Translate

Tuesday, May 01, 2007

The chicken or the egg

The preverbal argument about the answer applies to many more things. One is nation-states. Which came first, the nation-state or the nation? Are nation-states some recognition that many peoples have enough in common to become nation-states, or are the present nations and boundaries and tribes some extension of the past? Did all the imperial and colonial diplomats 100 or so years ago draw up boundaries that were good for them then, and expect these boundaries to go on in perpetuity. Most of these paper boundaries have always been ignored by the people who live there. In the end, numbers and demographics and customs and tribes count.

A colonial sweep of the drawing pen, for example the British Durand Line in 1921 to divide the Pashtuns, doesn’t help much in hunting down Bin Laden in Warziristan, the exact same area by another name. Here in America British and French boundaries did not sort out, in the end. We Americans ignored them and drew our own lines.

This principle unfortunately is universal. People and demographics still count, too. The gross physical immigration on the Mexican border confirms we can legislate, but not necessarily control. An old novel from the 1980’s called this border area a new state with the name of Altzan. It was a little bit of both; Mexico and the US, with a decidedly US flavor.

Nation-states are a recent idea in human history. They are both not normal and a product of human social evolution. Rather the idea has many parents, all western, and they include the Council of Vienna, and the Peace of Westphalia (1648). Before nation-states were nations, and empires, tribes provided local democracy and family security, albeit at the local leaders judgment, usually secured by willingness to go along with success.

Our world future is decidedly better. Our western ideas which focus on infrastructure are powerful. Clean water and electricity come to mind.

Those who ignore, tolerate, or even promote dictators and other omnipresent leaders of what ever ilk, are on the wrong side of history.

The obvious future leaders of humanity are from the western mold, albeit with a lot of tampering down for human reasons. However they sort out the question about nation-states vs. nations, one old person hopes that these people recognize that the common people vote with their feet and pocket books, not some ethereal political cause.

No comments: