A young and nave child is convinced by an older sibling to commit a rude and senseless act in the presence of his parents. After witnessing the act, the parents then become quite irritated, and they seek out to find the one responsible for informing the child of the wrongdoing. Once the parents address the guilty sibling, he is disciplined because of his heartless intentions. In this instance, the child is not held accountable for his actions even though he was the one guilty for performing the offense; the parents might even argue that the child did not know any better, and that the older sibling is all to blame. When a person commits an act of prejudice, is it then okay to blame him or her for it, or would it be more accurate to blame the originator of all prejudicial comments? Should this person be held accountable for his or her action, or is there someone else to blame? Many of the earliest societies in time had practiced forms of prejudice for thousands of years. Are people in today's society similar to the child in the story in that they do not know any better? The truth is that the nave people in today's society are continually being convinced by their "older siblings,"" or past generations, to indulge in acts such as prejudice, and the initiators can truthfully go to blame.
In a society there are people high in rank and others low in rank. There is a set of guidelines one must follow in order to become this rank, and this rank can depict one's lifestyle in his or her environment. Because there are stereotypical views, each person seems to fit into a status and should adapt to the status as well as possible. The Anglo-Saxons had varying but consistent form of this modern day prejudice in their own civilization. This system existed in each individual's home and in warfare. There were the high ranked kings and thanes, and there were the low class slaves and even women (Crossley 61).