The Student News Site of Prospect High School

ProspectorNow

Let your voice be heard!
  • We love guest contributions! Contact Editor-in-Chief Brooke Michalczyk.
The Student News Site of Prospect High School

ProspectorNow

The Student News Site of Prospect High School

ProspectorNow

Weather


  • 5 AM
    37 °
  • 6 AM
    36 °
  • 7 AM
    36 °
  • 8 AM
    36 °
  • 9 AM
    38 °
  • 10 AM
    41 °
  • 11 AM
    44 °
  • 12 PM
    47 °
  • 1 PM
    50 °
  • 2 PM
    52 °
  • 3 PM
    53 °
  • 4 PM
    54 °
  • 5 PM
    54 °
  • 6 PM
    53 °
  • 7 PM
    52 °
  • 8 PM
    51 °
  • 9 PM
    50 °
  • 10 PM
    49 °
  • 11 PM
    49 °
  • 12 AM
    48 °
  • 1 AM
    48 °
  • 2 AM
    47 °
  • 3 AM
    46 °
  • 4 AM
    46 °
  • 5 AM
    46 °
March 2
55°/ 35°
Sunny
March 3
66°/ 46°
Sunny
March 4
70°/ 45°
Moderate rain
March 5
47°/ 41°
Patchy rain nearby
March 6
41°/ 39°
Moderate rain
March 7
45°/ 40°
Patchy rain nearby

A place for everyone and everyone in their place

andy-barr-graphic1

Examining Prospect High School’s Class System

By Andrew Barr

On June 16, 1858, Abraham Lincoln, expressing his belief that the United States could not exist so vehemently at odds on the issue of slavery, observed that “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” Indeed, Mr. Lincoln’s words have echoed throughout history and have been proved true time and time again. But his words raise a question: can a lack of division hurt society? With some analysis, the answer, at least when it comes to social, economic, and political division, is a resounding “yes.”

The United States has never existed without classes. There has always been the rich, the poor, and those in-between. There have always been Liberals and Conservatives. This taxonomy of American society has endured since the creation of our great nation. The continued success of the American system owes much to the acceptance of these social strata. For example, much of the civil unrest that so often plagues underdeveloped and uncivilized nations is brought about by a lack/disorganization of traditional class roles or a sudden drive toward complete egalitarianism.

When the nation of India came under the rule of the British Raj, the English inserted themselves at the top of the already existing caste system. From 1858 until 1947, the continuation of this class system afforded India a period of great prosperity. Among the benefits made possible by the British connection were major capital investments in infrastructure, in railways, canals and irrigation systems, shipping and mining, creating suitable conditions for the growth of manufacturing and independent enterprise; and the amalgamation of India into the global economic scene.

However, after the Sepoy Rebellion of 1857 and other consequent insurgencies against colonial rule, the British began to slowly adopt a “hands off” approach to governance, effectually removing themselves from the class system (or elevating themselves to a position that had no effect on the other classes). This created a power vacuum of sorts, blurring class lines, encouraging dissention to the system and decreasing the overall efficiency and living standard of the society at large.

With the British system all but gone, the populace turned to other demographics for stability. This identity crisis was one of the main reasons for the demarcation of India into modern day India and Pakistan. The creation of what today is a very volatile region of the world, was responsible for the deaths of anywhere between 250,000 and 500,000 people on both sides of the new borders. The fragmentation of the caste system was a principle cause for their deaths.

It is the same dilution of classes in our school, seen recently through the administratively urged de-emphasis of class competition at “Knightgames” and other Homecoming events that invokes feelings of consternation in some of the more tradition-minded members of the student body. To what extent should we, as a school, truly unify?

To be sure, a certain level of respect comes from the class system at Prospect, a respect that has been declining with the devaluing of class pride and the emphasis on “U Knight-ing” the school.

Recently in gym class, fellow senior Mike Uhlarik and I were enjoying a friendly game of pickleball when a freshmen (participating in a neighboring game of flicker-ball) unapologetically ran onto our court and disrupted our game. Several minutes later, our ball made its way into the flicker-ball area. We requested assistance in the retrieval of our ball from the freshman’s class but were answered with a cry of “get it yourselves!”

These verbal and physical transgressions of the traditional levels of respect for members of the senior class are inadmissible. When Mr. Uhlarik and I were freshmen, the emphasis was on respecting one’s elders – no freshmen dared to speak to unfamiliar seniors unless spoken to. When we as freshmen traversed through the first floor “senior hallway,” we averted our eyes out of respect and awe, for seniors had much to teach us, and showing them respect was our way of thanking them. The emphasis on uniting the school has blurred the lines between classes, and those who used to benefit from the counsel and advice of upperclassmen now find it acceptable to mouth off to them. But aside from the respect issue, what else does the “U Knight-ing” of Prospect mean?

As in every aspect of society, there are factions in our school. But some of these factions are very different than the broader Freshmen-Senior classes in the system that students find themselves automatically pushed into as they walk through Prospect’s hallowed halls for the first time. The students who take honors classes are a specific type of faction: an ability based one. Those who take regular classes, special education classes, members of the football team and those in the marching band are all part of this aptitudinal nomenclature. So, whether it is taking the derivative of a logarithmic function or running a 26/47 halfback pass, these groups already present much to our school in terms of diversity within themselves.

Does the “unification” of our school mean that activities and classes that exclude students from participation will be “equalized,” as they essentially advocate for a segregation of ability? Will an equal opportunity situation become the norm at Prospect High School?

Let us hope not, for the moment that we allow an equal opportunity situation to manifest itself in our clubs and teams is the moment that our efficiency and performance becomes akin that of the Department of Motor Vehicles, FEMA, or even the Carter White House. Let’s not let THAT happen.

View Comments (30)
More to Discover

Comments (30)

The email you enter will not be displayed on your comment.
All ProspectorNow Picks Reader Picks Sort: Newest

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • S

    Sir Jake GoodmanNov 17, 2009 at 9:25 pm

    @ Andrew
    1. I apologize if I stated that age creates merit. What I was trying to argue is that people should have a greater respect for those who are older because they have a larger base of personal life knowledge to draw upon.
    2. If you look at the 2008 election, the age difference did play a role in the campaign, in that the rapidly rising political star, Obama, appeared inexperienced next to the Vietnam Vet., McCain. The difference is, while people respected McCain and his life story, they disagreed on his policies, and his pick of a VP. The campaign was decided more by outside influences, aka Bush destroying the world and the economy, than any policy of either candidate.
    3. The greatest reason the Mongols had such an ability to conquer their enemies relied more upon their weaponry and training with it. This skill came from experience they gained from years of riding and training with their bows, which could be an age argument (but I will not pursue it). The Europeans were trained for a different style of war making them easy targets to the Mongols, with or without the seniority of Generals. Also Chinggis (aka Genghis) did benefit from desending from a leader, his father a chief of the Kiyad and Great Grandson on his father’s side to the head of the Mongol Confederation, Khabul Khan.

    Reply
  • S

    Sir Jake GoodmanNov 16, 2009 at 3:37 pm

    @ Brendan
    Then why are you commenting on it?

    Reply
  • S

    Sir Brendan MoriartyNov 15, 2009 at 8:33 pm

    I don’t understand why people are commenting on this? He’s merely getting what he wants: publicity/a reaction out of people. He may have some strong opinions but he doesn’t actually think that the caste system was/is good.

    Reply
  • S

    Sir Jake GoodmanNov 11, 2009 at 9:25 am

    @ Lady
    “Also, I am not a proponent of imperialism… I doubt if at the time I would have gone along with it but the past is the past”. It is not a nessisary evil, it is a fact of nationhood that if you are weak, others will try to gain influence and take over. Economic, Social, and regular imperialism existed far before William the Bastard ever set foot in Britain and existed long after the heyday of Her/His Majesties Royal Navy.

    Reply
  • L

    Lady AnonymousNov 10, 2009 at 8:38 pm

    @Goodman
    Clearly you have misunderstood what I am trying to say because i do NOT have a problem with imperialism.

    Reply
  • S

    Sir Jake GoodmanNov 10, 2009 at 9:42 am

    @ Lady
    What is your problem with imperialism? Since the dawn of society man has been trying to expand his orbit of influence. You have Alexander spreading his imperialist notions from Macedon to India, Rome dominating the continent, Chinese dynastic families fighting for dominance in many internal wars. All actions of conquest are imperialist, the only difference is that your connotation of it applies to nations that are not next door to you, which has little relevant difference, especially at the time in question with rapidly improving naval and land transport technology.

    Reply
  • L

    Lady AnonymousNov 9, 2009 at 7:05 pm

    @ Helena
    I apologize if it seems as if I am trying to put words into Beth’s mouth. I am not.
    However, I did reference flowers because I do think she is a hippie in her political views.
    Also, I am not a proponent of imperialism. Let my clarify by saying I think imperialism was a necessary evil in the advancement of society. I doubt if at the time I would have gone along with it but the past is the past and the fact of the matter is that imperialism was a factor in the progression of countries and such leading up to present times.

    Reply
  • S

    Sir Jake GoodmanNov 9, 2009 at 5:37 pm

    @ Rev
    The theory of respecting ones elders is based on the concept that, since they are older, they have done things of note worth respecting them. If you did not know a specific reason to show respect for your teacher or a police officer would you intentionally take actions just to aggravate them?

    Reply
  • H

    Helena DaisyNov 9, 2009 at 12:42 pm

    @ Lady Anonymous
    I don’t remember Beth suggesting we “sprinkle the world with flowers.” Not that I agree or disagree with either of you, I’m just saying that just because you disagree with Beth does not mean you have to put words in her mouth and make her sound like such a hippy just because she isn’t a fellow proponent of imperialism.

    Reply
  • L

    Lady AnonymousNov 8, 2009 at 11:17 pm

    Dear Beth Rowe, don’t deny that the world would not be what it is today without imperialism. As much as you might want to sprinkle the world with flowers, imperialism was a necessary political system in the advancement of the world. Also, were it not for the imperialism of British, there may not have been the aggravation of the colonists. Without the angry colonists and imperialistic English can you honestly say that a revolution would have ensued? I would argue that you owe it to imperialism that our country exists independently.
    I believe your far-left compass is incompetent, Miss. Rowe.

    Reply
  • K

    Katie BestNov 8, 2009 at 11:11 pm

    As much as I want to agree with you on the whole “respect” area of this, I don’t know if I can. I do respect the majority of upperclassmen, especially if they treat me and my fellow freshmen classmates with respect. But if they walk around on their high horses, and trample everyone else beneath their mighty feet, then I don’t. The freshman in your gym class showed no respect, and even though it may seem like an offense to you seniors, the most likely reason is those freshmen have no common courtesy in general. And let’s face it, a lot of the kids in my year don’t have respect for anyone including their friends or peers. They might think that they are cool to be rude to seniors, and in that case you can be rude back. But other wise, showing respect to everyone and not just fellow seniors and juniors would be an acceptable way to deal with freshmen and sophomores (because let’s face it, they think they are pretty awesome too). People should just have common courtesy, and that doesn’t always mean that us freshmen need to look up to you seniors (some of the seniors don’t exactly set great examples), but should respect you as human beings. Nothing more, nothing less.

    Reply
  • S

    Sir Jake GoodmanNov 7, 2009 at 4:14 pm

    @ Helena
    It is human nature to look out for ones own self interest. In a state of nature, similar to the concept postulated by Hobbes, man has no reason to trust or work with others and instead acts under pure self-interest. Courtesy is a societal imposition that all functional members of said society respect and act under.

    Reply
  • H

    Helena DaisyNov 6, 2009 at 10:21 pm

    Also, I think it is just human nature to be more agreeable to a polite, shy person, because you predict they’ll be agreeable and nice. That’s why it was so nice when freshman were like that – they werent simply strangers, they were (seemingly) NICE strangers.

    Reply
  • H

    Helena DaisyNov 6, 2009 at 10:19 pm

    @ Andrew
    Personally, I was in awe of seniors because of their experience. They knew everything and had been through it all. So as long as they were nice people, yeah I respected them. Most of them acted like older siblings to me. And nothing Mike or Andy did merited the DISrespect that the freshman showed. It’s just good manners that you treat strangers politely.
    I agree that positions of power should be based on capabilities…but being a senior is not a position of power. You don’t get elected or assigned to it. The only power we have is experience, intelligence (hopefully), and (sometimes) the upper hand physically.
    And personally I don’t see ANY maturity difference between upper and lower classmen. Key word “men.” Girls get less giggly over time, thank God.
    @ Jake
    Exactly my point. My point about the “U” shirts was that we were all wearing the same shirt together, not because we wear the “U” shirt SPECIFICALLY. Knightmare rocked. And I definitely agree about Knight’s Way – especially useless since half of the leaders are hypocrites.

    Reply
  • S

    Sir Jake GoodmanNov 6, 2009 at 3:17 pm

    @ NT
    The point I am making is that every nation in the world has poor people, so it stands to reason that India, with one of the highest populations in the world, would have more of them. In fact, India proves the benefits of imperialism, in respect to your argument, in that the wealthier areas are the regions that had the largest European presence, and not the rural, agricultural, poorer regions. Finally, the dollar a day statistic is a false argument. While a dollar a day amount would put you to death in America, due to conversion rates that number is exponentially higher in other nations for its buying capacity.
    @ Helena
    There was just as much unity, in addition to a more dignified name, with the Knightmare. It served the purpose of any other school’s cheering section without being as preachy, self-serving, and useless as Knight’s Way.

    Reply
  • H

    Helena DaisyNov 6, 2009 at 7:39 am

    @ Jake
    “The belief that students will not feel that they are superior to the likes of Elk Grove and Hersey without having T-shirts with giant U’s on them is flawed.”
    True – but *having* those shirts with the giant U’s will make them feel united, and as a strong unit, superior.

    Reply
  • N

    NTNov 5, 2009 at 11:56 pm

    Just because India is better off than the very worst countries (who were also victims of imperialism – is the next column going to talk about the benefits of imperialism in Africa?) doesn’t mean anything. There is a great, great different between living in a suburb with two cars and a four-bedroom house and living on less than a dollar of day, like hundreds of millions, let me repeat, hundreds of millions, of people do in India. There are varying degrees of poverty and India quite obviously has a much higher degree. The reason why this is the case can be reasonably discussed but not the fact that it actually exists ..
    Anyways, I think I might adopt Brendan’s stance as my own, if only to save myself some time.

    Reply
  • H

    Helena DaisyNov 5, 2009 at 8:09 pm

    @ Moriarty
    Andy does love to get a reaction out of people, yet I can’t help but think that he absolutely believes in every word he writes. I don’t think it matters if you believe in the right or left side: the fact is, freshman are not how they used to be. Remember when they were submissive? Polite? All quiet and shy?
    That was cute. I miss that.

    Reply
  • S

    Sir Brendan MoriartyNov 5, 2009 at 1:06 pm

    I have to say that when I started reading this article I was quite angry. By the time I finished it, I realized that this purely satirical. All that Andy is trying to do is get a reaction out of people.

    Reply
  • S

    Sir Jake GoodmanNov 4, 2009 at 11:39 pm

    @ Rob
    The focus of Andy’s article is less to say that America should create a class system than, Prospect spending time and effort on promoting the U-Knight. The comparison to India highlights that with a class system, unlike as we are predisposed to believe in western society, has benefits.
    With the British taking advantage of the class system, they were not imposing it upon the Indians, simply taking advantage of the current system in place to maintain stability in their new holdings.
    @ NT
    Can you name one major world country that does not have millions in poverty. Certainly India is better off than many African nations. There are more than 10 people in India that are wealthy, there is a thriving middle class. The fact that not everyone lives in a suburb with a car in every garage proves nothing. The only nations that have such a capacity consist of a couple hundred people, such as the Vatican City.
    If India and China were as thriving as you claim, then why did they fail so greatly against the Europeans. Unlike the Americas, they had prior interactions with the Europeans giving them immunity to diseases in addition to access to comparable technology. The fact is the dynastic cycle of China created scenarios which the Europeans could enter and intervene. In addition, back then, there were still poor people who welcomed European trade.

    Reply
  • G

    Gordon KirchnerNov 4, 2009 at 9:46 pm

    I have to say, I have never been one who followed an old adage like “respect your elders.” I am more of a follower of a much more logical adage, “Respect is earned, not given.” I don’t discriminate by age at Prospect, and neither do many of our activities. Our current Student Council president is a great example of this, being in his second year as president if memory serves. A more national example would be current President Obama, being chosen by the electoral college despite his age and therefore inferred lack of experience.
    Thus, I find graduating classes to be a poor analogy to how social classes keep a society functioning properly. In fact, society at prospect in general makes a poor example of why social classes are a good thing, because in a school scenario, upper class people(people in Honors/AP classes as you said) are not preventing lower class people(people in regular classes) from succeeding, they are partially prevented by their own natural talent and intelligence and partially by their own effort. In a society where classes, or a caste system as you put it, truly helps it function, the upper class people get where they are by exploiting those of the lower class. This is the sad, but true fact. The rich business owners exploit the poor workers by keeping them in their low paying jobs, thus the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer.
    And you know what? Thank whatever deity you believe in for that, because I certainly don’t want my hard work going to benefit the lazy or stupid people. If we let them rise up, then we have no one willing to do those jobs, and then society just stops working. So, go on exploiting the poor, better that than making the rich a crutch for the rest of society.

    Reply
  • J

    Jon GravenNov 4, 2009 at 9:46 pm

    Andy, it is absurd to argue that the “U-knight”-ing of the school will lead to a dilution of activities through broad equalization. The campaign is merely meant to foster a sense of pride and community within the school in response to a notably lackluster showing of school spirit in recent years. While I do not support the campaign wholeheartedly as a result of its unbearably condescending tone, the ideals that it promotes, such as unity and respect, are admirable. So far as I am aware, there is no mention of the destruction of ability based strata. Instead, the main focus is to promote appreciation for the natural talent of our peers and to broaden the rather narrow ability of the common high schooler to accept others differences. I believe it is quite a stretch to extrapolate these messages to your horror scene of communistic inefficiency and apathy.

    Reply
  • N

    NTNov 4, 2009 at 8:08 pm

    @ Jake.
    To call India well-off now because, sixty years after independence, it is the 12th largest economy in the world is a joke, considering that hundreds of millions still live in extreme poverty, and also considering that, prior to imperialism, India (along with China) was the wealthiest and most economically powerful region in the world. Imperialism is good for the one doing the controlling, not the one being controlled, and it’s ridiculous to claim otherwise …

    Reply
  • M

    MirandaNov 4, 2009 at 7:17 pm

    P.S I do not agree with your connections. I find this more a “respect your elders” situation. And no offense but this is the first time I have ever agreed with you.

    Reply
  • M

    MirandaNov 4, 2009 at 7:04 pm

    Okay so i am both a freshmen and I am almost positive that I am in this gym period. I must say that I sort of agree with you. As much as due not appriciate being shoved in lockers, tripped down stairs, and almost being run over by cars, I due have a certain amount of respect for all the upperclassmen. If I am in this gym class (which the more I think about it I am) I have to admit that some the kids that I know playing flicker ball are not of the greatest kids in terms of respecting anyone, including teachers, so they as a small percentage they are not a good example of the class of 2013.

    Reply
  • S

    Sir Jake GoodmanNov 4, 2009 at 4:21 pm

    @ Beth
    1. Without the British “imperialism” of India, do you really believe that they would have integrated so well into modern society that India would be one of the world’s top 20 economies. It is specifically because of British influences, including learning English, that India has a leg up on much of the competition.
    2. While your correlation/causation argument has some merit, history shows more than just a correlation. Whenever great societal upheavals occur where the entire societal norm is destroyed, the Communist Revolution, the French Revolution, and so on, there is always following turmoil until something similar reasserts itself, such as Napoleon becoming Emperor of France post revolution.
    3. The structure of Honors vs Normal is inherently segregated. Through my time at Prospect, I took 2-3 classes, other than gym, with regular students and always felt out of place. There is entirely different cultures that occur. In fact, whenever I did attend such a regular class, I usually was superior at the assigned tasks. Without being conscious in class, I was able to get the best grades. On assignments I could wing them in 5 minutes and outdo everyone around me.
    It is a natural fact that people are inherently unequal, otherwise we could all be paid billions by the Yankees or win a Nobel Prize, well maybe the second is a bad example. While some may call this elitism, I call it reality.
    @ NT
    1. Ask around, I know in my life that I have found people that are several years younger than me now have a tendency to be ruder than I believe I ever was. This is possibly due to society preaching the fact that everyone can be a winner. Since they each consider themselves to be the best, a winner, there is less of a rational reason to respect others, losers.
    2. Rudeness is not caused by the campaign, as much as similar campaigns are to try and contradict such actions, and fail.
    3. The argument is an extrapolation of the concept of the U-Knight. The ideal end result of such a name and program is to try to break down barriers between people to create one school community. However this is inherently flawed because part of the point of this newfound unity is to cheer for people who are superiorly skilled who do not need such a community.
    4. Without any sort of campaign there can still be school unity. The belief that students will not feel that they are superior to the likes of Elk Grove and Hersey without having T-shirts with giant U’s on them is flawed.
    5. I find it funny how you mention the US as your argument against classes. Other than the electoral college, an institution meant to prevent the inferior masses from making mistakes, the original method of senatorial election, which left out the common people completely, and the make-up of the Founding Fathers, rich, white, landowners, there are hundreds of other institutions, both formal and informal, in our country that promote such an argument.
    6. Both the hands off rule and growth are easily possible. As seen with many European colonizations, they sought to “civilize” the natives by making them more European. By taking a hands off approach, the British allowed the Indians to retain their culture, including the caste system, that created a scenario for prosperity.
    7. Sectarian violence increased after the British left in 1947, which lead to the accepted leaving of Pakistan from India following the First Kashmir War in 1948.
    8. India did grow prosperous, and the British rule set it up for today, where it is the 12th largest economy in the world. I would call that prosperous.

    Reply
  • R

    RobNov 4, 2009 at 4:16 pm

    Mr. Barr you’re correct in saying that social rigidity and division do create a semblance of order, and one need only go as far as American history to see proof of this; it’s called the American Southeast.
    For hundreds of years a social structure where Afro-Americans were kept to a subhuman stature allowed for the blossoming of “Southern Gentlemen” while the vast majority of white citizens lived in abject poverty. After emancipation, conditions stayed the same with no redress of grievances for any of the South’s poor as whites were comforted by Jim Crow laws.
    Ceding your point, I ask what minority group must now bite the bullet for the welfare and stability of the country? Will it be those of Hispanic heritage, or should we just return to those of African lineage? I’m just itching to do away with all that cumbersome civil rights legislation.
    In all serious if you were as much a “conservative” as you claim to be then you would be comfortable with societies that do not submit themselves to ideologies which curb liberty in order to avoid turbulence. Get over it.

    Reply
  • H

    Helena DaisyNov 4, 2009 at 12:29 pm

    True story. Freshman are getting a little too balls-y — maybe because they’re not as short as they (we) used to be? I remember as a freshman, having senior friends and thinking I was the bees knees! Freshman now think they’re “too cool” to be in awe of us and all of our superior intelligence, wit, physical dominance, etc.
    No, no. Bad froshies.

    Reply
  • N

    NTNov 4, 2009 at 12:01 am

    I’ve read your past blog posts and disagreed, but I could, in those cases, see the argument behind them and I respected them for that, at least.
    This column, though, is something else.
    First of all, in the end of your post, you try and prove that civility and deference on the part of current underclassmen has decreased. Let’s assume that this is true, which is dubious enough, considering you managed to draw a conclusion about the relationships of thousands of students based on a single incident.
    Regardless, if it is true, how can you just assume that this seemingly traumatic experience that you underwent at the hands of a freshman was a result of the “U-Knight” campaign?
    A far more likely explanation is that this particular freshman was simply one of the “bad apples” in his class. Each class – even yours – has such people, and their nastiness isn’t caused by a feel-good slogan hawked by the school administration.
    You then try to draw the even more tenuous connection between a simple, easy-to-remember slogan (U-Knight) and what basically amounts to communism. What you seem to be saying is that this slogan is the first step down the road to a society where, for lack of a better word, dumber people can take advanced classes, weaklings can play defensive end on the football team, and the tone-deaf can play in the band, mixing up what you see as the natural order of things.
    I don’t see the logic behind such assertions. Just because the U-Knight campaign seeks to establish a greater sense of identity and community at Prospect certainly does not mean it is intended to lead to any of the effects that you have tried to link to it. In fact, it’s quite the opposite. The campaign allows students to, like you said, self-segregate based on interest and ability levels, but still retain a sense of group identity. All sorts of institutions do this very thing, including the United States, which remains united not because of the equality of opportunity that you so fear, but because all factions of the nation, in a fabric of nationalism, patriotism, and common interest. The U-Knight campaign is the same thing, at the school level.
    There might be an argument worth making in favor of a aristocratic, socially segregated and unequal society along the lines of what you seem to support. But trying to make connections where none exist isn’t the way to go about making it.
    I’d also like to point out some of the mistakes comments about the British Raj.
    You write: “after the Sepoy Rebellion of 1857 and other consequent insurgencies against colonial rule, the British began to slowly adopt a “hands off” approach to governance.”
    You follow this by saying that because of the “hands off” approach by the British, ethnic tensions arose between Hindus and Muslims as well as a blurring of the caste system. Disregarding the fact that religious tensions had been a part of India hundreds of years before the British ever got off their island, you follow by stating that, ” From 1858 until 1947, the continuation of this class system afforded India a period of great prosperity.”
    So in the very same time period you say that:
    1. “Hands off” British rule diluted the caste system – mixing the classes
    2. Yet, “the continuation of this caste system afforded a period of great prosperity.”
    So which one is it? On one hand, you say that the the caste system was weakened and this led to sectarian violence and the creation of India and Pakistan. On the other, you say that the caste system remained strong and this was the reason India ‘grew prosperous’ (despite the fact that this isn’t true).
    You’ve mangled the history already, but now you have to choose between one of your butchered versions – you can’t have both.
    Anyways, I like to hear your perspective, but do some more research and support your main point with applicable facts. Drawing misguided historical parallels doesn’t do a whole lot for your argument and neither does drawing a broad, general conclusion based on a sole incident. I’m sure that the vast majority of this year’s freshman class is just as morally virtuous as your own class was.

    Reply
  • M

    Mike UhlarikNov 3, 2009 at 10:42 pm

    true story.

    Reply