I think instead that the world should be organized into tribes. Tribes, in my opinion, are more people-centered and not territory-centered. They are more peaceful as a result. The land belongs to nobody, and people can live wherever they want with the only rule that they do not infringe on the other peoples' same right. People can disagree, but it doesn't turn into big wars with heavy losses. It would be easier for people to develop their foreign policy positively instead of having all these prejudices against people who have the land they may want. Overall, I think if the world switches back to the seemingly primitive tribal system, the world would be a better place.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Should the world be organized into sovereign territorial nation-states?
Perhaps we should first rephrase the question: is the nation-state the best option for organizing the world? I think it is not. Territorial nation-states imply first that the land actually belongs to someone or another, second that there needs to be boundaries between people. I believe this encourages discrimination between people and a "better than you" attitude among people. Which nation is better than the other? Does it really matter?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhile the "nation-state" does cause discrimination between countries and empires would mean lots of war. Tribes would be harder to maintain because there are so many people and natural resources are limited now with all the technology. Tribal life would seem nice but people are people and there would still be wars.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I have to disagree entirely with your conclusion that having an international system built off of tribes would lead to fewer conflicts. If anything, it would increase the frequency and intensity of wars because, as you said, tribes have no territorial borders, meaning tribal leaders would find it easier to engage in ideological conflicts, which would continue until either or both sides run out of the resources (the capacity) to continue fighting. According to Barry Posen's realist explanations of ethnic conflict argue that a “break up of multiethnic states could place rival ethnic groups in an anarchic setting”, which would cause a perpetually bloody conflict as each ethnic group or “tribe” would attempt to cleanse one another (“International Relations: One World, Many Theories” by Stephen Walt). Furthermore, according to Opello and Rosow (authors of "The Nation State and Global Order") the Peace of Westphalia, which first "recognized the principle of state sovereignty" (79), was born out of perpetual ideological wars caused by a lack of territorial sovereignty. Therefore, your claim that breaking apart nation-states into tribes would prevent conflict is irrefutably false not only through examining realist theory, but by analyzing historical patterns as well.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with Colin's analysis. In addition, as I noted in my most recent post at the International Intellectual Forum, no European wars were fought in between 1815 and World War I - and this one hundred year period was the time when nation-statehood was becoming the norm. Since World War II, there have been no further major European wars. To me, this is indisputable evidence that nation-states proffer more peace than not. In regards to the indefensible (and, within your post, undefended) claim that tribes are more peaceful, I am curious as to whether you did more than cursory research. For example, Native American tribes often clashed violently. They did not cause nearly the bloodshed that European conflicts did, but that was largely due to technological deficiencies. Once tribes got access to advanced weapons, the mortality rates of their skirmishes would certainly rise. And of course, the claim that tribes did not engage in nation-state-like posturing of "which nature is better" is patently false. Tribes competed just as nations do - that is the human way, and how humans are organized does not alter how humans act.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Tom and Colin first of all. Secondly, do you think humans would actually just respect each others' ideological borders without fighting for dominance or control? People aren't going to just start magically respecting the rights and lands of other people without some type of governing body to set rules and regulations. I'm not a supporter of any type of ridiculously strong central authority figure, but there needs to be something. It goes against human nature to assume that people won't fight for more power, try to extend their authority. Also, by dividing up people into more tribes, aren't you going to create more conflict because you're increasing the number of groups of people that can disagree with one another? In addition, how would the economies function? In a small tribe, you're not going to get the specialization that Adam Smith found so important. In econ, we're been reading about tribal economies. There's no advancement. The market is too small to be effective, there's no job specialization, and no competition. You're shrinking you're market to an ineffective state and likely have to go back to a bartering system because of the multitude of different currencies that will arise. That's why early markets were so ineffective when merchants went to different towns - rules, regulations, money was all different. With so many tribes, how will currencies relations be determined? And etc. Also, are people nomadic here? Or just picking random land to live on? How will towns develop? Will they just keep traveling and hopefully not invade each others' territories?
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with everyone's comments. We need borders, or people will fight over land and dominance as Kate pointed out. There is no way that tribes would respect each other enough to never fight over land. There needs to be some kind of set boundary. Or else everyone will just be fighting with everyone else over land, resources, etc
ReplyDeleteDear Mindy,
ReplyDeleteI can see where your argument is heading, but I think it needs rephrasing. I understand that society needs to be more homo-centric, but saying that we should live in tribes is not an appropriate statement. You see, a tribe is often synonymous with a clan. I understand that there is a lot of dispute over land, but the clan system is swamped in blood. Its a sense of "I am better than you" that is more than land which makes things so very complicated. Its not about land anymore but blood. With globalization, we can intermingle much more freely than the clan because we can have jobs in other lands. In a tribe, that is not really possible. What will they do, hire out of their clan? I think not. The clan model is very introverted. At least with territories we can travel to other places. In and out of territories. How paradoxical is it that walls and boundaries can make us extroverted but it makes sense because there is potential for those closed doors to open. Think about it.
PAZ