Social Orders are bad for many reasons. One reason they are so bad is because you are born into the class and are not allowed to change. It doesn’t give you the chance to define who you are, it is given to you. In medieval time periods there were many social orders. Some of them were slaves, peasants, aristocrats, and knights. People were but in these orders based on their heritage and the rest of their family. When they are born they are already put into a social order.
People never got the chance to choose who they wanted to be. Today we have the chance to succeed and become an upper-class person. In medieval times they were stuck with what they were born with. Some peasants could be smart and have the ability to be aristocrats but they were never given the chance so they remained peasant. Slaves were slaves from the time they were born until the time of their death. They never got to be a part of any other social class. Once you were a knight you must stay a knight no matter how hard you try and how much you do not like it you will always be a knight. This forces many people in life to do things they may not feel comfortable doing or do not like doing. They never get the chance to change and they die miserable because they are forced to do things they do not want to. Social Orders always break the unity of a country. Instead of letting everyone be one and equal they have different social classes. Most of the people only associate with their social class because it is who they are with all the time. It is good to have unity in the nation because it shows that the nation is one and together fighting strong to survive. The medieval sourcebook said “a social system based on a society in which peasant agriculture is the fundamental productive activity; in which slavery is non-existent or marginal but peasants are tied to the land in some way; and in which a small elite defined by military activity dominates.” (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/sbook1i.html#Feudalism) This shows that the classes were separated and people were treated differently, not equally base on their social order. The three main social orders were monks and priests, nobles and knights, and peasants. Each of these groups were treated differently based on who they were. Peasants were treated a lot poorer then monks and priest because their social order was not as high. Peasants were similar to slaves because they could be bought and sold. They were not treated as people but more as property. Once you were a peasant you must die as a peasant. This is unfair because they never got the chance to be treated equally and were treated poorly even if they did not deserve it. They were put in their social order based on their family and could not help that. They spent their life working for their owner and doing anything as long as they were working and helping. Nobles were the ones who owned the peasants. They controlled them and lived a better life because they never had to do much work since they owned peasants. This is not good because they never learned to live on their own and do their own work. If something were to happen to their peasant they would not be able to survive without them. Power and equality is different today than it was then. Today people have the same equal rights and everyone is treated equal. The power is given to the people and not just a handful of people. People cannot be bought and sold and used like property because everyone is equal. No one is better than someone else. Although the peasants tried multiple times to became free they would get punished and always stay a peasant. “But if the slave tried to cry out, or to move from one place to another, a naked sword threatened him; and he found great enjoyment in the man's tears.” (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/575Rauching.html) The peasants tried to act out and become free but they could not. It is unfair to people who have the ability to be smart upperclassmen but they are not given the chance because of the social order they were placed when they were born. Social orders are unfair and break the unity of a nation.
Works Cited
FORDHAM.EDU. Web. 23 Apr. 2010. .
"Medieval Sourcebook: Crisis, Recovery, Feudalism?" FORDHAM.EDU. Web. 23 Apr. 2010. .
A note on style: "The medieval sourcebook said" is not a valid construction -- because it's the source "talking" not the sourcebook; the sourcebook is a collection of sources.
ReplyDeleteOne thing you may want to further explore is that concept of unity. How and when did the people of England and France become "English" and "French"? And, to get to your contemporary examples: When did the people of America become "American"?