Thought Black People Had It Tough? Try Being Untouchable.

Living in the West, when I hear about discrimination I think of gender, race, religion and even age. One word that doesn't come to mind is caste but for an estimated 250 million people worldwide, caste discrimination is a serious problem. A caste is a combined social system of occupation, endogamy (marriage within a specific ethnic group), culture, social class, and political power. According to UNICEF, discrimination based on caste is prevalent mainly in parts of Asia and Africa.

The Indian caste system is comprised of four different castes, and outcasted social groups. Caste barriers have mostly broken down in large cities, though they persist in rural areas of the country, where 72% of India's population resides. In some rural areas and small towns, the caste system is still very rigid. The Government of India has officially documented castes and sub-castes, primarily to determine those deserving reservation (positive discrimination in education and jobs) through the census. The Indian reservation system, though limited in scope, relies entirely on quotas. The Government lists consist of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes.The caste-based reservations in India have led to widespread protests, such as the 2006 Indian anti-reservation protests, with many complaining of reverse discrimination against the forward castes (the castes that do not qualify for the reservation). Many view negative treatment of forward castes as socially divisive and equally wrong.

Independent India has witnessed a considerable amount of violence and hate crimes motivated by caste. Various incidents of violence against Dalits have been reported from many parts of India. Dalit is a self-designation for a group of people traditionally regarded as of lower class and unsuitable for making personal relationships. Dalits are a mixed population of numerous caste groups all over South Asia, and speak various languages.According to a report by Human Rights Watch, "Dalits and indigenous peoples (known as Scheduled Tribes or adivasis) continue to face discrimination, exclusion, and acts of communal violence. Laws and policies adopted by the Indian government provide a strong basis for protection, but are not being faithfully implemented by local authorities."

What disturbed me most when I was researching the violence against Dalits in India was the number of massacres, the latest one being the Kherlanji massacre in 2006. On September 29, 2006, four members of the Bhotmange family belonging to the Dalit underclass were slaughtered in Kherlanji, a small village in Bhandara district of Maharashtra. The women of the family, Surekha and Priyanka, were paraded naked in public then allegedly gang-raped before being murdered. Although initially ascribed by the media and by the Human Rights Watch to upper castes, the criminal act was actually carried out by Kunbi caste (classified as Other Backward Classes by Government of India) farmers for having opposed the requisition of the Dalit land to have a road built over it.

The Nepalese caste system, like the Indian caste system, is highly complex and continues the traditional system of social stratification of Nepal. The castes of Nepal have been placed into 5 hierarchies with the following order of precedence:

• Thagadhari, (Wearer of holy cord)
• Matwali
• Namasyane Matwali (Non-enslavable alcohol-drinkers)
• Masyane Matwali (Enslavable alcohol drinkers)
• Pani nachalne choichoto halnu naparne, (Impure but touchable castes)
• Pani nachalne chiochoti halnu parne, (Impure and Untouchable castes)

The supreme caste communities make ornaments, weapons pottery and others. The castes have different names: Kamis (Iron-smiths), Sunars (Gold-smiths), Lohars (Iron smiths), Vishwakarmas (V.K.), Sobh, Snehi Nepali, etc. They have been named after the professions they are found to be engaged in. For instance, one who is engaged in works related to gold is a Sonar; one who constructs a house or makes pots is an Od; the person who makes things out of copper is a Tamta.

However, Nepalese society is clearly split into touchables and untouchables as touchables have no marital relation with them, and do not allow them to enter their houses. The situation of caste-based untouchability existing in the country depends heavily on what region of the country you are in. Untouchability exists in its extreme form especially in the hills and mountains of the remote western region. Untouchable castes have been prohibited from their entrance into temples and other public places. For instance, the untouchables are not allowed to enter the fair held annually at Dehimandau in Baitadi district and open stalls. They have to sit outside restaurants and wash eating utensils. At many places there also exists the practice of sprinkling water for purification. Milk and milk products are not given to the untouchables to drink and eat.Untouchable boys and girls are discriminated even at public schools. They have to use separate pots for drinking water. They have also to sit separately in the class as ink is defiled with their touch.

With the advent of democracy in 1950, social discriminations started breaking down not because of any legal provisions but because of the high caste people's own initiatives. However, even this change could not abolish untouchability. Though public places were opened to low caste people in some places, the situation remained unchanged to a large extent. There has been made a legal sanction in the civil code against untouchability; however, it has turned out to be meaningless since its violation is not liable to any specific penalty.

In West Africa, the Osu caste system in Nigeria and southern Cameroon, can be traced back to an indigenous religious belief system, practiced within the Igbo nation. It is the belief of many Igbo traditionalists that the Osus are people historically owned by deities, and are therefore considered to be a 'living sacrifice', an outcaste, untouchable and sub-human. People regarded as modern-day Osu in Igboland are descendants of individuals who volunteered and were sacrificed to the various gods. These fore-fathers pledged themselves and their descendants to these gods. They enjoyed protection and privileges but were segregated from ordinary people. Osu people married, fraternized and socialized among themselves. This practice continues to this day. An ordinary Igbo person would not marry or permit any of his relations to marry an Osu person. In the few instances where this has happened, the non-Osu who married the Osu became infested and was from then on regarded as Osu.

The East African caste system in Rwanda, Burundi and eastern Congo it is known as ubuhake. The Tutsi, who comprise about 15% of the population of these areas were the ruling, Cattle-owning caste. Below them were the Hutu, the farmers who made up about 80% of the population. Fewer than 3% of the population are Twa or Pygmies. During the German authorative control over Rwanda and Burundi, the authorities reinforced the system by employing Tutsis in hegemonic (dominating, leaders) roles. The Belgian colonialists who succeeded them after World War I continued this policy, instituting 'ethnic' identity cards. After independence, tensions intensified. In 1972, Tutsis were responsible for a wholesale massacre of Hutus. In the 1990s, Hutus responded with counter-massacres. See our posts on the Rwandan Genocide to find out more (in the posts for Rwanda under 'around the world...').

While many of the discrimination towards 'untouchables' and other 'low' castes is similar to the discrimination of ethnic minorities under white people in the west, the disturbing difference is that the discrimination against so-called 'untouchables' IS STILL HAPPENING. Imagine it. Martin Luther King's dream never happened. Equality never happened. There are still signs outside shops saying "No Dogs, No Negroes". For that to still exist in the 21st century would be unacceptable and unthinkable so why is it any different for castes? I personally think a lot of it is ignorance. We simply don't know what's going on. Even I am guilty. I had heard the term 'untouchable' many times but, never knowing what it was, assumed it was an insulting name for people with leprosy or something like that. I knew a lot about the Rwandan genocide but never realised that it wasn't just a one-off situation. This post only contains a raindrop of the ocean of countries across the globe with castes and caste systems.

It can be easy to shrug and say 'what can we do?' but something CAN be done. There have been many countries like Korea, Hawai, Japan, Spanish America and England that used to have castes systems and don't any longer. There are also countries like Bali that have castes systems but there are no 'untouchables' and there is mobility within the castes so one family can contain many castes and they can marry one another. This discrimination is wrong and the first step to beating it is telling everyone its out there, its wrong and we aren't going to accept it. Tell some friends, work with the charities and touch an untouchable.

Information from:

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste_system_in_India#Modern_status_of_the_caste_system

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste-related_violence_in_India

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

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

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

To what extent is feminism a single doctrine?

Until the 1960s feminism was viewed as a sub-set of liberalism and socialism rather than an ideology. It is certain that feminism is a cross-cutting ideology, encompassing the three broad traditions of liberal traditions, socialist feminism and radical feminism, but whether it is today a single doctrine or still simply a sub-set of others can be greatly debated.

The core traditions of feminism each contain rival tendencies and have spawned ‘dual-system’ feminism and new feminist traditions have emerged, particularly since the 1980s such as Black feminism, cultural feminism and psychoanalytical feminism. It is easy, therefore, to dismiss feminism as too fragmented to form a single doctrine. Also the fact that these traditions are characterised more by disagreement than agreement suggests that they cannot form a unified ideology and are sub-sections of opposing ideologies that are likely to disagree. Nevertheless a range of common ground themes can be identified such as patriarchy, the public/private divide, equality and difference and sex and gender, so feminism is unified to a certain extent.

It can also be argued that there are rival traditions within all conventional ideologues. Classic and modern liberalism have contrasting ideas in economic versus social liberalism and positive versus negative freedom while socialists are at odds over the goal of socialism and the road to achieve that goal. In this sense feminism is completely typical of conventional ideologies.

The first wave of feminism was deeply influenced by the ideas and values of liberalism. The philosophical basis of liberal feminism lies in the principle of individualism. Individuals are entitled to equal treatment regardless of sex and so any form of discrimination against women should be prohibited. Liberal feminists also do not wish to abolish the distinction between the public and private spheres and accept that women’s leaning towards family and domestic life is influenced by natural impulses and so reflects a willing choice. The focus in liberal feminism therefore seems to be more on the liberal aspect than the feminist as they see no need to push for the sexless personhood goal of feminism but prefer the equality principle of liberalism. This means that liberal feminism can easily be argued to be only a sub-set of liberalism not a tradition within a feminist ideology.

Socialist feminists argue that the relationship between the sexes is rooted in the social and economic structure itself and only profound social change or a social revolution can offer genuine emancipation. Modern socialist feminists have found it difficult to accept the primacy of class politics over sexual politics. Again it appears that more emphasis is placed on the socialist aspect than the feminist as the main goal of feminism, to liberate women, is placed second to liberating the proletariat. Therefore social feminism can also be argued to be only a sub-set of socialism.

On the other hand one of the distinctive features of second wave feminism is that many feminists moved beyond the perspectives of existing political ideologies. They believed that gender differences were regarded as important in themselves and needed to be understood in their own terms. During the 1960s and 1970s the feminist movement sought to uncover the influence of patriarchy in all aspects of social, personal and sexual existence. Through radical feminism, feminism has therefore gone beyond other conventional ideologies which were viewed as inadequate vehicles for advancing the social role of women and criticised for harbouring patriarchal attitudes and assumptions. Radical feminism signifies an advancement in feminism as it moves from building on the ideas of other ideologies to defining its own ideas that oppose those of other ideologies. Radical feminism is therefore the one tradition within feminism that comes from and is purely dedicated to the ideas of feminism.

Before the 1960s, particularly with the first wave feminism was a set of separate doctrines that took ideas from other ideologies and moulded them for their own purpose. However during the 1960s and 1970s when the radical feminism formed, feminism changed from being a combination of different doctrines to a single ideology. This is because traditions were able to form solely out of the ideas of feminism, making it strong enough to stand out of the ideas of feminism, making it strong enough to stand as an ideology in its own right. Indeed the number of new feminist movements that arose in the 1980s such as cultural feminism and black feminism emphasize this point further as they are tradition which build on the ideas of feminism, just like feminism previously built on the ideas of liberalism and socialism. Therefore, though in its early days it was a set of different doctrines, feminism has now grown and defined itself as not just a single doctrine, but a single ideology encompassing a number of doctrines.

The Russians Are Coming

This channel 4 documentary follows Russian international property broker Dina Karpova, who is capitalising on Russia's love for all things English. Dina is an agent to the super-rich in Russia, who want their children to attend the top British schools and so high-tracking them into British high society. Dina says “our clients do want to go to top schools, they do want their kids to be with best British families and be friends with them. There is not one company in Russia that works with top schools or prepares children to go to top schools. The only choice is me.” There are, however, school agents in the Middle East and Asia doing all they can to get their students into schools in the UK. “Competition is fierce, there is no question about it. Now a lot of british schools cap the number of foreign students. You compete with a lot of asian kids who are breeded like racehorses to get into the system".

Dina found this niche in the market when her own son, Ivan, began boarding at Westminster, one of the best public schools in England. Ivan, who speaks with a British accent, boards at Westminster while Dina lives in Moscow. Ivan had a very cosmopolitan upbringing. She wanted to expose him to a lot of culture so he lived in Russia in his early years, then the US and now Britain.

Dina on the other hand had a very different upbringing to Ivan. She wasn’t allowed to speak to foreigners. Her parents were physicists working on top secret nuclear weapons for the government. She had a serious lack of freedom but had a high standard of living. She graduated as an aerospace engineer but the breakdown on communism in the 1990s brought down her privileged life as they were owed a years worth of salary by the government, they had sold everything and had no money. She moved to new York and became a successful businesswoman.

According to Dina “it is quite a trend now in Russia to send your children to England” and “our clients want to match the culture, they don’t want to be seen as Russians”. Charles, an educational consultant that works with Dina, said “traditionally a lot of the great schools have educated a lot of the ruling families so that culture is there and the new Russians are doing their very best to replicate the lifestyles of the tsarists elite and part of that is being educated in the west”. Dina's client in the documentary wants his 11 year old son and stepson to go to a British public school. Dina sends her clients children on a residential course that would introduce them to the English aristocracy and teach them how to blend in. First they learn how to play polo. Dina tells them that if they play polo they will become part of high society. Then they learn how to shoot and one of the teachers messed up the boys room and then instructed them how to clean it and keep it when they are staying at a persons house, like showing them how their bed should be made and what to do after having a bath. They also had intensive academic training to help with the entry exams for the schools. They are also taken with their parents to visit Stowe, one of the top public boarding schools. They are shown around the school by a student who also moved from Russia and soon fall in love with it. The boys and their parents then go on to visit many other schools. The boys receive a conditional offer from one of the public schools and so if they achieve the needed results in January, they will move from Russia to England to attend the school. Charles says “it never ceases to amaze me how brave they are, coming to a new country often speaking only a few words of the language and having to adapt”.

Looking into the future, Dina predicts “that Britain is going to play a huge part in Russian future and I think that is a fantastic thing because these kids will merge the cultures, they’re not going to fight”. Charles adds that “Britain is an extraordinary country in the way that we can integrate so many different people from ethnic backgrounds”.

Image is of Stowe School in Buckinghamshire.

If you live in the UK, you can watch this documentary here

Tower Block of Commons: Episode 4

In the final programme, the MPs try to complete the challenges they set themselves and looks at what they do after they have gone back to their regular lives.

Conservative MP Tim Loughton has set up a football tournament for the local youths against the police that he hopes to make a permanent event in the area, to give the youths something to do other than join gangs. Despite many young people from the area attending, only 2 police officers turn up. Extremely frustrated, Tim and the youths have the game without them. Before leaving, Tim bought his host Natina a toilet seat and attached it. Natina said "to me, he seemed like he was being himself" and Natina's mother said "if he was the MP for our constituency, I would vote for him".

Liberal Democrat MP Mark Oaten continues to get a date for when the tower blocks will be demolished. He manages to arrange a meeting with the head of housing from the council to discuss when the tower blocks could be demolished. Unfortunately, the council cannot afford to knock down the blocks because they have to pay £20 million to central government to pay off other council's debts. The council are organising a march to radically change the system and they invited the residents to join them. They also go to hand in their petition about the tower blocks to the local council. When Mark Oaten -prepares to leave, all of his hosts and the other residents on the tower blocks thank him for all that he had done that week. Mark became quite emotional, saying that "you spend a lot of time in this job being disliked as an MP" and it's nice hearing that you've helped them and how nice you are.

Conservative MP Nadine Dorries spends her final night with a new host, 20 year old Jonathan: "I'm too big a fan of the conservatives. They think poor people are poor just because they are lazy. Jonathan lives with 4 other room mates in the 3 bedroom flat and they have no electricity. Using a network of extension wires, they get electricity from the plugs in the hallways outside: "we are currently stealing off the council". Jonathan was expelled from a prestigious local comprehensive 4 years ago, has no qualifications and is unemployed. He admits to Nadine that he is unable to hold down a job because of constant late mornings due to an addiction to weed. Nadine tries to get Jon clean and give his life a purpose. She asks him his ambitions and he tells her that he wants to be a liaison officer between youth and government, because he feels there's too big a gap at the moment. Nadine however questions him for aiming so low and asks why he has to be a middle man, why can't he become an actual councillor. Jon, believing you had to have a degree to go into politics, was surprised to hear from Nadine that you don't at all and that she herself doesn't have a degree. Nadine also talks to Jon about his view of the conservative party and their leader David Cameron. He talks about how David Cameron reminds him of the rich conservative students at his old comprehensive school that made his life "hell" and the characteristics like his "smirk" and the way he talked and moved. Jon became very emotional talking about how the kids had looked down on him and treated him horribly because he wasn't rich like them. When Nadine left, Jon said that "she has lit the way a little bit and I can now make out the next stepping stones".

Labour MP Austin Mitchell is trying to get a youth centre reopened. He got it onto the local news and radio. Lindsay said "he did pull some strings and did things we couldn't have done but he could of done more". Talking of leaving the tower blocks, Mitchell said "to tell you the truth I'd rather stay here and not go back to London. It's so removed from all the stupidities of politics".

On leaving the tower blocks, all of the politicians say that they will never take anything for granted again. Two weeks later, Tim Loughton invites ex gang member Jason from Youth Disciples to talk at a conservative conference about gang violence. Mark Oaten called Sloane to catch up on the action groups progress. He is anxious that they haven't met since he left and haven't got a date for a new meeting. Nadine takes Jon to visit the Houses of Parliament and gives him a surprise visit from David Cameron to show him that his impressions based on the kids he used to know aren't correct. When David asks Jon what he thinks about politics, he said "a bit of everything. I enjoy it, I despise it. I think its fun, I think its dangerous. There's just so many things wrapped up in it. But I think its so important because what comes from politics affects everything." Austin returned to his estate to find out that the youth centre is still closed and that they are waiting for funding bids to come back. Mitchell's wife said "it doesn't seem we've achieved anything".

Two months later, Mark goes back to the estate to meet Candy and finds out that Mark and Alan and Sloane have been moved into council houses while Candy's flat flooded again. The action plan has so come to a halt, having all been left to Candy. He manages to organise the residents Cathy and Candy to come along to their local councils rally to change the system at 10 Downing Street.

In January 2010, Oaten also spoke to government housing minister about the situation, who said that he will soon announce plans to dismantle the current system but no set date has been made. Oaten doesn't think that he has made a difference. Tim Loughton secured funding to ensure the youth can play regular football. The local police finally agreed to a game and the score was Tim's team 4 - 10 local police. Nadine has sent Jon to rehab for his weed addiction and he is considering becoming a local councillor. Austin Mitchell said "I was more of an observer and I should have done more with the agitating and campaigning...too late”.

Read about episode 1 here

Read about episode 2 here

Read about episode 3 here

Do you think the politicians have made a difference? Do you think that they learnt anything from the experience? Leave us a comment and let us know!

Tower Block of Commons: Episode 3

In this episode the MPs stay with people who need their help to discover how much power an MP really has.

Nadine Dorries is staying with 69 year old widow Ruth. When asked whether she likes her area, she says she used to but not any more. There used to be a British Legion across the road but "somehow the Somalians bought it and turned it into a mosque". Ruth is frustrated by them parking on double yellow lines and praying on the pavement, so people cannot use it and, as Nadine put it, "the laws that everyone else has to abide by are not being adhered to". Nadine puts on a headscarf and Muslim dress, then goes to speak to the Imam to talk about the problems with obstructing the footpath and parking on the double yellow lines. Despite the Imam defending that they are on their land, Dorries says "tensions begin when one particular group or another feel that they can behave differently or not adhere to the laws that other people have to adhere to." Clearly insulted, the Imam tells Dorries of all the work they have done for the community, such as clearing out the heroin needles and stopping the drug addicts from using the building. Later that night Dorries says "I do want to make people's lives better and when you come face to face with what you do... I've realised that quite often what politicians do is make people's lives worse". The next day Dorries finds out how resentful some of the residents are towards the new Mosque and comes up with the idea of having a barbecue to get the two communities to mix together and talk. Ruth however doesn't think she'll "get much support". Dorries then goes to speak to the Imam, who is very unhappy to see her saying he didn't want to see her again and "was very hurt" by her "tarnishing the building making it feel like we're some suicide bombers" and forgetting all that they have done for the community. Nadine tries goes to other members of the Mosque to get support and finds Anab, who insists that to be with the Somalian community that Nadine needs to get a Somalian outfit. Once wearing the full dress, Nadine says "it feels nothing like me, it feels like a different person". As the barbecue is about to begin, Nadine realises that at the moment only the Somalian community have come and is worried that no one from the estate will join them. She says that "It just dawned me... that I may have made things worse" as if only the Mosque community turns up, things may get worse. Fortunately, Ruth arrives and so do some more eventually and the 2 communities begin to talk. The Imam comes down to see what is happening and admits he is "a little bit impressed". As they talk they discuss the problems and begin to work on building relationships and a better merge of their two communities. Later on, Ruth tells Dorries that "its been lovely having you here, i've really enjoyed it and the things that you've done I think are magnificent".

Austin Mitchell is staying with Lindsey, a volunteer at the last youth centre on the estate called The Chill Out that is in danger of closing down from lack of funding. It provided a safe haven for young people on the estate and rans classes on everything from how to write a CV to putting on a condom under the influence of drink and drugs. Lindsey says that without the club there is a very bleak outlook for the kids and "to have a bleak outlook at 15 is just sad". Austin speaks to one of the youths, asking what it does for him and he said it "keeps us out of trouble, helps us look for a job and is everything we need really. Without this place we're nothing". When the youths ask Mitchell if he can help, he says "there's nothing I can do, it's not my constituency". Unhappy with this response, one of them replies "so just because it isn't your area you aren't going to do anything". Mitchell then goes on the defence saying "you can't turn to me, you've got to help yourselves". When Mitchell asked the youths what they would do went it closed down, they replied "go back to a life of crime". Everyone wants the club to stay open: the youths, the volunteers and the parents. One parent shows Mitchell a used heroin needle she picked up from outside and says "once my daughter came home with one of them in my mouth, she was in hospital every week for blood tests". When the Chill Out closes completely, Austin discusses what he can do with his wife saying "its a serious question, what does a politician do for people, what do government do for people. That's a real problem." The next day Austin tries making calls to reopen the youth club by publicising it and getting public opinion to pressure the council to give them funding. Austin also joins local young offenders on community service, picking up rubbish. He speaks to one of the offenders who is doing community payback for a crime he committed before joining the Chill Out centre and says that now it is closed, he has nowhere to go. If he had somewhere to go, he would be less likely to offend because he would have something to do. Mitchell said he "never realised it was so simple...thought it was giving playstations and such but actually it’s just a roof with a meeting place to sit and talk”. Mitchell's phonecalls and emails have paid off as news of The Chill Outs closure will be broadcast on local television. Mitchell admitted that “politics is a matter of priorities and unless a problem is... kicking you up the backside its gets postponed and gets ignored”.

Tim Loughton is staying with Adrian who hates the estate saying that there is no safety and he once had a knife put against him in the stairway when he was coming home and there are always people doing drugs. He keeps a large stick in every room for safety. Loughton tries to find out more about the gang violence in his area and finds an organisation called Families for Peace, dedicated to raising awareness of the effect gang violence has on families. Tim met Debbie, whose nephew Aaron was shot outside her house in 2005 and is now stuck reliving the memory. He also spoke to Aaron's father, who showed him the box with Aaron's ashes in it. When talking about the experience later "no one except a robot could have had that experience and not have been moved". Families for Peace put Tim in touch with Jason, an ex-gang member who served 2 years in prison for drug related offences and when he was released found many of his friends had been murdered. He now works for Young Disciples, an organisation that attempts to give youngsters an alternative to gang life. Tim wants to talk to someone of the youths themselves, but the difficulty is finding ones that are willing to be identified. They eventually manage to speak to one boy who keeps his hood up and face down the entire time so his face cannot be seen. Tim asks the youth to explain postcode wars to him. Postcode wars are when groups of people fight one another because of the different areas that they live in. Tim tried to get an explanation as to why this happens, but the youth couldn't give one, only able to say that "you've got to stay loyal" and “you’ve got to protect your turf”. The youth admits that he doesn't feel safe but says that "there's no point in living in fear all your life. You just get over it and do what you've got to do." When asked how to fix the problem, he replied "just give us something to do". After the interview, Tim said he had never before realised "the pointlessness of it all" and called it a "sobering" experience. It makes you "appreciate what you've got and what you've come from" and "you value life more when you speak to people who lost it and who wont have the chance to go back and regain it". The next day Tim goes to speak to more youths to try and find up what they would like to see happen. The suggestion of football arises and Loughton asks about setting up a football tournament between them and the police. Jason takes Tim to see the Young Disciples facilities and on talking to one youth, finds out that the organisation keeps him out of trouble and if it wasn't there, he would be back out on the streets. Later that night, Tim's host Adrian says that he thinks Tim's exploration of the gang culture has really "opened his eyes" and even "shocked him a little bit".

Mark Oaten is staying with civil partners Mark and Alan in their flood damaged flat. Mark Oaten's campaign from the first episode has continued and in fact grown as he has gotten all of his hosts, Cathy, Sloane and now Mark and Alan interested and involved. He puts up signs for a meeting for residents in the evening but then finds out that the council has come and taken them down. A furious Oaten said “it’s like they’re saying we don’t want you to talk together because when you talk together you might get dangerous”. He doesn't give up however, and puts his leaflets through peoples letterboxes instead. Nervous about whether anyone shows up to his meeting, Oaten is excited to find nearly 30 people have shown up and to hear that more people will be coming. Oaten is keen to hand over the campaign to the residents so they can do it when he has left. The meeting begins with the residents voicing their anger about the housing and then begin discussing how to get their voices heard. The meeting attracted the attention of a BNP local councillor who began to give a speech on the horrible mistakes of Labour and basically use their meeting as an opportunity to promote the BNP. He doesn't get to speak for long, however, as Sloane interrupts him saying that "we're trying to get everyone in a positive notion here and you're just negative, negative". The other residents then join in, with one saying she "refuses to listen to the BNP" and that this "is not a party political broadcast". The BNP councillor continues his anti-Labour rant and the residents begin yelling abuse at him, almost leading to a fight. However, he eventually leaves and they get things back into control and focus on becoming active. The next day while Sloane and fellow resident Candy are making posters, a number of police cars and vans pull up to the estate and go inside. They were called to the estate after a fight between 2 families became violent. The trouble was sparked after allegations that a child was hit. Oaten says he has "never seen anything like this before but it must be bread and butter to these guys". Standing with some children, he asks how often this happens, to be told "about 3 times a month" and then begins to comfort one little girl who was scared and began crying. Afterwards Oaten said "kids shouldn't have to see that". Later that night, Oaten says "I couldn't live here."

The last episode sees the MPs prepare to say goodbye. Find out tomorrow whether they have managed to really learn anything from their week in the tower blocks!

Click here to read about episode 1

Click here to read about episode 2

Click here to read about episode 4

Tower Block of Commons: Episode 2

This episode gives the MP's the experience of bringing up children in council housing on state benefits and so they all went to live with different families. Jobseekers allowance is £64.30 a week and after paying for rent and household bills, the MPs expenses must be no more than £5 a day. While Liberal Democrat MP Mark Oaten and Conservative MP Tim Loughton comment on how difficult it will be and how tight they will have to be, Labour MP Austin Mitchell dismisses it saying "I'm not making any attempt to live on that, I think that's silly."

In episode 1, Iain Duncan Smith is replaced (because he found out his wife had cancer) by conservative MP Nadine Dorries, who did live in a council estate until she was 25 but believes things will be "very different" now. She is staying on a South Acton estate with single mums Neesha and Reena and their 8 children. The mums have very strong opinions about politicians: "I hate them because they don't do f*** all for people like me" and "you gotta be a good liar to be a politician". Austin is staying with unemployed Dave, his wife and their 3 children. Dave found Austins refusal to live on benefits for the week "disappointing" saying "anyone could do that".Mark Oaten will be staying with Sloane, her husband Mark, their 5 children and 3 cats. Tim Loughton is staying with Dean and Sarah and their 2 children who live in a 1 bedroom council house, with Dean and Sarah sleeping on the couch.

Oaten goes food shopping with his host Sloane and the family on a £150 budget. He manages to only spend £104 but is then disgusted when Sloane spends the £42 leftover on cigarettes. These vices show up in all of the different families: Dave loves to gamble on the horses and Dean is addicted to cannabis. It seems the episode is questioning the priorities of the families who are claiming to have no money. The MPs are certainly are. Oaten voices his disappointment over the cigarettes with Sloane but he is soon quietened when she looks at his MP expenses online and discovers that the taxpayer paid £116 for two irons for him. She then compared Oaten to Jekyll and Hyde, saying "you're a sweet guy and then I read all this stuff and it's like oh my God I've been lied to". Loughton has a heart to heart with Dean about his cannabis smoking and the cause behind it, finding out about Dean's troubled past, and offers him support. Austin Mitchell refuses to comment on Dave's gambling, in typical defensive politician style, claiming that it is nothing to do with the film. Austin also goes shopping with Dave, who questions him on the prices of different items. After Mitchell fails to guess the price of milk, bread and tea bags correctly, Dave said that "they say how much you need to live on but don't know how much it costs to live".

All of the MPs are then left to babysit the their hosts children. . Loughton and Oaten do the usual job of parents with young children: a lot of chasing after them and cleaning up after them. Mitchell on the other hand, is stuck as he tries to manage making dinner, leaving the baby with a full nappy (diaper). Mitchell soon finds the struggle too much and calls his wife Linda to come and help him saying that "I know it's not fair to say it's woman's work but it's not mine"

Another theme arising in this episode is immigration as Nadine Dorries host Reena has many stories to tell. First, a man from another country came and moved in to the flat beneath her and then his wife came with their "5, 6, 7" children and then on the Saturday morning, they were moved into a house. Reena was furious that after 3 months they had got a house when she had lived in London her entire life, was born in England and couldn't get a council house. Reena's last council house was taken away from her after her housing benefits were unexpectedly cut. Unable to reach an agreement to pay her rent arrears, she and her children were evicted from their home of 15 years. When Reena returned to see her neighbours, she saw that a foreign family had moved into her old house. She talks about when the bailiffs came, saying "they ripped my stuff apart" "they smashed everything right down to my kids toys. I saw them taking my kids toys and just throwing them in the back of a van".

The last issue that comes up is with the politicians themselves. Sloane asks Oaten about the stress politics has on family life and Oaten admits "yeah I screwed up my whole family life, I had an affair and screwed it all up". He talks about the scandal of sleeping with a rent boy, saying that "journalists were everywhere" and "the impact on the children was a nightmare". Tim talks about one of the problems with politics, saying "one comment wrong by politicians and its all over the papers so they have to think twice and really engage their brain before they speak and sometimes therefore skirt around what they actually want to say which is a real sadness in politics”. He also says that people have good political views but don't vote as "these people don’t make a connection between having political views and voting and that’s the fault of politicians I suppose”.

The next episode looks further at the politicians themselves as they see how they can help their hosts. Come back tomorrow to find out more!

Click here to read about episode 1

Click here to read about episode 3

Click here to read about episode 4

Did you watch this episode? What did you think? What do you think about politicians? Comment and tell us!

Tower Block of Commons: Episode 1

In the UK, the television Channel 4 is well known for its documentaries that tackle controversial but fascinating subjects. One that aired its last episode yesterday was the Tower Block of Commons which took 4 politicians and sent them to live in the roughest areas for a week so they could really experience what life is like.

The first politician was Iain Duncan Smith, the former conservative leader who said that he liked "the idea of taking politicians out of their comfort zone and making them sweat a little bit. No one ot fall back on. It's good." He would be spending the next two days on the Carpenters estate in East London with 19 year old Charise, sleeping on her sofa.

The second was Tim Loughton, the Conservatives shadow children's minister. He was sent to Birmingham's gang divided Newtown Estate. He would be staying on the blow-up mattress in the living room of single mum Natina, her 6 month old baby and her mother. On hearing where he would be staying, Loughton said "Birmingham. It's got a lot of tower blocks. And no conservative MPs".

The third was Mark Oaten, a Liberal Democrat MP that was once hinted at becoming the next Lib Dem Leader, until a sex scandal of him having sex with a rent boy. He is married with 2 children. Mark Oaten stayed in a Dagenham towerblock which he said "feels like one of those old communist blocks" and after constantly having to enter codes to get into the building, he compared it to "prison... It's like Fort Notts".

The final MP was veteran Labour backbencher Austin Mitchell who stayed in Hull but would only agree to take part in the programme if he could have his wife with him, they could bring some of their possessions and they could have their own council flat. Their first two days were helped by Selina, 29 who, before their arrival, said "these politicians don't do nothing. They're making bloody good money just for arguing in a parliament. I could be an MP". On arriving in their new home, Mitchell's wife said it "looks a bit like a prison".

For the polticians, the first part of settling in to their new lives is to change their outfits. As Mark Oatens host Cathy put it, "if you wear a suit, you’d get egged around here. The kids would egg you because you stand out too much”. The politicians clearly felt very awkward in their new attire, swapping shirts and ties for Nike and tracksuits. The culture difference in fashion was immediately made clear when Tim was laughed at by his host Natina and her mother for how he did his laces.

The politicians also has a chance to talk to their hosts and get to know them a bit better. Iain Duncan Smith asked his host Charise what she knew about politics and what politicians do etc, and she replied that she had no clue what happened in the houses of Parliament, or what politicians do and she heard that they just "sit in a room and talk". When asked about this comment from her later, Smith conceded that "politics is many miles away from what goes on here". Tim Loughton went to explore the local area and began talking to a man outside the newsagents. The man began to get angry about the MP expenses scandal, saying that politicians "are legitimate crooks...why having any of them been prosecuted?” and saying that they are "on another level". Attracted by the argument were some local youths and when Loughton began to talk to them he found out that they didn't know the name of the MP for their area, and in fact one of the teenagers didn't think there was one for their area. Later on when speaking to his host Natina, the topic of parenthood came up as Natina is a single parent and part of Conservative policy is a strong bias toward married families and bias against divorce and single parents. Loughton said that his parents had divorced when he was 12 and he was split up from his brothers and sisters to live with each parent and when asked "but don't you think it was better for them to be apart" he replied that he didn't think that way when he was 12, at that time he would have done anything to have them back together. When asked by Loughton, Natina said that she wouldn't want her baby's father back in her life but in her daughter's life. Austin Mitchell's host Selina took him to "buy a newspaper" and in fact took him to a local NHS Methadone clinic. Selina is a recovering heroin addict and has to go to the clinic everyday to take her methadone. Heroin use is a large problem in these areas, with the ground littered in used needles. Mark Oaten was shown around his host Cathy's house and disguested by the mould growing on the walls and terrible living conditions. He immediately moved into action, going outside with Cathy to try and get people to sign a petition to get something done. He began talking to a couple where the women didn't vote because politicians "don't listen" and the man voted for the BNP after switching from Labour because they "actually give a voice to a white person". He assures Oaten that he isn't racist whatsoever, a quality often assumed of supporters of the BNP, saying that many of his best friends are "coloured" and that "we're all human".

What was instantly made clear from this episode is the lack of understanding on both sides: the public have little awareness of what politicians are doing and politicians have little awareness of what the public are going through. It is therefore a two sided problem that will require the efforts of both sides to be resolved.

What also struck me as interesting was that the Labour MP, the party of the working class people, was the least willing to compromise. He didn't want to change into the new clothes, he brought his wife, he got his own council flat, brought expensive artwork and such with him and one night he and his wife went to dinner with rich friends.

Towards the end of the episode, you find out that Iain Duncan Smith found out his wife had cancer and had to pull out of the show. Asked what he thinks of what is going to come, he said "the other MPs will have to accommodate a whole other set of horizons. They are used to being the centre of attention in Parliament...suddenly they will see that they are in an area where most of the people there think that people like them will have forgotten them."

Well, to find out how true Smith's predictions are, you will have to read tomorrow when I post about the second episode!

British Political Parties: The BNP

In Britain there are three main political parties: Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrats. However there are also many small parties who try to gain support such as the Green Party, the UK Independence Party (UKIP) and the British National Party (BNP).

The BNP is a far-right political party. Until 2009, when it was challenged in the courts on grounds of racial discrimination, it restricted membership to people of "Caucasian origin". After a vote by members in a February 2010 extraordinary general meeting the party dropped this policy, with chairman Nick Griffin saying that the party will now "accept anyone as a member providing they agree with us that this country should remain fundamentally British".

The BNP seeks to restore the overwhelmingly white ethnicity of Britain that existed prior to 1948 through legal means, including "firm but voluntary incentives for immigrants and their descendants to return home", and the repeal of anti-discrimination legislation. It believes that there are significant differences between races.

The party has very little respect from other political parties and has never gained enough power to have an MP (member of Parliament). However in the 2006 English local elections the party doubled its number of seats in England. The BNP finished fifth in the 2008 London mayoral election with 5.2% of the popular vote and secured one of the London Assembly's 25 seats. They won their first county council seats in 2009 together with two seats in the European Parliament.

At its founding, the BNP was explicitly racist. In October 1990, the BNP was described by the European Parliament's committee on racism and xenophobia as an "openly Nazi party ... whose leadership have serious criminal convictions". When asked in 1993 if the BNP was racist, its deputy leader Richard Edmonds said, "We are 100 per cent racist, yes". Founder John Tyndall proclaimed that "Mein Kampf is my bible". When Nick Griffin became chairman in 1999, the party began to change its stance with regard to racial issues. Griffin claims to have repudiated racism, instead espousing what he calls "ethno-nationalism". He claims that his core ideology is "concern for the well-being of the English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish ethnic nations that compose the United Kingdom".

The BNP previously required that all members must be members of the "Indigenous Caucasian" racial group. The party does not regard non-white people as being British, even if they have been born in the UK and are naturalised British citizens. Instead, Griffin has stated that "non-Europeans who stay", while protected by British law, "will be regarded as permanent guests".

The BNP is opposed to mixed-race relationships on the stated ground that racial differences must be preserved; the party said that "when whites take partners from other ethnic groups, a white family line that stretches back into deep pre-history is destroyed." Nick Griffin stated: "...while the BNP is not racist, it must not become multi-racist either. Our fundamental determination to secure a future for white children is restated, and an area of uncertainty is addressed and a position which is both principled and politically realistic is firmly established. We don't hate anyone, especially the mixed race children who are the most tragic victims of enforced multi-racism, but that does not mean that we accept miscegenation as moral or normal. We do not and we never will".

In April 2006, Sky News confronted the party's national press officer, Phil Edwards (it has been claimed that this is a pseudonym for Stuart Russell) with a tape of a telephone conversation the previous year. On the tape, Russell could be heard to say that "the black kids are going to grow up dysfunctional, low IQ, low achievers that drain our welfare benefits and the prison system and probably go and mug you." He responded: "If I thought I was going to be recorded ... I would not have used such intemperate language, but let’s be honest about it, the facts are there".

The party states that "The BNP has moved on in recent years, casting off the leg-irons of conspiracy theories and the thinly veiled anti-semitism which has held this party back for two decades. The real enemies of the British people are home grown Anglo-Saxon Celtic liberal-leftists ... and the Crescent Horde—the endless wave of Islamics who are flocking to our shores to bring our island nations into the embrace of their barbaric desert religion".

Suggested policies to help police this "threat to all of us" include a Muslim no-fly policy, which would ban Muslims from flying in and out of the UK. The BNP erected a plaque in Oldham, Greater Manchester in memory of Gavin Hopley, a 19-year-old white man who was mugged and kicked to death by Asian Muslims in the street in Glodwick, in February 2002. The plaque was later removed by the local council.

The BNP states that homosexuality in private should be tolerated but believes that it "should not be promoted or encouraged". It opposed the introduction of civil partnerships and wishes to ban what it perceives as the promotion of homosexuality in schools and the media; and believes that homosexuality should be returned "to the closet".

BNP spokesman Phil Edwards stated that homosexuality "is unnatural" and "does not lead to procreation but does lead to moral turpitude and disease". Mark Collett, former chairman of the Young BNP and current Director of Publicity, described homosexuals as "AIDS Monkeys", "bum bandits" and "faggots" and said the idea of homosexuality was a "sickening thought".

The BNP was criticised over a list on their website titled "Liars, buggers and thieves" which grouped several gay politicians in with convicted murderers, rapists and paedophiles. The compiler of the list, BNP local councillor for Redbridge, Julian Leppert defended it and said that the reason why gay MPs were included was because "it fits in with the headline, the bugger part, I guess" and stated that the BNP are "a family party with family values".

Articles published in the Sunday Times and Daily Mail have alleged that Nick Griffin had a four year homosexual relationship with Martin Webster, although Griffin denies this. On his appearance on BBC One's Question Time on 22 October 2009, he stated in response to being asked about the death of Boyzone member Stephen Gateley, "I said that a lot of people find the sight of two grown men kissing in public really creepy. I understand that homosexuals don't understand that but that's how a lot of us feel, Christians feel that way, Muslims, all sorts of people."

According to their website, the BNP policy on immigration is to:

- Deport all the two million plus who are here illegally;

- Deport all those who commit crimes and whose original nationality was not British;

- Review all recent grants of residence or citizenship to ensure they are still appropriate;

- Offer generous grants to those of foreign descent resident here who wish to leave permanently;

- Stop all new immigration except for exceptional cases;

- Reject all asylum seekers who passed safe countries on their way to Britain.

They say that "India would not tolerate millions of non-Indians taking over that society. Pakistan would not tolerate millions of Hindus or Christians entering that country and changing it from a Muslim society into something else. Japan would not do it; China would not do it – so why should Britain?"

The BNP policy on education is:

- The restoration of discipline – including corporal punishment – uniforms, traditional teaching methods and stricter exams (e.g. ‘0′ levels);

- The reintroduction of grammar schools with entrance exams at 11 and 13;

- The reversal of the programme to close special needs schools which penalises the most vulnerable;

- The reintroduction of competitive sports and daily Christian assemblies;

- The teaching of old-fashioned literacy skills (as opposed to clearly failed “modern” teaching methods);

- The teaching of old-fashioned mathematics skills which have practical application to everyday life;

- The teaching of a full curriculum of British history. This will instil in our young people knowledge of and pride in the history, cultures and heritage of the native peoples of Britain, and not the cherry-picked politically correct drivel being fed to children today;

- The abolition of fees and the restoration of full grants to university students studying proper subjects (as opposed to fake “social sciences”);

- The improvement of school food as proper meals have been shown to be linked to behaviour and achievement;

- The ending of the scandalous and racist neglect that has left working class white boys at the bottom of the table for academic achievement;

- The introduction of tax breaks for home-schooling parents or direct subsidies as their fair share of the education budget;

- The introduction of a compulsory Community Award Scheme for all school-leavers to teach them work ethics and social and community values. This would consist of work caring for the elderly or handicapped people, or environmental or heritage restoration projects, or military training. These courses would be character-building and instil discipline, social and community values and work ethics in all young people. Service in this scheme would entitle each individual to get ’something back’ from the society to which they have learnt to contribute, such as free university education, a properly supported apprenticeship, or business training and start-up capital for would-be entrepreneurs.

The BNP foreign affairs policy is:

- Reach an accord with the Muslim world whereby they will agree to take back their excess population which is currently colonising this country, in exchange for an ironclad guarantee that Britain will never again interfere in the political affairs of the Middle East or try to dictate to any Arab or Muslim country as to what their internal government form should be; and

- Maintain an independent foreign policy of our own, and not a spineless subservience to the USA, the ‘international community’, or any other country.

- Resolutely oppose the single European currency;

- Support the overwhelming majority of the British people in their desire to keep the Pound and our traditional weights and measures.

The majority of the British public are highly against the BNP and the recent support they have received in British elections has been put down to the British populations frustration with the main political parties over immigration and the MP expenses scandal.

In 2002 the foundation Stop The BNP was created "to counter racism and fascism in elections and beyond". According to their website, "we want to make sure that people know the full story about who the BNP are and what they really stand for. The Stop the BNP website aims to do just that, serving the anti-fascist movement and providing up to date news, good practice and analysis."

(Information taken from : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_National_Party, http://www.stopthebnp.org.uk/, http://bnp.org.uk/)

Click here to watch the BNP Campaign video

Click here to watch a BNP propaganda video

Click here to watch a documentary about the BNP

What do you think about the BNP? Are there any political parties like this in your country? Comment and let us know!

The Haitian Revolution

The Enlightenment philosophies influenced the American and French Revolution which thus influenced the Haitian revolution. In the American and French revolutions reach got rid of their king. The revolutions that occurred throughout America and France set the precedence for Haiti’s revolution. The Haitian revolution was needed because the people were completely disenfranchised. The Haitian people were under a strict class system. The Haitian people were constantly dehumanized of their natural rights.

During the 1600s there was a period called the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment mainly focused on a free thinking. The Enlightenment questioned the way things were and how they could be better. There were writers during this period that questioned the way things were. One of the main writers during this period was John Jacques Rousseau. Rousseau believed that man is naturally born free. “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in shackles”. The Haitians were forcibly taken to Saint Domingue from Africa. The Haitians are now in chains leaving a state of freedom. As time went on the writings of Rousseau told them to fight for their freedom. “When something an affliction happens to you, you either let it defeat you, or you defeat it”.
Jean Jacques Rousseau. This is what happened to the Haitians. They were being afflicted in St. Domingue and they fought for their freedom. They were after all fighting for THEIR freedom.

There was long turmoil that leads to this event. The ruler of France exploited Haiti. He used Haiti to produce goods in which they would have to buy back. No profits were gained and the people were living in poverty. In addition to all of this France instituted a hierarchy system in which the Black Haitians were at the bottom. If you could imagine the emotional distress the people must have been going through is extraordinary. It seemed that the Haitian’s natural rights were being infringed upon. When a person’s natural rights are being infringed, they could defend them by any means necessary. Samuel Adams said we have natural rights. “First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can”. This Haitians killed whoever was likely to stand in their way no matter age, sex, or position in the hierarchy.

The main focus of the Haitians was to eradicate their current government. Haiti had virtual representation. This means whatever laws the King of France passed had to be followed inside Haiti. The ruler of France was King Louis XIV had instituted slavery inside St. Domingue. King Louis XIV had a class system in France in which he and the Clergy had the controlling vote. They abused their power and sent the nation into debt and the commoners who make up the majority only had enough money for bread. The King and Clergy were living an extravagant lifestyle. The commoners got tired of it and beheaded the King and Queen of France. The commoners then established a government called the National Assembly. The National Assembly then outlawed slavery in St. Domingue. The National Assembly was then overthrown by Napoleon Bonaparte who instituted slavery back into St. Domingue. As you can imagine the Haitians were extremely mad about this, they had a taste of freedom and it was taken away.

The Haitians fought back with extreme violence which meant killing people who they felt perpetuated their disenfranchisement. This was the last resort but the rulers of France brought it upon themselves. After all the Blacks were outnumbering the others by 10:1. It seems quite natural that the Blacks would fight to defend their rights. After all of this fighting St. Domingue was then declared a free state and was given its natural name of Haiti.

American Analysis on Class

Cortez A., US

I had to create my own class system based on what I see in America.

America is by far one of the most classified nations in the world. This nation has classes for different races and etc. America is also known as the melting pot for other nations. There is a classification system even based on how you dress. Class in America means everything to some people and nothing to others. The class system that you see on the cover page is based on an annual income. Race was not considered when making this class values set because economics affects all races. Everyone has the ability to become financially stable or financially unstable.

The Destitute Class has little to one-thousands dollars of annual income. The people of this class value the simplest things. These are the things that we take for granted. To be in a home of their own that has heat and running water would be only a dream. The people of this class interact with people of their class or people who may help them. The Homeless Class is not afraid to ask for what they need. Although people look down on them they still ask for change to get simple things such as sandwich. Society views this class with sympathy because they are lacking life’s necessities due to unfortunate circumstances. The people in this class may also turn to drinking because they have not attained the social status that they would have like.

The Makers Class has one thousand to forty-five thousand dollars of annual income. The people of this class value the concept of making it to high social status someday. Some of these people value education for their youth as a high priority. These people also value the concept of their children making it to achieve high class. The people are content with their children making it to the high class because the makers know they had something to do with it. The Makers associate with their class of people and occasionally associate with the High Class society. For those who don’t associate with other classes and persistently socialize with other classes lose out on opportunities to climb the economic ladder. These are the people who are content with living in an apartment, drink, fight and resort to other methods of attaining financial stability. They then blame everyone else because they do not feel secure and become dependant upon the government.

The Nuclear Family earn between forty-five thousand to two-hundred and fifty thousand dollars of annual income. These people feel that they have made a somewhat satisfied life. The Nuclear parents get up and go to work everyday. The mothers may pickup the children after soccer. The father is at the office sometimes late working so his family could feel good about their life. These people usually associate with all classes during special occasions. They feel that they have attained the American Dream anything above that is luxury. While people may think they are boring they are not. Some of these people are college graduates and members of fraternities and sororities still completing service projects. These people work hard to get the things they have.

The Buyers earn between two-hundred and fifty to three-hundred and fifty thousands dollars. The people of this class are secure with their possessions. They go out to clubs and have a social life. The Buyers social life is very important to the people of this class. They wear the designer clothes no matter how much it may cost. They are willing to go into debt or max their credit cards to have the latest fashions. These people visit the beach and gym frequently to stay in shape and meet new people. Despite of all of this they still get up and go to work with a high paying job.

The Spacers earn between three-hundred and fifty to five-hundred thousand dollars. The people of this class require a somewhat spacious environment. The Spacers value their environment. These are the people who work to keep their high property valued neighborhood clean. They value their cars and prestige that comes with being inside their class. The Spacers associate with all types of people. They keep their connections open since they may need to utilize them one day. They graduate at the top of their class and expect the same from their children. Society views them as financially stable people. A people who's worries are limited to where corporate stocks are going.

The Individuals earn one million to plus dollars of annual income. The Individuals are the ones who rank high in society. These are the CEO’s of fortune 500 companies; they started their company from an idea and watched it grow. These people are classified by their giving hearts by giving away money to organizations. These people wear comfortable clothing since they know they can buy whatever they would like to. Society views them as the leaders our economy and education is based on. These are the people who have very big houses, fancy cars, yachts, smartphones, large estates, and heirs. The Individuals have worked extremely hard to get what they have. They sometimes lack socially but compensate for it when they speak and talk about their accreditations.

As I come to a close I would like to say that these classes are based strictly on annual earnings. I am aware that people of different races can achieve any one of the financial statuses listed above. We are all trying to achieve is status to which we feel comfortable enough to say in our personal opinion that we have made it. All of these classes are starting to intertwine with each other to create mixed income neighborhoods which creates a better America.