population, were considered outcasts and thus subjected to
social discrimination. Untouchables were not allowed to walk on several streets in India, were
not permitted to worship in certain temples, and were treated similarly to lepers.
During the 1950s, untouchability was a great controversy worldwide. In India, much of
the untouchable population decided it was time to fight back towards their oppressors. After
protests and gaining support of influential individuals such as Mahatmas Gandhi, the
untouchables were able to grab societal attention and have their opinions considered in the
political realm. In 1950, the national constitution of India officially abolished the practice of
untouchability. At this time, the national constitution also prohibited separating public services,
such as roads and educational institutions. Although these laws had been enacted, discrimination
towards the untouchables persisted throughout the 1950s. This controversy gained a lot of media
attention worldwide, and many journalists provided their respective opinions and commentary on
the subject.
The corrupt politics in India specifically piqued the interest of George Schuyler. In his
article published in the Pittsburgh Courier on February 2, 1957, Schuyler provides an
assessment on the Indian perspective towards American societal values, specifically racial
discrimination. He begins his article asserting that many Indians who visit the United States are

extremely hypocritical towards American way of life. When Prime Minster Pandit Nehrus
daughter, Indira Gandhi, came to the United States, she visited a youth house in New York.
Here, several juvenile delinquents had been detained. Several of the inmates had pin-up pictures
from magazines showcased on the walls of their cells. Gandhi said she became depressed
when she saw the vulgarities hanging on the walls of the cells. She questioned why they were
permitted to post those sex pictures. Schuyler claims this is incredibly hypocritical considering
many Hindu temples display explicit images and sculptures. He sarcastically says that any
American would become equally as depressed as Indira Gandhi did if he or she were to see
young, innocent Indian girls worshipping and idolizing the aforementioned figures (Schuyler).
Schuyler continues his article in explaining how Indians are also generally hypocritical in
the way they condemn racial discrimination and segregation. Referring to untouchability, he
asserts, the situation in India is so much worse as to beggar comparison. Although laws have
been made and bills have been passed in order to diminish the practice, Schuyler explains,
this law is less effective than our Constitution in Mississippi. In other words, he is saying that
the untouchable outcasts in India are far worse off than ill-treated African Americans in the
United States. He supports his argument by referencing a South African Nationalist newspaper
supporting apartheid. The editor of the newspaper visited India and was genuinely shocked by
the condition of these Indian sub-men. Additionally, Schuyler notes how ironic it is that
untouchables are discriminated against considering many of them, particularly Dr. Ambedkar
(Ph.D. from Columbia University), are tremendously successful and influential people. He ends
the article saying that the critics abroad should observe and reflect on their own countries
before they bash the United States (Schuyler). Schuyler writes that, like African Americans,
untouchables were segregated, denied ready access to education, restricted from public

transportation, turned away from religious temples, disallowed from certain jobs, streets and
neighborhoods, and otherwise disenfranchised and economically oppressed.
Despite these clear class similarities, Schuyler uses the plight of Indian untouchables to
demonstrate that the situation of the black American is more hopeful. Indeed, Schuyler was an
iconoclast and contrarian that rejected Malcolm X and other militant black leaders and
highlighted instead, that American blacks " had it better than any other blacks in the world."
Schuyler proclaimed this conservative perspective even further by describing how the caste
situation of the Indian untouchables was far worse than that of most American blacks. One
example he uses is one of religious context: Unlike the authentic Christian perspective of Jesus
embracing the outsider, the tax collector, the prostitute, the sinner, and the leper, Hinduism has
no such mandate to care for the poor untouchables of society. Hinduism taught acceptance of a
caste system that is fixed at birth and one's caste could only be changed "in the next life." Castes
in practice seemed to be perpetuated from both had a sense of "you get what you deserve" and a
sense of predestination. Many in the lowest of Indian castes have sought emancipation through
conversion to Christianity, Islam, or Buddhism. While race is also fixed at birth, American
blacks had some chance, however restricted, to engage in the meritocracy of America and
advance their station in this life without awaiting the next.
While moderate-conservative thinkers like George Schuyler had an insightful
perspective, his wisdom and name has often been forgotten as more colorful and militant names
like MLK and Malcolm X adorn inner city schools and calenderize "black history month."
History books are full of archetypal leaders and extremists who write their names therein at the
expense of peace. As a native son of Pittsburgh PA who has neither read nor even heard of the

George Schuyler's Pittsburgh Courier, I am somewhat ashamed that my own ignorance is a

microcosm of the larger problem that both racism and untouchability represent.