The _____ _______was a social system developed 1000's of years ago and still exists in rural villages in India
962623
Caste System. U got ur ans. I got my points.
622285
It goes far far back to the acient time, male dominated society.
324266
No.  The whole concept of nation-states was well established at that time.  There were few barrier to the movement of human beings as there are today.
826481
Well, a feudal society is very regulated - every one is kept in their place. The poor peasants have no money, they're all using the bartering system to get what they want, the only way for people to make money is to be a merchant (ie sell on products made by other people), but you can't buy any good to sell if you don't have any money! Also they all live in very small towns - every one knows that you are a peasant and you can't pretend to be someone else. There is no transport so you can't get away from your village and even if you walked away, you'd turn up in the next village looking shabby and everyone would be suspicious of you because you're an outsider.\n\nSo -\nlack of physical currency \nlack of possessions\nlack of control over personal circumstances\nlack of transport\nsmall population\nlack of control over means of production (ie they don't own the things that are making money)\nattitudes (peasants deserve to be poor)\n\nIt wasn't until people started to become merchants that any social mobility was possible. It all comes down to money in the end!
826729
its been millions of years
609865
Brace yourself - this is long, but hopefully worth your time. Here goes---> During the 10 million years humans were living as nomads, there was no concept of locking up food... food grew and walked around outside, and people went out when they were hungry and killed something or picked something and ate it. There was always farming, because they recognized that fruit came from seeds - and it does not take a genius to think to poke a few seeds into the dirt so there would be more of the plants they liked best when the tribe came back that way again. But then there were a few people who wanted more of the favored foods than they had before, and they invested more time in farming. And then there were those who wanted still more, and still more. Those few tribes became settled in the area of the Fertile Crescent and farmed like crazy. They consequently wound up with a surplus of food, which led to a boom in population (that's a no-brainer). And when some said that it was silly to keep working in light of this surplus of tasty eats, it was pointed out that the tribe was bigger. And when some folks still felt lazy and missed the good old days of lounging about visiting and snacking on whatever was around, someone got the great idea that the people would have no choice but to work if the food was kept locked away - people would get so much food for so much work. And guards were appointed to mind the stores, which kept them from all that gardening (and for which they were probably grateful). And always this new surplus, and always more babies. So eventually there is a need for more land for farming, and the best way to get that is to kill off the neighbors - which they could do, since their numbers were greater and they had the food to sustain them through long campaigns of war. And so it went, on and on, until that one culture who decided to plunk themselves down in one spot spread all over the world. And that culture is now us. Wherever you are, if you are reading this, we are the same culture. So that's pretty much what happened. It was not necessarily this general "giving up" of the nomadic ways... it was forced. And the 2 big complexities we enjoy because of that are 1- WORK, as we know it. Management. Trading your services for money to get food (because if you could figure out how to eat without slaving at you crap job all day, would you bother to show up?)and 2- WAR, as we know it. Before this time, tribes were like Native Americans. There were skirmishes at their borders and the occasional night raid, but no one was trying to utterly destroy one another, which is what happened to tribes that tried to have the Fertile Crescent Totalitarian Agrarists Society as neighbors... and is still happening to "tribes" who resist the encroachment of our culture today. Wow, I got on a roll there. I think I'll take a nap now.
376387
Indians had a different idea of possesion than we do.  They're idea was one where the community owned personal property, to be borrowed and passed around for what little they had.  We have a personal view of ownership.
1187606
What old culture are you referring to?\n\nIn India you will see the traditions that have been passed down for hundreds of years.  India is an oxymoron of sorts.  It still operates as it has for thousands of years...yet they live in a modern world.\n\nWhat is the old culture? Past dynasties?
1102445
Agriculture\n\nAbout two-thirds of all Indians derive their livelihood directly from agriculture, a proportion that is not much smaller than it was at the beginning of the 20th century. The area cultivated, however, has risen steadily and is now considerablymore than half of the nation's total area, a proportion matchedby few countries in the world. Inthe more fertile regions, such as the Indo-Gangetic Plain or the deltas of the eastern coast, the proportion of cultivated to total land often exceeds 90 percent.\n\n\nAlthough the average farm size is only about five acres (two hectares) and is declining, that figure masks the markedly skewed distribution of landholdings. More than half of all farms are less than three acres in size, while much of the remainder is controlled by a small number of relatively affluent peasants and landlords. Most cultivators own farms that provide little more than a bare subsistence for their families. Further, nearly one-third of all agricultural households own no land at all and, along with many submarginal landowners, must work for the larger landholders or must supplement their earnings from some subsidiary occupation, often the one traditionally associated with their caste.\n\nAgricultural technology has been undergoing rapid change inIndia. Government-sponsored, large-scale canal irrigation projects, begun by the British in the mid-19th century, were greatly extended after independence, but there has been a shift in emphasis toward deep wells (called tube wells in India), often privately owned, from which water is raised either by electric or diesel pumps. Important in several parts of India, especially the southeast, is “tank” irrigation, in which water is drawn from small reservoirs created along the coursesof minor streams.\n\nThe demand for chemical fertilizers also has been steadily increasing, although since the late 1960s the introduction of new hybrid, high-yielding varieties of seeds (HYVs), mainly for wheat and secondarily for  rice, has brought about the most dramatic increases in production, especially in Punjab (where their adoption is virtually universal), Haryāna, western Uttar Pradesh, and Gujarāt. So great has been the success of the so-called Green Revolution that India was able to build up buffer  grain stocks sufficient for the country to weather several years of disastrously bad monsoons with virtually no imports or starvation and even managed to become, in some years, a modest net food exporter. During the same period, the production of coarse grains and pulses, which were less in demand than rice and wheat, either did not increase significantly or decreased. Hence, the total per capita grain production has been notably less than that suggested by many protagonists of the Green Revolution, and the threat of major food scarcity has not been eliminated.\n\nMost Indian farms grow little besides food crops, especially cereal grains, and these account for more than three-fifths of the area under cultivation. Foremost among the grains, in terms of both area sown and total yield, is rice, the crop of choice in almost all areas with more than 40 inches (1,000 millimetres) of average annual precipitation, as well as in someirrigated areas. Wheat ranks second in both area sown and total yield, and, because of the use of HYVs, leads all grains in yield per acre. Wheat is grown mainly on the fertile soils of northern and northwestern India in areas with 15 to 40 inchesof average annual precipitation, often with supplementary irrigation. Unlike rice, which is mainly grown during the kharif (summer) season, wheat is primarily a rabi (cool-season) crop. Other important cereals, in descending order of sown acreage, are sorghum (called jowar in India), pearl millet (or bajra), corn (maize), and finger millet (or ragi). All of these typically are grown on relatively infertile soils unsuitable for rice or wheat, while corn cultivation is also favoured in hilly and mountainous reg
681848
You really need more specifics in here to help you at all.  \n\nSo many things missing...  it depends on the culture, the colonizing culture, the area being colonized, and the time period...  get me more info and I might be able to help you out.
674803
that was correct for that time of the society.\nit is redudant and has become a cog in the wheel now.\n\ni know in what context u r speaking :)\n \nvarun s bhatta
514305
at that time most families and communities were self sustaining, and the need to move outside of a village or farm/small holding was not there. only once there was industrialisation, starting primarily in uk with the industrial revolution, did large scale migration from rural areas into newly developing towns begin. this was to take advantage of jobs and to increase wealth etc. there wasnt transport available either so most people probably stayed very close to wherever it was they were born.
414288
It's been going on for as long as humans have been dividing themselves into groups.
830456
Apparently this is a book that deals with the Agrarian Age\nhttp://www.worldcatlibraries.org/wcpa/ow/7f2ab8cafa4c6901.html\nAnd then there was this.\nBy W. Gerald Rainer, MD\nIn his book The Third Wave, Alvin Toffer arbitrarily divides recent time into three periods:\n\n·         I. Agrarian Age ca 8000 BC - 1700 AD\n\n·         II. Industrial Revolution 1700 - 1955\n\n·         III. Technologicval Age 1955 - Present\n\nDuring the Agrarian Age, man stayed and worked near home, did little traveling, measured time by the sun, and had little distant communication.\n\nWith the advent of the Industrial Revolution, man responded by becoming subservient to routine: 8-5 workdays, alarm clocks, working outside the home, early devices for more distant communication, and travel, sometimes for relatively long distances.\n\nPresently, during the Technological era (arbitrarily defined as the beginning of jet travel) and with increasingly sophisticated means of travel and communication, man finds him/herself less constrained by regular work hours and workplaces. Much work can be performed out of the home (if one wishes) and at any time of the day or night. Travel is rapid and communication almost instantaneous.\n\nThe relative durations of these three periods:\n\n·         Nearly 10,000 years\n\n·         205 years\n\n·         50+ years\n\ngive us reason to pause and reflect upon the incredible rapidity with which change is taking place, and makes one wonder how fast and in what manner new developments will be thrust upon us in the near future.\n\nUsing various modalities such as video conferencing, telephone communications, e-mails, and interactive programming, the need for large scientific congresses and seminars has been questioned. Considerable economic savings can be had by avoiding travel expenses, costs of convention housing and exhibition facilities, and staff planning expenses. Virtual meetings can be conducted without the need for one to leave home or office. What a remarkable possibility compared with only a few decades ago!\n\nWhat's wrong with this picture?\n\nAs economical and efficient as this high-tech scenario is painted, certain indipensible elements are missing --- the enormous and lasting value of human interchange; the handshake; the eye to eye contact; the opportunity for contemporaneous discussion and debate; the opportunity to make lasting friendships based on close professional and personal relationships; and the ability to collaborate freely with colleagues for the purpose of jointly developing new ideas, techniques, and novel approaches to problems because of the environment made possible only by intimate discussion and contact, and impossible by our wonderful, highly efficient modern technology that is so marvelous and yet so cold, impersonal and unfeeling.\n\nThis brings to mind the prescient observation of a philosopher of more than four centuries ago:\n\nNo man is an Iland, intire of itselfe; every man is a peece of the\ncontinent, a part of the maine; if a Clod bee washed away by\nthe Sea, Europe is the lesse, as well as if a Promontorie were,\nas well as if a Mannor of thy friends, or of thine owne were;\nAny mans death diminishes me, because I am involved in\nMankinde; And therefore never send to know for whom the\nbell tolls, it tolls for thee.\nJohn Donne Meditations XVII, 1624
529865
We would still be living like apes. I say this because in affect you could put making of basic flint tools down as a form of mechanical or engineering skills. The production of tools led on to everything we have today as they were needed to make hunting easier, to build shelter and to farm even on a small scale. As soon as these things had become something that could be done easily (or easier) the human brain had more time to think and expand in the way that it has. This is something that is still evident today, as we see kids these days doing things that we cannot even imagine doing at there age. This is because we had chores to do whereas these kids have grown up with dishwashers, on line shopping and many more such things that will free up time for them to expand in many other directions. I don't know about you but I think it's truly amazing that my nine year old brother can create his own web site called I hate Reece (my youngest brother). At nine years old I could only just about get my Commodore 64 to work.
485385
The Feudal system is where you have Lords/Ladies who own large tracts of land.  The serfs (or peasants) who live on the land participate is share cropping, where they grow crops on the lord's land and pay him to do so with part of their crop.  The Lord inturn pays money to the King/Queen.  It was hard if not impossible for a serf to move up in the caste system and they couldn't move to another lord's land because they usually stayed indebt to their lord.
683521
i just saw in the news about that rally regarding india's decision to "open up more oportunities for lower caste ppl" to go to medial school.. and i thought.. OMG! THEY STILL PRACTICE CASTE SYSTEM IN INIA?!?!?!?  DUH! ITS THE 21ST CENTURY!!!