KARNA HIMSELF WAS A SUPPORTER OF THE CASTE SYSTEM!

It has been said many times that Karna was against caste-ism. The modern age TV serials in the country of India even hint at him being an enemy of caste-ism. Being discriminated on the basis of his birth etc. When nothing in the Mahabharata states or even HINTS at Karna being a enemy of caste-ism. On the contrary their is a boatload of evidence in the text that suggests Karna was in fact a supporter of caste-ism in the Mahabharata world. In actuality Karna was not a man of such high thoughts, beliefs and ideals. As usual i will be posting quotes form the text, and links to the text and other sources of my information to better the credibility of my claims. And I will be differentiating between the way i write my own analysis, claims and statements and quote the passages of text from the Mahabharata.

1.  Karna's racist statements.
1. Karna disrespected homosexuals - And at that sound, the son of Radha, deprived of his senses by anger, waving his well-shaped arms, said these words,--'O Vikarna, many opposite and inconsistent conditions are noticeable in this assembly. Like fire produced from a faggot, consuming the faggot itself, this thy ire will consume thee. http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m02/m02067.htm - (Chapter Link)
1. Karna used such abuses that are used even today and considered offensive. Yet people say that he was an unbiased person who battled for equality when he insulted people on the basis of their sexuality's....
2. Karna's beliefs about sons, wives and slaves: O excellent one, the slave, the son,  and the wife are always dependent. They cannot earn wealth, for whatever they earn belongeth to their master. Thou art the wife of a slave incapable of possessing anything on his own account. Repair now to the inner apartments of king Dhritarashtra and serve the king's relatives. We direct that that is now thy proper business. And, O princess, all the sons of Dhritarashtra and not the sons of Pritha are now thy masters. http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m02/m02070.htm - (Chapter Link)
1. As per Karna sons and wives are slaves and cannot earn anything on their own. Everything they earn belongs to the man of the house. This quote also indicates he practiced slavery.
3. Karna discriminated against people based on their birth and family: Knowing this, O learned one, hold thy tongue, or listen to something further that I will say. Those women that, intoxicated by spirits, cast off their robes and dance, those women that are not attached (to particular individuals) in the matter of intercourse and that they do as they please without owning any restrictions, I say, that being as thou art the child of one of those women, how canst thou, O Madraka, be a fit person for declaring the duties of men? Those women that live and answer calls of nature like camels and asses, being as thou art the child of one of those sinful and shameless creatures, how canst thou wish to declare the duties of men? http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m08/m08040.htm - (Chapter Link)
1. He tried to insult Shalya by getting at his birth. At his mom, at his country. Indirectly Karna was abusing his own step mother Madri.
2. This quote also indicates that Karna opposed the freedom of women. That women should not be allowed to choose who they have sex with and the freedom in which they practice it.
3. This quote shows that Karna hates people on the basis of their birth, caste and the deeds of their parents. If their parents did something that Karna disagrees with then Karna censures not just the parents but also mocks the child.
4. Karna discriminated against those who had food choices that he did not like - I remember from the days of my youth that a slaughter-ground for kine and a space for storing intoxicating spirits always distinguish the entrances of the abodes of the (Vahika) kings. On some very secret mission I had to live among the Vahikas. In consequence of such residence the conduct of these people is well known to me. There is a town of the name of Sakala, a river of the name of Apaga, and a clan of the Vahikas known by the name of the Jarttikas. The practices of these people are very censurable. They drink the liquor called Gauda, and eat fried barley with it. They also eat beef with garlic. They also eat cakes of flour mixed with meat, and boiled rice that is bought from others. Of righteous practices they have none. http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m08/m08044.htm - (Chapter Link)
1. So anyone who eats something that Karna dislikes suddenly deserves hatred and curses? They deserve to be censured according to him.
5. Karna hated the country called Vahikas because caste was not based on birth over their: Since then I have seen diverse countries following diverse religions. Never, however, have I seen all the people of a country act unrighteously. All the races I have met will admit that to be true religion which has been declared by persons conversant with the Vedas. Travelling through various countries following various religions, I at last, O king, came among the Vahikas. There I heard that one at first becomes a brahmana and then he becomes a kshatriya. Indeed, a Vahika would, after that, become a Vaishya, and then a Shudra, and then a barber. Having become a barber, he would then again become a brahmana.  Returning to the status of a brahmana, he would again become a slave. One person in a family becomes a brahmana: all the others, falling off from virtue, act as they like. http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m08/m08045.htm - (Chapter Link)
1. For Karna it was unrighteous to oppose the birth-based caste system. The same system which is a blot, a epidemic, a stain, a barbaric plague on humanity. The same caste system which is one of the main reasons on why Karna has a huge fan base was actually supported by Karna. Not opposed by karna you fools...
2. Vahikas would make it so anyone can choose which caste they would become but then a cycle continues. 
1. They would choose to become a Vaishya, then the cycle makes them become a Sudra later on, then a barber, then a Brahmana, then a Kshatriya. This cycle makes them experience all modes of life. So everyone suffers and enjoys. Instead of the typical birth based caste system of Anga. Where birth is the only thing that decides rights not merit.
1. They changed their castes yet Karna insulted them. Karna hated them.
3. Karna criticized insulted and censured those who change their castes. Karna did not like change.
6. Karna hated & insulted people just because they did these things - They that are defiled by ingratitude, theft, drunkenness, adultery with the wives of their preceptors, harshness of speech, slaughter of kine, lustful wanderings during the night out of home, and the wearing of other people's ornaments,--what sin is there that they do not incur? http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m08/m08045.htm - (Chapter Link)
1. Karna was being very biased and hypocritical. He had a very narrow minded ideology and belief system. 
2. If Karna was an enemy of inequality, racial profiling and caste-ism then why does he hate on people who wear other's ornaments? Maybe they are too poor to afford their own cause of inequality. Why does he censure them? He does not consider the circumstances in which people had to make such decisions.
7. Karna insulting: The Madrakas are regarded on Earth as the dirt of every nation. So the Madra woman is called the dirt of the whole female sex. They that have for their practices the drinking of spirits, the violation of the beds of their preceptors, the destruction of the embryo by procuring miscarriage, and the robbing of other people's wealth, there is no sin that they have not. Fie on the Arattas and the people of the country of the five rivers. Knowing this, be silent. Do not seek to oppose me. http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m08/m08045.htm - (Chapter Link)
1. The above text supports my claim that Karna was against abortion. Discriminating against people who do abortions? What if these people knew that their offspring would be disabled or handicapped? And that's why they chose to insult them. What if they just didn't want their children to live like slaves or to even live at all in their society? Karna insults, censures and discriminates others without even thinking about the whole situation. He is clearly a every narrow-minded person. What if they could not afford to feed them? You're an extremely shallow person karna. He (Karna) is just incapable of deep thinking.
2. Karna's opinion of HIS OWN wives, sons, family etc.
1. Karna's belief was that wives and sons are all just property and their father/husband was their master so wives and sons were just slaves for him: O excellent one, the slave, the son, and the wife are always dependent. They cannot earn wealth, for whatever they earn belongeth to their master. Thou art the wife of a p. 138 slave incapable of possessing anything on his own account. Repair now to the inner apartments of king Dhritarashtra and serve the king's relatives. We direct that that is now thy proper business. And, O princess, all the sons of Dhritarashtra and not the sons of Pritha are now thy masters. http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m02/m02070.htm - (Chapter Link) 
1. Karna said that the Pandavas ("sons of Pritha") were the former masters of Draupadi. Because she's their wife, so Draupadi as a wife was a slave according to Karna's illogical, disgraceful opinion.
2. Karna is the type of man to eat up the earning's of his wife's hard work and toil and not give her anything in return. Same with his sons, this is probably the way he treated them to do whatever he says. Be submissive to every wish and choice and desire of your father. You live and die only for your father Karna and husband Karna.
3. Family means nothing for him. He only had three important relationships in his life, enemies (Pandavas, Krishna, Draupadi), masters/slaves (sons, wives as slaves & Dhritarashtra/Duryodhana as the masters), comrades and friends (Duryodhana, Aswathamman, Vikarna, Dussasana, Bhishma and Shalya).
2. Karna said he would cast away/abandon his wife and children just for Duryodhana: "Like Vasudeva's son who is firmly resolved for the sake of the Pandavas, I also, O thou that makest profuse presents to Brahmanas, am prepared to cast away my possessions, my body itself, my children, and my wife, for Duryodhana's sake!" http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m06/m06124.htm - (Chapter Link)
1. Karna was saying this to Bhishma while he was on his death bed (a bed of thousand arrows, Bhishma had a thousand arrows struck on his body cause of Arjuna). You don't lie to a man on his death bed. Karna was clearly telling the truth by default. He actually had regard and respect for Bhishma.
2. So Karna's wives were only for Duryodhana, his sons were only for Duryodhana. Nothing more nothing less.
3. Karna made a golden offer to his troops on the 17th day, he offered to sell his sons and his wives if they find Arjuna for him: If that does not satisfy the person that discovers Arjuna to me, I will make him a more valuable gift, that, indeed, which he himself will solicit. Sons, wives and articles of pleasure and enjoyment that I have, these all I shall give him if he desires them. Indeed, unto him who discovers Keshava and Arjuna to me, I shall, after slaying those two, give all the wealth that may be left by them." http://sacred-texts.com/hin/m08/m08038.htm - (Chapter Link)
1. What an evil and sinful man was this Karna? He who would offer to sell his very own wives and children to soldiers of the enemy army just for information about where his enemy Arjuna was residing. He's just shameless and people blindly support him as his fans.
2. Here Karna called his wives and sons as articles of pleasure and enjoyment. Indicating that those were the only two uses (pleasure & enjoyment) his wives and sons had to him.
1. This indicates a possibility that Karna MIGHT have possibly raped his own sons..... But their is little to no evidence to conclude this. But Karna's opinion was said by himself publicly on the field of Kurukshetra the day he died.
4. Karna's relationship to his mother Devi Kunti analyzed....
1. She gave him life: Vaisampayana said, "It was, O lord of earth, on the first day of the lighted fortnight during the tenth month of the year that Pritha conceived a son like the lord himself of the stars in the firmament. And that damsel of excellent hips from fear of her friends, concealed her conception, so that no one knew her condition. And as the damsel lived entirely in the apartments assigned to the maidens and carefully concealed her condition, no one except her nurse knew the truth. And in due time that beauteous maiden, by the grace of deity, brought forth a son resembling a very god. http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m03/m03306.htm - (Chapter Link)
1. Kunti had to endure ten months (almost a whole year) of pregnancy! To give birth to such son who would in the end only become the enemy of mankind and her younger sons.
2. She gave him a coat of mail, good looks, strength: Thereupon Kunti said, 'If, O dispeller of darkness, I obtain a son from thee, may he be furnished with a coat of mail and ear-rings, and may he be mighty-armed and endued with great strength!' Hearing these words of hers, Surya answered, 'O gentle maiden, thy son shall be mighty-armed and decked with ear-rings and a celestial coat of mail. And both his ear-rings and coat of mail will be made of Amrita, and his coat will also be invulnerable.' Kunti then said, 'If the excellent mail and ear-rings of the son thou wilt beget on me, be, indeed, made of Amrita, then, O god, O worshipful deity, let thy purpose be fulfilled! May he be powerful, strong, energetic, and handsome, even like thee, and may he also be endued with virtue!' http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m03/m03305.htm - (Chapter Link)
1. Kunti put forth very good conditions to make sure that Karna would have a lot of options in life before he was born.
3. She looked after him through her spies: And Pritha learnt through spies that her own son clad in celestial mail was growing up amongst the Angas as the eldest son of a charioteer (Adhiratha). http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m03/m03307.htm - (Chapter Link)
1. So contrary to popular belief Kunti did actually know what Karna was up to and what he was dong in his childhood years. She may have even seen him and met him..... But not the way some TV serials depict it.
4. And what does Karna do in return of his mother's favors? He disobeys her wishes, her orders and fights to kill her son Arjuna: It is with Arjuna alone, among all the combatants of Yudhishthira, that I will fight. Slaying Arjuna in battle, I shall achieve great merit, or slain by Savyasachin, I shall be covered with glory. O famous lady, the number of thy sons will never be less than five. http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m05/m05146.htm - (Chapter Link)
1. He attacked Kunti's son Bhima with the desire of killing him: Then Karna, desirous of slaying Bhima, shot at him in rage many whetted arrows equipped with wings of gold and polished by the hands of the smith. Bhima, however, cut off with his own shafts every one of those arrows into three fragments, and prevailing over the Suta's son, he cried out, 'Wait, Wait.' http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m07/m07135.htm - (Chapter Link)
2. He also tried to kill Kunti's other son Yudhishthira: Then Shalya, laughing, once more said unto Karna as the latter, excited with great wrath and resolved upon Yudhishthira's destruction stood on his car, these words, "Him for whose sake Dhritarashtra's son always honours thee, slay that Partha, O son of Radha. What wouldst thou gain by slaying Yudhishthira? http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m08/m08063.htm - (Chapter Link)
3. Karna's promises were all faulty. His word meant nothing. He still planned to kill all of Kunti's sons. He just spared the sons of Madri as he had no relationship to them no conflict with them. He must have thought that they would serve him well after the war is over. It can clearly be said that karna had no respect for a mother's feelings, even if it was his own mother.
3. Analyzing Karna's relationship with his family, especially his wives etc.
1. Sons
1. Story of the deaths of Karna's sons!
1. Prasena slain by Satyaki on the 17th day! How sad that the eunuch Shikhandi stopped Karna from avenging his sons death :D-Then Prasena, with many keen arrows of straight course, covered the steedless grandson of Sini, and seemed to dance upon his car. Soon, however, the son of Karna, struck by the grandson of Sini, fell down. Upon the slaughter of his son, Karna, with heart filled with rage, addressed that bull among the Sinis from desire of slaying him, saying, "Thou art slain, O grandson of Sini!' and sped at him an arrow capable of slaying all foes. Then Shikhandi cut off that arrow with three shafts of his, and struck Karna himself with three other shafts. http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m08/m08082.htm
1. Some readers say that Karna was about to kill Satyaki and Shikhandi saved him. But no! Karna's arrow was incapable of taking Satyaki's life as a warrior weaker than Satyaki (Shikhandi) could easily counter Karna's arrow.
2. Note that after this incident what Karna did. Instead of going after his son's killer Satyaki, he deiced to go after the Pancalas instead. I guess it can be said that his son Prasena's death meant next to nothing, considering how Karna's rage was very easily quelled and he stopped trying to get revenge for the murder.
2. Karna failed to avenge his son Sushena's death! - The heroic Uttamauja, putting forth his strength struck the son of Karna and cut off his head which fell down on the earth, filling the earth and the welkin with a loud noise. Beholding the head of Sushena lying on the ground, Karna became filled with grief. Soon, however, in rage he cut off the steeds, the car, and the standard, of his son's slayer with many keen shafts. Meanwhile Uttamauja, piercing with his keen shafts and cutting off with his bright sword the steeds of Kripa and those warriors also that protected Kripa's sides, quickly ascended the car of Shikhandi. http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m08/m08075.htm After the death of his son Karna isn't seen anywhere until section 77 where he is stated to be comforting the Kaurava army raising their morale instead of worrying about the death of his son.
3. Arjuna kills Karna's eldest and most powerful son right infront of his eyes :D Strongest son of Karna could not withstand ten shafts of Arjuna-The high-souled and diadem-decked Arjuna then, his brow furrowed from wrath with three lines, quickly sped from the van of battle a number of shafts for the destruction of Vrishasena in that encounter. With eyes red in wrath, that hero capable of slaying Yama himself if the latter fought with him, then laughed terribly and said unto Karna and all the other Kaurava heroes headed by Duryodhana and Drona's son, these words, "Today, O Karna, in thy very sight in this battle, I will despatch the fierce Vrishasena unto Yama's abode with my keen arrows! People say that all of you, united together, slew my son, endued with great activity, in my absence, and while he was alone and unsupported on his car. I, however, will slay thy son in the VERY SIGHT OF YOU ALL. Let all the Kaurava car-warriors protect him. I will slay the fierce Vrishasena. After that, I will slay thee, O fool, even I, Arjuna, in the midst of battle! Today I will, in battle, slay thee that art the root of this quarrel and that hast become so proud in consequence of Duryodhana's patronage. Putting forth my strength, I will certainly slay thee in this battle, and Bhimasena will slay this Duryodhana, this wretch among men, through whose evil policy this quarrel born of dice hath arisen." Having said these words, Arjuna rubbed the string of his bow and took aim at Vrishasena in that battle, and sped, O king, a number of shafts for the slaughter of Karna's son. The diadem-decked Arjuna then, fearlessly and with great force, pierced Vrishasena with ten shafts in all his vital limbs. With four fierce razor-headed arrows he cut off Vrishasena's bow and two arms and head. Struck with Partha's shafts, the son of Karna, deprived of arms and head, fell down on the earth from his car, like a gigantic shala adorned with flowers falling down from a mountain summit. Beholding his son, thus struck with arrows, fall down from his vehicle, the Suta's son Karna, endued with great activity and scorched with grief on account of the death of his son, quickly proceeded on his car, inspired with wrath, against the car of the diadem-decked Partha. http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m08/m08085.htm Over here Karna actually showed remorse and tried to kill is son's murderer immediately.
4. Bhima kill's Karna's son Bhanusena in front of Karna and afflicts the Kaurava army on day 17! Bhima even wounds several of the great Kaurava warriors including Karna!-Desirous of rescuing their father, the sons of Karna, all of whom were effectual smiters, and many other heroes, O king, of thy army, resisted those (Pandava) heroes. Sushena, cutting off with a broad-headed arrow the bow of Bhimasena, pierced Bhima himself with seven cloth-yard shafts in the chest, and uttered a loud roar. Then Vrikodara of terrible prowess, taking up another tough bow and stringing it quickly, cut off Sushena's bow. Excited with rage and as if dancing (on his car), he quickly pierced Sushena himself with ten arrows, and then pierced Karna, within the twinkling of an eye, with seventy sharp shafts. With ten other shafts, Bhima then felled Bhanusena, another son of Karna, with his steeds, driver, weapons, and standard, in the very sight of the latter's friends. The sightly head of that youth, graced with a face as beautiful as the Moon, cut off with a razor-headed arrow, looked like a lotus plucked from its stalk. Having slain Karna's son, Bhima began to afflict thy troops once more. Cutting off the bows then of Kripa and Hridika's son, he began to afflict those two also. Piercing Duhshasana with three arrows made wholly of iron, and Shakuni with six, he deprived both Uluka and his brother Patatri of their cars. http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m08/m08048.htm Bhima did not use any divine weapon to kill Karna's son, unlike Karna who needed to use the Vasavi dart of Lord Indra to kill Ghatotkaca. Karna had the support of Kripa, Kritavarman, Shakuni & Uluka and several other warriors yet he failed to protect his son's life. Did Karna even try to get revenge? Did he even care? Doesn't look like it as he never tried to mention this or even injure Bhima after this?
5. The rest were killed by Nakula on the 18th day when Karna was already dead on the 17th day. So no point in discussing those. 
6. Karna's reaction on the deaths of four of his sons was just pathetic. He only felt pain of the death of Vrishasena because Arjuna is the one who did it. Arjuna is the only murderer of karna's sons that Karna would benefit in taking on as he believes he will receive the most glory in doing so.
2. His sons were in reality nothing more than property and slaves to him.
1. Karna's opinion of a sons status in a family: O excellent one, the slave, the son, and the wife are always dependent. They cannot earn wealth, for whatever they earn belongeth to their master. http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m02/m02070.htm - (Chapter Link) 
1. He compared his own sons to slaves. As if to Karna a sons status is only merely being a slave to/for his father.
2. This is probably the way he treated them to do whatever he says. Be submissive to every wish and choice and desire of your father. You live and die only for your father etc in the household of Karna.
2. To Karna his sons were not for himself but for his beloved friend Duryodhana: Having (so long) enjoyed the wealth of Duryodhana, I dare not falsify it now. Like Vasudeva's son who is firmly resolved for the sake of the Pandavas, I also, O thou that makest profuse presents to Brahmanas, am prepared to cast away my possessions, my body itself, my children, and my wife, for Duryodhana's sake! http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m06/m06124.htm - (Chapter Link)
1. Horrible father....
3. He sold his sons as slaves to ordinary troops: Sons, wives and articles of pleasure and enjoyment that I have, these all I shall give him if he desires them. Indeed, unto him who discovers Keshava and Arjuna to me, I shall, after slaying those two, give all the wealth that may be left by them." http://sacred-texts.com/hin/m08/m08038.htm - (Chapter Link)
1. This incident took place during the same day that Karna died. So the weight and credibility of Karna's words is huge.
2. Karna claimed in-front of all of the Pandava soldiers that he met that his sons are just objects of pleasure and enjoyment for him.
2. Wives
1. Karna considered his wives to be worth so less that he would pimp them out and sell them to random people who he doesn't even know.
1. Karna loved his friends more than his wives: "Like Vasudeva's son who is firmly resolved for the sake of the Pandavas, I also, O thou that makest profuse presents to Brahmanas, am prepared to cast away my  possessions, my body itself, my children, and my wife, for Duryodhana's sake!" http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m06/m06124.htm - (Chapter Link)
2. Karna would offer to sell his wives to his own random soldiers: If that does not satisfy the person that discovers Arjuna to me, I will make him a more valuable gift, that, indeed, which he himself will solicit. Sons, wives and articles of pleasure and enjoyment that I have, these all I shall give him if he desires them. http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m08/m08038.htm - (Chapter Link)
1. This in itself gives you the idea of what Karna thought about his wives. They were just objects, property and materials to him.
2. As per Udyoga Parva (book 5) Karna's marriages were all arranged marriages, none of his marriages were love marriages. His foster father Adhiratha selected women of the suta race to be his brides: It is that Adhiratha, again, who caused the name Vasusena to be bestowed upon me by the Brahmanas. When also I attained to youth, I married wives according to his selections. http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m05/m05141.htm - (Chapter Link)
1. The fact that none of his marriages were out of love but of his father's choice and selections must prove that Karna could not romance women that much. He was probably a part of the whole marry first get to know each other later routine.
2. This lack of true love in his life may be the reason he went to Draupadi's swayamvara in the first place
3. Karna refused Krishna's offers because he hated the Pandavas and could not cast off or let go of this hatred, this greed, this jealousy, his animosity, his enmity etc. NOT out of love, respect and devotion or faithfulness to his wives and the suta community. By the way.
3. As per Stri Parva (book 11) one of Karna's wives called Arjuna "cruel" for cutting off his head during the war. Even now she exclaims, "Without doubt, thy preceptor’s curse hath pursued thee! When the wheel of thy car was swallowed up by the Earth, the cruel Dhananjaya cut off thy head with an arrow! http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m11/m11020.htm - (Chapter Link)
1. The same section further states this: Falling down on the earth, the cheerless dame is rising up again. Burning with grief on account of the death of her son also, she cometh and smelleth the face of her lord!’" http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m11/m11020.htm - (Chapter Link)
2. So we can assume that one of Karna's wives felt sorrow upon his death. She was cheerless, burning with grief and fell unconscious upon the sight of Karna's dead body. So all of this clearly indicates that Karna's wife really loved him.
3. But of course we can infer that the same faith and love is not was not returned to her by Karna. Karna was a taker not a giver.
4. Debunking misconceptions on why Karna said these things.
1. He was instigated/provoked/forced to by Shalya.
1. Lol just think about it. If your friend states some good qualities about your enemy and some bad qualities about you (basically giving an honest depiction about the flaws you have and virtues your enemy has), then will you start raging and go on a insult spree calling all of the women of your friend's country the dirt of the whole female sex? No that's just immature, sinful behavior. It is the behavior of someone how cannot stand the truth and resorts to insults when they are disproved in a debate.
2. Use your brain. Karna wouldn't say it like this unless he clearly meant it. Just because it's Karna you all Karna fans say oh Shalya was provoking him he made him say that and he was trying to make a point on what type of messed up place Shalya comes from this and that blah blah blah...........
1. Shalya was the driver of Karna on the last day of his life. He had to give his honest opinion on Karna to save his life: I do not, O Karna, remember the slightest fault in me for which, O thou of mighty arms, thou mayst desire to slay my innocent self. I must tell thee what is for thy good and what is for thy ill, acquainted as I am with both, especially as I am the driver of thy car and desirous of the good of king Duryodhana. What land is level and what not, the strength or weakness of the warrior (on my vehicle), the fatigue and faintness, at all times, of the steeds and the warrior (I am driving), a knowledge of the weapons that are available, the cries of animals and birds, what would be heavy for the steeds and what exceedingly heavy for them, the extraction of arrows and the curing of wounds which weapons counteract which, the several methods of battle, and all kinds of omens and indications, I who am so nearly connected with this car, being none else than its driver, should be familiar with. http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m08/m08041.htm - (Chapter Link) 
3. Karna got butt hurt because Shalya spoke the truth about the strengths and weaknesses of himself and the Pandavas. This is indeed a fact from Mahabharata itself.
1. It is Karna who started making verbal attacks on Shalya after he said something that Karna disagreed with: O Shalya, ever keeping Death or victory in battle before me, I shall today fight with Dhananjaya. There is none else save myself that would on a single car fight with that Pandava who resembles the destroyer himself. I myself will gladly speak of the prowess of Phalguna in the midst of an assembly of kshatriyas. Why however, dost thou, a fool as thou art and of foolish understanding, speak to me of Phalguna's prowess? Thou art a doer of disagreeable deeds. Thou art cruel and mean and being thyself unforgiving, thou art a detractor of one that is forgiving. I can slay a hundred persons like thee, but I forgive thee in consequence of my forgiving disposition, owing to the exigency of the times. Thou art of sinful deeds. Like a fool thou hast, for the sake of Pandu's son, rebuked me and told me many disagreeable things. Crooked-hearted as thou art, thou hast said all these words unto me, that am of a sincere heart. Cursed art thou for thou art an injurer of friends,--of friends, because friendship is seven-paced. Terrible is the hour that is now passing. Duryodhana hath himself come to battle. I am solicitous of seeing his purposes achieved. Thou, however, art acting in such a way that it shows thee to have no friendship (for the Kuru king)! http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m08/m08042.htm - (Chapter Link)
1. Karna didn't even state reasons on why he disagrees with Shalya's opinion he just resorted to crying.
2. Karna said that their is no one besides himself who would dare fight with Arjuna.
1. Yet Bhishma, Duryodhana, Aswathamman, Drona, Jayadratha, Sudakshina, Danda, Dandadhara, Bhagadatta, Sakuni, Susharman, Kripa, Somadatta, Bhurishravas, Shalya, Vahlika etc etc etc and so many others have all fought Arjuna.
1. So was Karna just lying? Or was Karna just deluded? You decide. Because Karna sounds like an idiot to me. He must have had a mental disorder, or taken too many drugs.....
2. Karna's statement about why he spared Shalya's life: For the sake of my friendship for thee, for my affection, and for thy being an ally,--for these three reasons thou still livest, O Shalya. Important is the task that has now to be done for king Dhritarashtra. That task, O Shalya, depends on me. For this, thou livest a moment. Before this, I made a compact with thee that any disagreeable speeches thou mightest utter would be pardoned by me. That compact should be observed. It is for this that thou livest, O Madraka. http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m08/m08043.htm (Chapter Link)
1. He wanted to kill Shalya just because Shalya said something that he disagreed with. 
2. Because of his compact with Shalya he had to pardon every disagreeable speech but his compact didn't say that he could retaliate by verbally abusing the women of Shalya's kingdom, their practices, their society, their food choices etc.
3. Imagine a soldier from USA working together with a soldier from India to defeat a ISIS terrorist. And the USA soldier starts to state the strengths and weaknesses of the indian soldier while at the same time fleshing out the strengths and weaknesses of the ISIS terrorist. And the indian soldier disagrees. And then he decides to insult the USA soldier's parents, society, country, females of the country, children etc.
1. And this is exactly what Karna does in a debate. If he can't intellectually or verbally hold his own in a discussion in any argument then he will threaten to kill you and if he cant kill you then he starts to resort to abuses. When all hope is lost he runs away or pretends to be dead. It is the nature of Karna's character to do this.
2. He was only quoting and reciting everything he heard from others
1. Karna's own words - Thou, O Shalya, art so. Thou shouldst not reply to me. The Madrakas are regarded on Earth as the dirt of every nation. So the Madra woman is called the dirt of the whole female sex. They that have for their practices the drinking of spirits, the violation of the beds of their preceptors, the destruction of the embryo by procuring miscarriage, and the robbing of other people's wealth, there is no sin that they have not. Fie on the Arattas and the people of the country of the five rivers. Knowing this, be silent. Do not seek to oppose me. http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m08/m08045.htm (Chapter Link)
1. A proper analysis and thought process of the above text would clearly reveal to the reader that it was all Karna's words as he started to talk directly to Shalya telling him to not respond back. he himself insulted the Madrakas, Arratas and the Punjabi's. 
2. Karna was not quoting anything he heard form some one else over here. Karna was not quoting the dialogues or statements of anyone else over here.
2. Here Karna was directly speaking to Shalya - Knowing all these things, O king, hold thy tongue, O Shalya, like one deprived of utterance, in all matters connected with religion and virtue. Thou art the protector and king of that people, and, therefore, the partaker of sixth part of their merits and demerits. Or perhaps, thou art the partaker of a sixth part of their demerits only, for thou never protectest them. A king that protects is a sharer in the merits of his subjects. Thou art not a sharer in their merits. http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m08/m08045.htm (Chapter Link)
3. Over here Karna was once again stating what he beleived in, not what soemone else told him: Knowing this, O learned one, hold thy tongue, or listen to something further that I will say. Those women that, intoxicated by spirits, cast off their robes and dance, those women that are not attached (to particular individuals) in the matter of intercourse and that they do as they please without owning any restrictions, I say, that being as thou art the child of one of those women, how canst thou, O Madraka, be a fit person for declaring the duties of men? Those women that live and answer calls of nature like camels and asses, being as thou art the child of one of those sinful and shameless creatures, how canst thou wish to declare the duties of men? http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m08/m08040.htm - (Chapter Link)
4. Karna clearly believed in everything he heard - The words that follow are all very true. The Pancalas observe the duties enjoined in the Vedas; the Kauravas observe truth; the Matsyas and the Surasenas perform sacrifices, the Easterners follow the practices of the Shudras; the Southerners are fallen; the Vahikas are thieves; the Saurashtras are bastards. They that are defiled by ingratitude, theft, drunkenness, adultery with the wives of their preceptors, harshness of speech, slaughter of kine, lustful wanderings during the night out of home, and the wearing of other people's ornaments,--what sin is there that they do not incur? Fie on the Arattas and the people of the country of the five rivers! http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m08/m08045.htm (Chapter Link)
1. Note this line (his own words) - "The words that follow are all very true."
1. This line of Karna means that it was his opinion that the insults and racial profiling (calling saurashtras bastards, claiming fie and shame on the arratas etc) were true. So he thought it was right. He also hated these people.
2. Karna mentioned a country of five rivers. And Punjab is a state in India with five rivers. It is well known. 
1. So Punjabi's, Jatts and Sikhs should not like or worship Karna. They should protest and dislike him. If Mahabharata is a true story then Karna ridiculed and victimized your ancestors..... By being pro-karna you are doing injustice and adharma to your ancestors.
3. He said them for the satisfaction of Duryodhana.
1. So if Karna insults someone or anyone for that matter its because he wanted his friend/master (Duryodhana) to be happy? No this is a  completely flawed argument. That claim in itself is ludicrous as it is not in sync with the rest of the epic. Many times karna has opposed Duryodhana's words and given his own two cents on the situation at hand.
1. But not the way karna fans believe he did. For example he did not try to make Duryodhana stop his beef with the Pandavas. Karna opposed Duryodhana's words in order to make their stand stronger against their enemies. Proof is in the below text.
2. It's funny how Karna and his fans say that he said those words to Draupadi for the satisfaction of Duryodhana but Karna did say many things against Duryodhana's order and point of view. These are listed down below.
1. Karna opposed Duryodhana's plans of deceit against Pandavas and said it is better to conquer them by prowess rather than deceitful means now in the debate at the end of Book 1 once the Kurus discovered the Pandavas survived against their recent conspiracy: "Vaisampayana said, 'Thus addressed by Duryodhana, Karna said, 'It doth not seem to me, O Duryodhana, that thy reasoning is well-founded. O perpetuator of the Kuru race, no method will succeed against the Pandavas. O brave prince, thou hast before, by various subtle means, striven to carry out thy wishes. But ever hast thou failed to slay thy foes. They were then living near thee, O king! They were then unfledged and of tender years, but thou couldst not injure them then. They are now living at a distance, grown up, full-fledged. http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m01/m01205.htm (Chapter Link)
1. If Karna really wanted to satisfy Duryodhana then why didn't he agree with Duryodhana's attempts? Is karna satisfying Duryodhana by disagreeing with him? Is he satisfying his friend by saying he failed to kill his foes? Is Karna satisfying Duryodhana by tell him that no method will succeed against his enemies.
2. He told Duryodhana that his reasoning was not well-founded. This statement of karna is similar to calling someone senile.
2. Karna opposes Duryodhana (when he blames Drona for their defeat on day 14).
1. Duryodhana's statement: How, indeed, could Phalguna, in spite of the resistance offered by Drona in battle, accomplish his vow by slaying the ruler of the Sindhus? If Drona had not himself willed it, O hero, how could the son of Pandu, in battle, have pierced that impenetrable array, overcoming his struggling preceptor? Truly, Phalguna is exceedingly dear to the illustrious preceptor! For this, the latter gave him admittance, without having fought with him. http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m07/m07148.htm (Chapter Link)
2. Karna's reply: "Karna said, 'Do not blame the preceptor. That Brahmana is fighting according to the measure of his power and courage and regardless of his very life. If Arjuna, of white steeds, having transgressed him, penetrated into our array, the slightest fault does not, for that, attach to the preceptor. http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m07/m07148.htm (Chapter Link)
3. So he Karna was not a blind slave who would do whatever it takes to satisfy his friend Duryodhana. He was not a puppet, he said things out of his own choice not because someone else tells him to. If Karna would say so many things against Duryodhana's point of view and desires then why would he not be 100 percent honest and say that the disrobing, dragging and insult of Draupadi was wrong? Answer: because Karna clearly did not see anything wrong with the disrobing incident, with Draupadi's abuse, with the Pandavas slavery, with the game of dice, with the insults, he was all for it, for these adharmic acts and deeds.
3. No Karna did not say them for the satisfaction of Duryodhana. Karna said these words for the satisfaction of his own personal ego. Karna said these words because he wanted his opinion to be known.
1. Oh and by the way, even if you karna fans are right then that makes karna nothing more than a slave. A character who has no identity, no voice, no personality, no feelings, no merit of his own. Everything belongs to Duryodhana, Karna is just a slave going by the arguments of foolish karna fans.
2. Truly Karna said these words for the dissatisfaction of the Pandavas. And the satisfaction of himself.
4. He said these things to make the Pandavas break free of slavery and fight them to save Draupadi's honor.
1. Refute/counterargument is down below. 
1. Karna was not saying those statements to provoke the Pandavas as his intentions were clearly to kick his enemies while they were down and helpless.
1. After this dice game was over Karna still chose to advise Duryodhana to play another game of dice with the Pandavas: "Karna said, 'O Duryodhana, all of us seek to accomplish thy will and, O king, I see that unanimity at present prevaileth among us! The sons of Pandu, with passions under complete control, will never return without passing away the promised period. If, however, they do return from failing sense, do thou defeat them again at dice.' http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m03/m03007.htm 
1. By proposing another game of dice Karna clearly had intentions of doing no benefits to the Pandavas. He DID NOT desire to make them break free of their slavery.
2. Karna basically wanted to insult the Pandavas again and again. He basically wanted to say the same vile statements. Meaning he meant what he had to say. Otherwise he would not have advised another game.
1. Karna wanting to say the same statements to provoke the Pandavas again and again makes no real sense. He was clearly taking any opportunity he could find in order to mock the Pandavas and Draupadi aka his enemies.
2. If Karna was saying this to provoke the Pandavas into breaking free of slavery and their dharma then that just means Karna was betraying his best friend Duryodhana. Because he knows that if the Pandavas break free of slavery then Duryodhana's plans will be foiled. As Bhima and Arjuna had already defeated Karna before (Draupadi Swayamvara, Rajasuya War) the dice game. So the Pandavas would have overpowered the Kauravas and Karna. 
1. If Karna was doing this for that reason then that means Karna's intention was to kill the Pandavas in a war. Karna is exposed as a bad friend because in war/combat defeat, victory and death are the most common things. So Karna saying these things would cost him the lives of his best friend Duryodhana's brothers the Kauravas. So he is exposed as a bad friend or as a man who was only involved in the conflict for his own personal goals of killing Arjuna.
2. Karna saying this to provoke the Pandavas does not mean that he was lying. Everything Karna uttered at the dice game was a part of his true evil nature. It is one of the handful of incidents in Mahabharata in which Karna's true colors are revealed. He said it to add insult to injury. It's how karna treats people who he hates. 
3. He insulted Bhima when he got one moment of advantage against him during the war: Struck by Bhimasena, the son of Radha, with eyes red in wrath, smiling the while, said unto him repeatedly these words, viz., 'Beardless eunuch, ignorant fool and glutton.' And Karna said, 'Without skin in weapons, do not fight with me. Thou art but a child, a laggard in battle! There, son of Pandu, where occurs a profusion of eatables and drink, there, O wretch, shouldst thou be but never in battle. Subsisting on roots, flowers, and observant of vows and austerities, thou, O Bhima, shouldst pass thy days in the woods for thou art unskilled in battle. Great is the difference between battle and the austere mode of a Muni's life. Therefore, O Vrikodara, retire into the woods. O child, thou art not fit for being engaged in battle. Thou hast an aptitude for a life in the woods. Urging cooks and servants and slaves in the house to speed, thou art fit only for reproving them in wrath for the sake of thy dinner, O Vrikodara! O Bhima, O thou of a foolish understanding, betaking thyself to a Muni's mode of life, gather thou fruits (for thy food). Go to the woods, O son of Kunti, for thou art not skilled in battle. Employed in cutting fruits and roots or in waiting upon guests, thou art unfit, I think, to take a part, O Vrikodara, in any passage-at-arms.' And, O monarch, all the wrongs done to him in his younger years, were also reminded by Karna in harsh words. http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m07/m07135.htm (Chapter Link)
1. Was that all just provoking? Was Karna uttering such words to provoke Bhima to fight again? Or to insult Bhima?
2. After supposedly dragging Bhima (according to the theory of karna fans) why did he continue to insult Bhima? Bhima defeated karna multiple times but he never insulted him.
3. Why should he provoke a defeated enemy in the war for his friends? Does e want his friends brothers to die at the hands of the provoked enemy?
4. I don't believe that karna insults the pandavas to provoke them.
5. Disproving the whole "Karna being a victim of caste-ism and being subjected to racism etc."
1. Karna was called as "suta", "son of a suta", suta's son" many times throughout the Mahabharata. But this whole suta is merely an epithet. It's based on your profession, birth, and origins. 
2. Analyzing all the times Karna was insulted as a suta.
1. Bhima dehumanizes Karna at the martial tournament: Seeing the charioteer, the Pandava Bhimasena took Karna for a charioteer's son, and said by way of ridicule, 'O son of a charioteer, thou dost not deserve death in fight at the hands of Partha. As befits thy race take thou anon the whip. And, O worst of mortals, surely thou art not worthy to sway the p. 290 kingdom of Anga, even as a dog doth not deserve the butter placed before the sacrificial fire.' Karna, thus addressed, with slightly quivering lips fetched a deep sigh, looked at the God of the day in the skies. http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m01/m01140.htm (Chapter Link)
1. Bhima had the right to insult Karna. Why? Well because Karna came unannounced out of nowhere. He was an unwelcome guest who came to the tournament thirsty for the blood of Bhima's younger brother. 
1. So of course he would insult Karna, but not in a racist manner. When Bhima found out that Karna is a charioteer's son he started to insult Karna saying he is not worthy to die by Arjuna's hands and he is not worthy to control the kingdom of Anga. He compared the situation to a dog not being worthy of butter from a sacred fire.
2. He compared KARNA to a dog, NOT sutas to dogs. Being called a suta/son of a charioteer was not the insult. The insult was how Karna was being compared to a dog and was called unworthy, undeserving of being killed by Arjuna.
2. Also Bhima was never on good terms with Karna. Karna tried to kill Bhima by using poisoned cake prior to this incident: "When that terrible poison intended for the destruction of Bhima failed of its effect, Duryodhana. Karna and Sakuni, without giving up their wicked design had recourse to numerous other contrivances for accomplishing the death of the Pandavas. http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m01/m01130.htm (Chapter Link)
1. Clearly Karna was involved in this incident as the text specifically states that he was conspiring with Sakuni & Duryodhana to accomplish the death of the Pandavas.
2. Lord Krishna also exposes this incident before Karna dies a dog's death at the hands of Arjuna: When the Kuru king (Duryodhana), acting under thy counsels, treated Bhimasena in that way with the aid of snakes and poisoned food, whither had this virtue of thine then gone? When the period of exile into the woods was over as also the thirteenth year, thou didst not make over to the Pandavas their kingdom. Whither had this virtue of thine then gone? Thou didst set fire to the house of lac at Varanavata for burning to death the sleeping Pandavas. Whither then, O son of Radha, had this virtue of thine gone? http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m08/m08091.htm (Chapter Link)
3. To those who say that Karna couldn't have been involved in the above incident as he met Duryodhana in the abode of Drona while they were all studying the science of arms under Drona and Kripa and became friends with him from their on and learned of the Pandavas right their at Drona's school you are all wrong. 
1. As Karna's adoptive father Adhiratha was a friend of Duryodhana's father Dhritarashtra and since their fathers were friends they themselves would definitely be on good terms. Karna and Duryodhana would have known each other since childhood. So what most likely happened is that Karna got informed of Duryodhana's beef with Bhima through Duryodhana himself and would have given him the idea of poisoning him. 
2. Karna himself accepted that he had tried to poison Bhima multiple times.
1. During the 12th day of the Kurukshetra war (five days before Karna's pathetic death) he described his fear of Bhima and confessed about the poisoning incident: Recollecting the woes caused them by our attempts at poisoning and burning them, and the woes that arose from the match at dice, bearing in mind also their exile in, the woods, the Pandavas, I think, will not abandon the fight. The mighty-armed Vrikodara of immeasurable energy hath already turned back (for the fight). http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m07/m07022.htm (Chapter Link)
2. During the 14th night or 15th day (much disputed topic about Ghatotkaca-vadha parva's timeline, what really happened after Jayadratha's death). Karna blamed destiny, fate and time because he kept failing against the Pandavas. Out of such crying Karna shockingly admitted about his deceitful attempts at poisoning Bhima: We have always exerted to injure the Pandavas, relying both on deceit and prowess. Whatever act, O king, a person afflicted by Fate does, is frustrated by Fate, however, much the person himself may strive to achieve it. Whatever, indeed, a man endued with perseverance should do, ought to be done fearlessly. Success depends on Fate! By deceit the sons of Pritha were beguiled as also by the administration of poison, O Bharata! http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m07/m07148.htm (Chapter Link)
1. Karna was talking to his best friend Duryodhana. So he was not lying. Sons of Pritha means sons of Kunti (Pritha was another name for her).
2. Defenders of Karna this is my message to you, do not argue against the words of your own master your idol your god karna. He himself has just exposed you all by accepting the facts and confessing to his crimes.
3. SO AS YOU CAN ALL SEE, EVEN IF THIS WAS AN INSULT THEN KARNA COMPLETELY DESERVED IT.
2. Draupadi rejects Karna at her Swayamvara: And beholding the son of Surya--Karna of the Suta tribe--like unto fire, or Soma, or Surya himself, resolved to shoot the mark, those foremost of bowmen--the sons of Pandu--regarded the mark as already shot and brought down upon the ground. But seeing Karna, Draupadi loudly said, 'I will not select a Suta for my lord.' Then Karna, laughing in vexation and casting glance at the Sun, threw aside the bow already drawn to a circle. http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m01/m01190.htm (Chapter Link)
1. Right after Draupadi rejects Karna this is stated in the text: And that bow which Rukma, Sunitha, Vakra, Radha's son, Duryodhana, Salya, and many other kings accomplished in the science and practice of arms, could not even with great exertion, string, Arjuna, the son of Indra, that foremost of all persons endued with energy and like unto the younger brother of Indra (Vishnu) in might, strung in the twinkling of an eye. http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m01/m01191.htm (Chapter Link)
1. This passage/quote indicates that Karna failed in lifting the bow of Draupadi's Swayamvara.
2. Note "Radha' son" means Karna as his adoptive mother was Radha. And he was the only son of Radha that became a king.
3. So now we have to come to a decision. One of these two quotes has to be fake and dismissed as an interpolation. Now which one could it be? Definitely the one that quotes Draupadi rejecting Karna.
1. Because this quote is only mentioned here and nowhere else. Karna, Draupadi, Krishna, Yudhishthira, Arjuna etc never mentioned this incident of Draupadi rejecting Karna or Karna succeeding in drawing her bow.
2. Because Draupadi ended up marrying Arjuna and not Karna. So thus the text which says Karna was able to draw the bow is a lie. Either a translation mistake or a later addition (since the same translation also says that Karna failed).
2. Now this one is obviously an interpolation. It is a part of the text that was not originally in their and added later on to fool the general public.
1. Because their is evidence from 25 different versions and translations including BORI CE that Karna failed and was not rejected. For more proof click this link - Karna failed in Draupadi's swayamvara. He could not succeed in accomplishing the task. Draupadi never rejected the suta.
2. CONCLUSION: It is an interpolation, to put it simply these things never happened. This incident NEVER happened in the original Mahabharata. Case closed.
3. Bhishma insults Karna as a wretched son of a suta: 'Having listened to these words of Karna, Bhishma the son of Santanu, addressing king Dhritarashtra, again said, 'Although this one often boasteth saying,--I shall slay the Pandavas,--yet he is not equal to even a sixteenth part of high-souled Pandavas. Know that the great calamity that is about to overtake thy sons of wicked souls, is the act of this wretched son of a Suta! Relying upon him, thy foolish son Suyodhana hath insulted those heroes of celestial descent, those chastiser of all foes. What, however, is that difficult feat achieved by this wretch before that is equal to any of those achieved of old by every one of the Pandavas? Beholding in the city of Virata his beloved brother slain by Dhananjaya who displayed such prowess, what did this one then do? When Dhananjaya, rushing against all the assembled Kurus, crushed them and took away their robes, was this one not there then? When thy son was being led away as a captive by the Gandharvas on the occasion of the tale of the cattle, where was this son of a Suta then who now belloweth like a bull? http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m05/m05049.htm (Chapter Link)
1. I don't think that their was anything wrong in what Bhishma said. To ignore the truth is folly. He was trying to protect the sons of Dhritarashtra (the Kauravas including Duryodhana).
2. He was saying it in the simplest of terms that the bloodshed and tragedy that will commence in the near future is because of Karna the wretched son (of a suta, Bhishma was insulting Karna as a son he was not insulting Karna's father).
3. Imagine if you were a grandfather and you see that their is a friend of your grandsons who lives off your grandsons money and he continues to misguide and mislead your grandsons into becoming enemies of good people. What would YOU do then? What would YOU have to say about Karna?
4. In this incident it was not being associated with the suta caste that was an insult for Karna. The insult was being called a wretch and being accused by Bhishma for giving false promises to the Kauravas and continuously fanning the flames of enmity despite having no capability.
4. Bhishma insults Karna as a low-born: If thou heedest not my words, thou shalt then have to hear of the slaughter of many, for all the Kauravas accept thy opinion. Thou art alone in holding as true the opinion, O bull of the Bharata race, only three persons, viz., Karna, a low-born Suta's son cursed by Rama, Sakuni, the son of Suvala, and thy mean and sinful brother Dussasana.'  http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m05/m05049.htm (Chapter Link)
1. What was so wrong in what Bhishma said? He was telling Duryodhana that he only listens to three people.
1. Over here he called Karna "a low-born Suta's son" to open the eyes of his grandson Duryodhana that he should listen to others too.
2. Again the words of Bhishma that felt like an insult would not have anything to do with the words "low-born Suta's son" but probably because Bhishma said that one of the only people Duryodhana listens to is Karna who misguides him.
2. Maybe Bhishma knew the story of how Karna was adopted because he was found in a basket traveling on the river. Maybe it's because Karna's true origins were unknown to all the Kauravas. Maybe that's why he called Karna a low-born.
3. Also here is the definition of low-born taken form many trusted sources.
1. Merriam-Webster dictionary definition: born in a low condition or rank
2. Oxford dictionary definition: Born to a family that has a low social status.
3. So big deal he called karna a person who was born in a lower rank. How insulting can that be? Is that discrimination? How does one insult really hurt karna? The common man and woman always has to face insults (everyday and they are far worse than that of which karna had to face) in today's society (March 2017 A.D. Earth). That's not racism. It's nothing compared to what the African american Negroes had to suffer at the hands of the Ku Klux Klan.
5. Shalya calls Karna a wretch of his race: Listen, O Karna, to this simile of a crow that I am about to narrate. Having heard it, thou mayest do what thou choosest, O thou that art destitute of intelligence and that art a wretch of thy race. http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m08/m08041.htm - (Chapter Link) 
1. Well what would you really expect him to say? Karna just threatened to kill Shalya, would Shalya just remain silent? 
1. Karna threatening to kill Shalya: O wretch amongst the Madrakas, I shall not now slay thee and present thy carcase as an offering to carnivorous creatures. From regard for a friend, O Shalya, for the sake of Dhritarashtra's son, and for avoiding blame, for these three reasons, thou still livest. If, O ruler of the Madras, thou speakest such words again, I shall then crush thy head with my mace that is as hard as the thunder. http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m08/m08040.htm - (Chapter Link)
1. Here Karna clearly called Shalya a wretch in the first place before Shalya ever called him a wretch.
2. Note, Shalya called Karna a wretch of his race. He did not insult Karna's race he was basically saying that Karna is an insult to his own race. Any good observer, any good reader, any analyzer and detective could understand this.
1. By calling Karna a wretch of his race perhaps Shalya was showing respect to the sutas as they may have been a respectful group of people and Karna would be a shameful person to them as his actions, decisions and deeds could tarnish their image.
3. Karna's friends called him suta too. It was just another name of Karna. Another identity of him. So the epithet suta, the term is a double-edged sword. It's used to both insult and praise.
1. You see many people like Karna's friend Duryodhana and his said friends father Dhritarashtra call karna as "suta's son" but nobody, no one ever complains about that or calls it racism/caste ism.
1. Dhritarashtra termed Karna as "son of a suta" despite the fact he was dead and killed: I do not see that anyone (of my army) will escape with life when the Suta's son hath been slain in battle! He was the great raft, O Sanjaya, to my sons! That hero, having shot innumerable arrows, hath been slain in battle! What use have I of life, without that bull among men? Without doubt, the son of Adhiratha, afflicted with arrows, fell down from his car, like a mountain-peak riven by the fall of thunder! http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m08/m08009.htm (Chapter Link)
1. So judging by Dhritarashtra's words it was okay to call someone a suta's child even if they were dead. It was not even considered as speaking ill of the dead.
2. Dhritarashtra was just delivered the news of Karna's death yet he still called karna a suta's son. No disrespect to Karna. It was not considered as a casteist term.
2. Duryodhana calls him (Karna) son of a suta during the war: "Sanjaya continued, 'Strong became that hope, O king, in the heart of thy son, viz., that where Bhishma and Drona had been slain, Karna would vanquish the Pandavas. Cherishing that hope within his heart, he said unto Karna, "O Suta's son, Partha never wishes to fight, standing before thee!" Karna said, "I have, O son of Gandhari, said before in thy presence, even these words, vanquish all the Pandavas with their sons and Janardana!' I shall become thy General. In this there is no doubt. Tranquilise thyself, O monarch I Consider the Pandavas to be already vanquished!'" http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m08/m08010.htm (Chapter Link)
1. You can see clearly over here that Karna is called suta's son by his best friend Duryodhana, and Karna in turn calls him son of Gandhari. It was common to call someone by using their parents names and status in Mahabharata.
2. Now you see karna never called their countries sinful maybe it's because he enjoyed the wealth of Duryodhana. But he would speak against Duryodhana on other matters as previously discussed in this post. So if being called suta's son is an insult then Karna would have definitely said something back against Duryodhana. 
4. Being called the son of a suta does not make Karna a victim of caste-ism or racism. Suta is a term a word that has many meanings if you look it up on one the most trusted Sanskrit dictionaries of the world. 
1. Here are actually the many different meanings of the word suta down below, we'll go with the ones that make the most sense - http://spokensanskrit.de/index.php?beginning=0+&tinput=+suta&trans=Translate
1. So suta basically meant carpenter, horse-keeper, charioteer etc. Karna's foster father Adhiratha was a charioteer by his profession after all. So what is so bad in being called the son of a charioteer? Is it some kind of insult for Karna? It was his identity in society. He should have been proud of it.
1. And as a charioteer' son Karna was not handicapped or underprivileged. As many charioteers were kings and monarchs. Shalya (Karna's last driver) was himself a charioteer despite being the king of Madra.
1. A charioteer was even allowed to try his hand in Draupadi's Swayamvara. 
1. Dhrishtadyumna to Draupadi: Sanku with Gaveshana, Asavaha, Aniruddha, Samika, Sarimejaya, the heroic Vatapi Jhilli Pindaraka, the powerful Usinara, all these of the Vrishni race, Bhagiratha, Vrihatkshatra, Jayadratha the son of Sindhu, Vrihadratha, Valhika, the mighty charioteer Srutayu, Uluka, Kaitava, Chitrangada and Suvangada, the highly intelligent Vatsaraja, the king of Kosala, Sisupala and the powerful Jarasandha, these and many other great kings--all Kshatriyas celebrated throughout the world--have come, O blessed one, for thee. Endued with prowess, these will shoot the mark. And thou shalt choose him for thy husband who amongst these will shoot the mark.'" http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m01/m01189.htm (Chapter Link)
2. Karna grew up in a city that was ruled by a suta: And carried by the waves of the Ganga, the child contained in the basket came to the city of Champa ruled by a person of the Suta tribe. Indeed, the excellent coat of mail and those ear-rings made of Amrita that were born with his body, as also the ordinance of Destiny, kept the child alive." http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m03/m03306.htm (Chapter Link)
1. So these quotes, this pieces of evidence from the text of Mahabharata prove my claims. Karna is not underprivileged or discriminated against by being a charioteer or a suta. Charioteers could be kings, they could compete in Swayamvara's. So could suta's also be kings and monarchs. They had power and rights in society.
5. Karna was a victim of his own decisions not of his circumstances.
1. Karna refused Krishna, Surya, Bhishma and Kunti's golden offers because he hated the Pandavas and could not cast off or let go of this hatred, this greed, this jealousy, his animosity, his enmity etc.
1. Even for all the wealth in the world karna would not stop his hatred of the Pandavas. He was a hater, such a person does not deserve respect or sympathy. He chose his wrong path of hatred. He is insecure which is why he doesn't try to have peace that is why he is a vile coward.
2. He thought that he could kill Arjuna and Krishna, despite being given several warnings by many people he still didn't listen. His teachers, his parents, his comrades etc. They all warned him.
2. He chose to injure the Pandavas. He chose his enmity. He chose to be jealous. He chose to die on the battlefield. He chose to fight a battle he knew he couldn't win. HE CHOSE to spare the lives of four sons of Kunti. He chose his own fate. No one really made it for him. Stop blaming Kunti, stop blaming Krishna, stop blaming Arjuna, stop blaming your status of a suta, stop giving excuses. It's his fault for choosing the wrong path. Kunti gave him a chance.