was the caste system fair?

How do you know they are Christians? Maybe they are atheists.

But then again every human has an individual journey..Christians are no different. They don't come bunches like grapes

Good Lord but this is a stupid question, and my first and probaly accurate assessment is that oheyravenne has a paper to turn in.

Could it not be more obvious that the caste system is unfair?

Having said this, we should now consider whether the inequity of the caste system has provided a greater good to the society in which it operates.

Except to the extent that it has mollified the poor and wretched, I would argue that it has not.

Obviously, some people who are pegged as members of the lowest castes are capable of introducing great benefits to their societies. If there is a system that prevents them from benefiting society, it seems pretty clear that the system is has deep flaws.

Having said this, for a very long time, India has done pretty well with a caste system. Today it probably hinders the nation's development, but today is not yesterday.

For Americans, the idea of a caste system is horrendous, and rightly so. To the extent that it remains pervasive in India, the nation's development will be retarded.

It is amusing, however, to see Brits condeming caste systems when their nation has a long history of the same although it is named the class system.

The two are essentially the same.

Perhaps the UK has undergone a dramatic change in the lat 15 years, but I very clearly recall a moment when I was visiting a "sister office" in Leeds and interviewing two women who had jobs most would describe as supervisors.

The UK branch of my company was all about "grades." The two women with which I spoke held the grade of "D." Both of them were intelligent and hard working but both of them expressed gratitude that they achieved Grade D and no inclination that they desired to upgrade themselves.

I was there as a consultant and my report addressed this "class" system as a major point. I was also there to offer advice about a number of other problems and interestingly enough, all of my recommendations were adopted, except that which dealt with their "class" system.

So no, caste systems are not fair and neither are class systems which are the same thing without the religious imperative,

Could the military function without a system to designate different ranks? Could the military function without a division between officers and enlisted personnel?

The thread's initial question, in my opinion, is a red herring, since while a caste system may not be fair, it allows an organization/society to function more effectively when there are different levels of ability, due to history's melding of different groups.

In an organization the different grades likely correlate to pay scales. How would it be designated that some people are to have a higher pay scale than others? Grades should correlate with job descriptions that should correlate to training. Otherwise, there can just be an organization rife with petty jealousy, with little for management to counter complaints of unjust pay.

LOL the British in the Napoleon era paid one hell of a price for selling repeat selling ranks in their army to those with the proper social positions and not by merit.

With special note of when facing Napoleon forces that promoted on merit instead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Waterloo

So they won the war by throwing dollars and men at the conflict that does not means that they did not paid one hell of a higher price then they needed to or as the saying go it was a "close run thing".

Help by Napoleon being under the weather and not in tight control of the battlefield.

His Cavalry would not had been thrown away by pointless attacks on squares and artillery batteries where after over running them many times they just turn around with not even putting the cannons out of actions if he had been in good health.

The Cavalry did not even carry tools to be able to put the cannons out of action and still it was a "close run thing".

You're forgetting we won. You were comparing two systems, one where you had to buy commissions, and one where you didn't, namely France and Britain.

In the example you gave to indicate how detrimental buying commissions was, the side that sold commissions won. "Close run thing," or not, the side that didn't sell commissions lost. So, all things being equal, it would seem that selling commissions was a good thing.

This is why you don't win many arguments.

So just because you can bring far more resources to the conflict to the point you in the end overwhelmed your far more effective enemy does not mean that being ineffective is a good idea and is not very costly to you.

You decided on this example to prove a point, because you're none too clever, you decided on an example that proved the exact opposite of what you were saying.

You do this all the time.

British Army officers were (and are) mostly from the higher classes, being wealthy and usually university-educated, and many went to top fee-paying schools like Eton or Harrow where they were taught to be "good decent chaps"
That's why the troops respect and admire them, because they slog through the mud and blood of the battlefields with them, leading from the front, standing to lose all their wealth and fine homes if they're killed.
I'm currently reading the book "Six Weeks" about Brit officers in WW1, 6 weeks was the average time they lasted in the front line before being killed or wounded.
Here are the numbers of officers killed in WW1 who were from top schools (pages 25/26)-
Eton: 1157
Harrow: 644
Charterhouse: 687
Uppingham: 447
Rugby: 689
Cheltenham: 675

Incidentally Churchill went to Harrow, he was born to a rich family in a big stately home and his father was a lord.
Winston was too old to fight in WW1 but as a young officer he led men in battle in India, the Sudan and the Boer War.

Sorry Napoleon ran wild over Europe for a decade while being attacked by forces many times his size and part of his abilities to do so was his appointments of military leaders due to merit.

That in the end he was defeated does not in any way or in any manner take away from his achievements and the reasons he was able to produce those achievements.

Only a fool such as yourself would think otherwise.

Hell the fact that Grant did beat Lee have to do with the overwhelming forces that the North could bring to bear that does not mean fool that Lee was not a better military leader and the fact that the allies could in the end beat Napoleon take away nothing from either him or the system he had in placed to promote on merit.

Only a fool would choose an example that completely undermined his own case.

An only a fool like you would think that years of great success and the reasons for it would or could be nullify by being defeated in the end.

Military men including English military men to this day study Napoleon methods and will likely be doing so for a few more thousand years.

If you weren't such an idiot you would have found an example that supported your case, but instead you found one that did the exact opposite.

Something else that has escaped your attention is that selling commissions is not the same as a rigid caste system where you're stuck in one position for life. It wasn't just the landed gentry who could afford their commissions, but those who had made money through 'trade' and were looked down upon by said Aristos.

In short you made a terrible analogy and then cited an example that disproved your postulation.

Fool it does support my case one thousand percent as any military college in the world would agree that Napoleon promoting on merit was far far superior to the English method at the time and aid his many many battlefield wins.

Footnote only the fact that the British naval at the time promote far more on merit then the British army keep your little island nation of shop keepers from speaking French now in my opinion.

You've lost the argument so you resort to name calling. That's par for the course, and why nobody with even a modicum of intelligence takes anything you say seriously.

Do us all a favour and stay off the Snowden thread, your support of Snowden undermines him.

An you are not insulting LOL.

I insulted your intelligence, not your nationality. That's the difference.