I came across this nifty essay on the Net awhile back, about the seven signs of failed or failiing states. It's from the Spring '98 issue of PARAMETERS, which is the journal of the U.S. Army's War College. You can read the whole thing at http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/98spring/peters.htm, but to summarize, these are the Seven Signs of Failed States:1. There are restrictions on the free flow of information2. Women are subjugated 3. A cultural inability to accept responsibility for individual or collective failure, a.k.a "the Foreign Devil Effect"4. The extended family or clan serves as the basic unit of social organization5. Domination by a restrictive religion; this often ties in to Nos. 1,2, 3, and 6.6. The dominant culture assigns an extremely low valuation to education7. Low prestige is assigned to work; that is, work is seen as something that is done firstly, for survival, and secondly, to become wealthy enough to never have to work againNow, obviously, these come from a profoundly Western viewpoint, and a very modern one. Still, I suspect that signs 3,4,6, and 7 are probably applicable to any culture in any time for determining which societies are going to out-perform or under-perform.Anyway, I highly recommend the article; the author, Lt.Col. Ralph Peters, has a very readable prose style, and a slightly dry wit.Andrew Janssen[As an aside, most Middle-Eastern states score 7 for 7 signs; no African state has fewer than 4.] --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard---------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, send mail to celandra-off@phoenyx.net.
In a message dated 11/24/03 2:02:40 AM Mountain Standard Time, andrewdj54701@yahoo.com writes: >I came across this nifty essay on the Net awhile back, about the seven >signs of failed or failiing states. It's from the Spring '98 issue of >PARAMETERS, which is the journal of the U.S. Army's War College. You can read >the whole thing at http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/98spring/ >peters.htm, What a load of BS. This article falls more under pro-american propaganda than under real scholarship. It doesn't define economic factors, it says that America's education system is the best in the world, and doesn't account for differences in population and culture. I couldn't even finish reading this load of garbage. Jefferson http://www.picotech.net/~jeff_wilson63/rpg/ ---------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, send mail to celandra-off@phoenyx.net.
--- RulingNations@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 11/24/03 2:02:40 AM Mountain Standard Time, > andrewdj54701@yahoo.com writes: > > >I came across this nifty essay on the Net awhile back, about the > seven > >signs of failed or failiing states. It's from the Spring '98 issue > of > >PARAMETERS, which is the journal of the U.S. Army's War College. You > can > read > >the whole thing at > http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/98spring/ > >peters.htm, > > What a load of BS. This article falls more under pro-american > propaganda > than under real scholarship. It doesn't define economic factors, it > says that > America's education system is the best in the world, and doesn't > account for > differences in population and culture. I couldn't even finish > reading this load > of garbage. Read the whole thing, before you dismiss it. Yes, the author *is* coming from a Western Cultural perspective, with all the baggage that implies. Yes, his definition of a "successful" nation-state does define success by how well a nation or culture competes on the global market. Another assumption underlying the piece is, of course, globalization & industrialization. In a world that's not undergoing globalization & industrialization, most of Lt.Col. Peters' signs of failing states aren't as relevant in the short term. But that, in my opinion, doesn't in any way invalidate his points, particularily his last two: Any society or culture that values neither education nor work will not be able to compete successfully with societies that *do* place high values on education and work. I think that he raises a hypothesis that's worthy of examination, perhaps from a less "American" perspective. One other point: The author's evaluation of cultural "success" or "failure" is not a moral judgement, it's more of a Darwinian judgement. Successful societies spread their ways of doing things around the globe, while failing societies must either change or implode. You can agree with the article's opinion or not, but *don't* do the author the disservice of dismissing him without finishing reading his work. Andrew > Jefferson > http://www.picotech.net/~jeff_wilson63/rpg/ > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, send mail to celandra-off@phoenyx.net. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree ---------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, send mail to celandra-off@phoenyx.net.
I would further add, do not do a disservice to the person who brought the
information to the attention of the list. To dismiss it as valueless is to
insult the intellegence of bringing it to the list's attention to begin with
("you're so dumb, you waste my time with idiot information"). Irrespective
of the intrensic value of the article, respect the person who took the time
to look up the article and bring it to the list's attention for debate.
Debate of ideas and issues relevant to cultures and history edifies the game
and its members. Injecting personal politics, prejudices, and personal
insults does not. As always, the "play nice" rules and speech codes remain
one of the strong points of this game and serve us all in good stead.
MK
> You can agree with the article's opinion or not, but *don't* do the
> author the disservice of dismissing him without finishing reading his
> work.
>
> Andrew
----------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to celandra-off@phoenyx.net.
In a message dated 11/29/03 6:28:33 PM Mountain Standard Time, andrewdj54701@yahoo.com writes: > One other point: The author's evaluation of cultural "success" or > "failure" is not a moral judgement, it's more of a Darwinian judgement. > Successful societies spread their ways of doing things around the > globe, while failing societies must either change or implode. However you (and he) are assuming that "success" is a quality irrespective of environment. This cannot be supported. As an entity's (whether individual, species, or nation) environment changes different factors define it's success. Thus "success" is not a matter of innate qualities but of relationships, and we cannot predict future "success" based on current conditions. > You can agree with the article's opinion or not, but *don't* do the > author the disservice of dismissing him without finishing reading his > work. OK, out of respect to you I've read the entire article. I still consider it garbage. Jefferson http://www.picotech.net/~jeff_wilson63/rpg/ ---------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, send mail to celandra-off@phoenyx.net.
RulingNations@aol.com wrote: >However you (and he) are assuming that "success" is a quality irrespective of >environment. This cannot be supported. As an entity's (whether individual, >species, or nation) environment changes different factors define it's success. > Thus "success" is not a matter of innate qualities but of relationships, and >we cannot predict future "success" based on current conditions. > > I kind of agree with Andrew on this. The "success of a society" can, IMHO, be defined as "being able to spread and/or dominate others" - without taking the environment into account any more than what is implied in that definition. And this definition has, no doubt about it, some very evolutional truth in it. And, if this definition is used, then cultures which emphasize work and education seem to be fundamentally better off than others. Another matter entirely is whether this definition is the "correct" one. At least for Interactive History it is not. juuso ---------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, send mail to celandra-off@phoenyx.net.
In a message dated 11/29/03 10:12:34 PM Mountain Standard Time, juuso@iki.fi writes: >I kind of agree with Andrew on this. The "success of a society" can, >IMHO, be defined as "being able to spread and/or dominate others" - >without taking the environment into account any more than what is >implied in that definition. And this definition has, no doubt about it, >some very evolutional truth in it. And, if this definition is used, >then cultures which emphasize work and education seem to be >fundamentally better off than others. Consider the conquests of the Mongols and the spread of the Polynesia across the Pacific. Neither culture emphasized work or education but in terms of spread and domination both are among the greatest success stories in the history of the world. Those successes can only be explained in terms of their environment; the challenges they faced and the relation of those challenges to their culture. OTOH, consider medieval Poland, their culture stressed education and work, but that didn't prevent them from falling to the Prussians and abandoning those principles. Jefferson http://www.picotech.net/~jeff_wilson63/rpg/ ---------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, send mail to celandra-off@phoenyx.net.
--- RulingNations@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 11/29/03 10:12:34 PM Mountain Standard Time, > juuso@iki.fi > writes: > > >I kind of agree with Andrew on this. The "success of a society" can, > >IMHO, be defined as "being able to spread and/or dominate others" - > >without taking the environment into account any more than what is > >implied in that definition. And this definition has, no doubt about > it, > >some very evolutional truth in it. And, if this definition is used, > >then cultures which emphasize work and education seem to be > >fundamentally better off than others. > > Consider the conquests of the Mongols and the spread of the Polynesia > across the Pacific. Neither culture emphasized work or education but > in > terms of spread and domination both are among the greatest success > stories in the history of the world. Those successes can only be > explained in terms of their environment; the challenges they faced > and > the relation of those challenges to their culture. I begin to see your point here. The only thing I'd add is that after the Mongols settled down into their empire, in China at least, they did begin to take an interest in the sciences. > OTOH, consider medieval Poland, their culture stressed education and > work, but that didn't prevent them from falling to the Prussians and > abandoning those principles. You're right, but we need to remember that Poland had some serious structural problems in that time period. Firstly, in the Polish Parliment, the Seym(sp?), all votes had to be unanimous; any noble could veto any law. Second, for a very long time the Poles practiced gavelkind instead of primogeniture; they split inheritances equally between all sons, instead of having the eldest son get everything, like most of the rest of Western Europe did after about the 1100s. Gavelkind results in a splintering of political and economic power, and this was a major contributor to Poland's disunity. Poland's final problem was geography: its eastern and western borders, past and present, have probably been the least defensible in Europe. Poland did value education and work, but their disunity is what made them vulnerable to their neighbors. Andrew > Jefferson > http://www.picotech.net/~jeff_wilson63/rpg/ > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, send mail to celandra-off@phoenyx.net. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree ---------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, send mail to celandra-off@phoenyx.net.
--- RulingNations@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 11/29/03 6:28:33 PM Mountain Standard Time, > andrewdj54701@yahoo.com writes: > > > One other point: The author's evaluation of cultural "success" or > > "failure" is not a moral judgement, it's more of a Darwinian > judgement. > > Successful societies spread their ways of doing things around the > > globe, while failing societies must either change or implode. > > However you (and he) are assuming that "success" is a quality > irrespective of > environment. This cannot be supported. As an entity's (whether > individual, > species, or nation) environment changes different factors define it's > success. > Thus "success" is not a matter of innate qualities but of > relationships, and > we cannot predict future "success" based on current conditions. Actually I don't think that success is a quality that can be separated from the environment. In my original post, IIRC, I posed the question of whether or not any of the signposts could be applied outside the context of the late 20th/early 21st Centuries. My own opinion is that the only thing in the article that may be universally true is the author's contention that cultures that do not value broad education and do not value hard work will eventually fail to compete with their neighbors, resulting marginalization, absorption, or a societal shift of values. Most of the other signposts are too tied to factors that relate to the 20th/21st Centuries. I do think that the author's signposts of failing states are valid for the world as it now is. Will they always hold true? I highly doubt it. Humans change the world too much for the existence of absolutes in the social sciences. Andrew Janssen > > You can agree with the article's opinion or not, but *don't* do > the > > author the disservice of dismissing him without finishing reading > his > > work. > > OK, out of respect to you I've read the entire article. I still > consider it > garbage. > Jefferson > http://www.picotech.net/~jeff_wilson63/rpg/ > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, send mail to celandra-off@phoenyx.net. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree ---------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, send mail to celandra-off@phoenyx.net.
In a message dated 11/29/03 7:06:51 PM Mountain Standard Time,
dfsolley@comcast.net writes:
> I would further add, do not do a disservice to the person who brought the
> information to the attention of the list. To dismiss it as valueless is to
> insult the intellegence of bringing it to the list's attention to begin
with
> ("you're so dumb, you waste my time with idiot information").
This is very true and I apologize if it seemed that I was dismissing Andrew
for bringing this article to our attention. Regardless of my opinion of this
particular article this is certainly the _type_ of article that's useful to
this group.
Jefferson
http://www.picotech.net/~jeff_wilson63/rpg/
----------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to celandra-off@phoenyx.net.
remove me from this mailing list
RulingNations@aol.com wrote:In a message dated 11/29/03 7:06:51 PM Mountain Standard Time,
dfsolley@comcast.net writes:
> I would further add, do not do a disservice to the person who brought the
> information to the attention of the list. To dismiss it as valueless is to
> insult the intellegence of bringing it to the list's attention to begin
with
> ("you're so dumb, you waste my time with idiot information").
This is very true and I apologize if it seemed that I was dismissing Andrew
for bringing this article to our attention. Regardless of my opinion of this
particular article this is certainly the _type_ of article that's useful to
this group.
Jefferson
http://www.picotech.net/~jeff_wilson63/rpg/
----------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to celandra-off@phoenyx.net.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now----------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to celandra-off@phoenyx.net.
remove me from this mailing list RulingNations@aol.com wrote:In a message dated 11/24/03 2:02:40 AM Mountain Standard Time, andrewdj54701@yahoo.com writes: >I came across this nifty essay on the Net awhile back, about the seven >signs of failed or failiing states. It's from the Spring '98 issue of >PARAMETERS, which is the journal of the U.S. Army's War College. You can read >the whole thing at http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/98spring/ >peters.htm, What a load of BS. This article falls more under pro-american propaganda than under real scholarship. It doesn't define economic factors, it says that America's education system is the best in the world, and doesn't account for differences in population and culture. I couldn't even finish reading this load of garbage. Jefferson http://www.picotech.net/~jeff_wilson63/rpg/ ---------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, send mail to celandra-off@phoenyx.net. --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now---------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, send mail to celandra-off@phoenyx.net.
