The Caste System

More often than not, I've been asked what caste I was born into by the naive American, and furthermore, how it has affected my life.
 
Now there are two main problems with this:

1. I don't care what caste I was born into, even if I knew.
2. If I'm in the United States, I think it's a safe bet that it isn't affecting my life.

But there are those who truly are curious about the rigid social structure of ancient India. Unfortunately, I myself don't know much, but what truly does irritate me is that the caste system is still portrayed as a prevalent feature of modern Indian society. And though I will acknowledge that there is some presence, it should also be acknowledged that this presence is limited, and discrimination based on caste has been illegal for quite some time.

There are certain things that societies are ashamed about, and countries will often take efforts to reverse some of these actions. For example, any denial of the Holocaust in many European countries is considered illegal. Even the United States has had it's share of embarrassment: slavery, discrimination, and many other incidents. India is no different; the government is attempting to put remnants of the caste system behind it, and to compensate, quotas have been created to ensure that those of formerly lower castes have reserved seats in the most prestigious universities, etc. To clarify, it's just the Indian variant of an affirmative action program.

My only hope that is that education on international affairs in the United States will improve. I would assume that this caste system outlook is exaggerated just to make the United States look more "forward thinking", inevitably making the rest of the globe "backwards". Granted, I can't say that the U.S. is the only one doing this; every nation will do this to make themselves look better.

I was also asked if the caste system does not allow those of the lowest class any social mobility (with the presumption that the caste system is widely prevalent). My answer is simple; the caste system still exists in India to a degree, just as remnants of racism still exist in the United States. Is the homeless African American  who had been subjugated to racial hatred just a few decades earlier any different?

Savaged

Many people around the world travel to nations to experience native culture; one would travel to Japan per say, to see samurai brandishing their nihonto (sword), or possibly a traditional Maori haka dance in New Zealand. But lately, it's been hard to come to terms with the fact that these are all fake performances; these travelers are generally paying millions, if not billions of dollars to keep the beloved tourist industry going.

What if we had the opportunity to travel back in time and see the world before European colonization? The African tribes would be living in peace, and those 12 million Africans that were sent to the New World would never have had to endure the pain of the Middle Passage. Maybe the Aborigines would still flood the Australian mainland and not a single white man would have stepped foot on their native lands.

It's hard to imagine such a world. I think to myself everyday if such accomplished foreigners would be in the West had the Europeans not colonized the rest of the world. Granted, it's a trade off; a more modernized and globalized world that has lost its cultural touch.

Before you're drawn in on what Europeans would call noble savage (that's for another day), let's sidetrack a bit...

Why did this colonization happen and how is it currently portrayed?

Many say it was because Europe had just experienced a technological revolution and had a craving for luscious material goods such as spices and gold; thus, they were seeking passage to Asia. With the European might, lands such as Africa, India, Indochina, China, and the rest of the world were slowly taken over; why? Because clearly these natives lacked the technological advances that Europe had. I mean, as far as I see it, this is just a euphemism for calling the rest of the world stupid. 

For example, it was Europeans that invented the printing press in 1454 (Johannes Gutenberg), and even more recently, Henry Ford with the assembly line in the 20th century. Did anyone do a background check? The Chinese and Koreans were using block printing nearly 400 years earlier and the Japanese had derived an assembly line system in the 19th century, later termed as kanban.

So maybe the West didn't invent everything that they claim, but one thing that cannot be denied is that they are the first peoples to bring the entire world together as one. Before the Europeans, there wasn't one single group connecting all the continents.

Back to why it is claimed this emerged in Europe: currently, it is stated in history that the Europeans were experiencing a boom, known colloquially as the Scientific Revolution, and that other civilizations fell behind in technology. However, many fail to see that places such as South Asia, the Middle East, and East Asia were just as advanced, but yet, never resorted to colonization. For all these geographic entities, there is common unifying pattern: they either already had a systematic, peaceful method of trade or had sufficient amounts of their own natural resources. At this point, Europeans were in constant need of raw materials, and violence and warfare were the main tactics used to acquire their "necessities".

Was the globe colonized because places outside of Europe did not have the same level of advancement Europe had? In my opinion, not at all. Europe was just desperate for raw materials and was trying its hardest (maybe not in the best way) for what it could lay its hands on. Other parts of their world already had their own systems in place, eventually brought down in many cases (one example is of the Arab ships that Vasco da Gama saw on the eastern coast of India in 1498). 

I take for granted that I'm in this country, and sometimes forget what my own people went through for me to be here. But having said, I try to look beyond what's written in the history textbook...because as always, history is written by the winners. Hopefully you'll look beyond your textbook too and realize how easily we're deceived by what we've been taught. After all, half of it may be a blatant exaggeration, and unfortunately, even a lie.

Icecold Soda

LONG TIME NO BLOGGING! My parents said I should probably blog at least weekly if I want to find success on this blog, but that's been difficult in the midst of AP Exams, the ACT, and SAT II's, thus the hiatus.

Today I'll just blog about what's on my mind and avoid any current events.

Don't they always give you ice when you visit a fast food restaurant? I mean, half the glass is full of ice and when it melts into your drink, it tastes nasty. Why do they do that? To save money, right? That's what I thought up till about last week, but now I'm starting to doubt it. A soft drink is pretty cheap to manufacture; maybe around $0.10 for a large drink at a fast food restaurant. I bet that ice is cheaper than soda since it doesn't have any ingredients.But I'm going to assume that the water of the ice is only slightly cheaper than soda because sugar and high fructose corn syrup aren't that expensive.

And the most expensive part of the ice - the freezing. So much energy is expended in actually trying to freeze ice, I believe that it may be worthwhile to only serve ice upon request. That way, the restaurant doesn't have to expend significant amounts of energy to constantly refreeze ice. I highly doubt that people are going to come up asking for ice in the first place. Granted, that ice maker would constantly have to be running, but a smaller variant can probably replace the one most places have!

I think in the next few weeks I'll try to calculate the amount of money that is saved if this effort is taken, and how it can contribute to the American economy - a few cents throughout the nation has the potential to change the GDP significantly.