Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 69

Thread: Are countries trapped by their history?

  1. #1
    Ecthelion's Avatar Great Ramen Connoisseur
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    The land beyond the River Styx
    Posts
    1,304

    Default Are countries trapped by their history?

    In this modern age we like to believe that all nations are capable of progressing to Scandinavian levels of state perfection. Sure Denmark and Norway aren't perfect but they’re an awful lot closer to perfection than say Somalia or the US.

    But is this optimistic assumption really true?

    Policy makers, political theorist and other people that make a living from the promise of being able to fundamentally reform developing countries would like to make us believe that it is.

    But I don’t agree. I would posit that countries are indeed trapped by their own history, and virtually none escape.

    In fact, I cannot think of a single modern state that has truly and completely departed from its traditional norm without a major change in ethnicity or being ruled by long period of time by a domineering colonial power, or in the case of the Arabian oil giants, having a huge supply of free money underneath their feet.

    Why?

    Well, I think we can all agree that cultural background is the largest single factor how a political system fares in a given country.
    Cases of poorly matched political systems are abundant. Just in the last decade, democracy has been forced upon nations whose cultures are completely incompatible with it, and thus have resulted in complete trainwrecks of governments.

    So then if political system’s success or failure in a given country is linked with culture, what is culture linked with?
    Well, culture is, by definition, the result of historical events and conditions on a given ethnic group.

    Ethnicity is pretty firm and fixed. Short of genocide, mass exodus, or mass intermarriage, the ethnicity of region will likely remain inert.
    And major fundamental cultural changes in a given ethnicity are at best rare and incredibly slow.

    So we come to the conclusion that short of a major change in the ethnic makeup of a given region, its effectiveness with a given (or ANY given) political system will remain unchanged.

    In other words, successful nations with a proven record are usually perennial successful regardless of their political system (with the exception of extreme forms like North Korean communism, which usually prove short lived). And unsuccessful nations are perennial unsuccessful, regardless of their political system.

    Now, I can see the responses already:
    “What about China, South Korea, Argentina, or Italy and Greece?”

    China, South Korea, and all the other “Asian Tigers” were all once successful countries prior to the modern period. Their failure to modernize in the Industrial Age was not so much a failure as a lack of exception success. East Asia was doing just fine by the standards of the past millennia. Their return to success in the postwar period is nothing more than a return to a historical norm.

    Italy is not inhabited by ethnic Romans anymore, just as Greece is not inhabited by ethnic ancient Greeks. Expecting either country to match the exploits of people who weren’t even their ancestors is silly.

    Argentina’s failure in the latter 20th century is more a case of not having enough data to set expectations. Argentina’s initial success was due mainly to the fact that it was largely “virgin”. It’s the only South American country with no significant native population prior to European colonization. So the abundant resources were easily exploited by the Spanish and German settlers. It’s like having massive oil reserves under your feet; it doesn’t take much to do well. Argentina as it is now is likely to be Argentina for the foreseeable future, unexceptional among other Latin American nations.

    If you can think of another counter-example, let me know, we'll discuss.
    This is my signature. Isn't it awesome?

  2. #2
    Dante Von Hespburg's Avatar Sloth's Inferno
    Moderator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,996

    Default Re: Are countries trapped by their history?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ecthelion View Post
    In this modern age we like to believe that all nations are capable of progressing to Scandinavian levels of state perfection. Sure Denmark and Norway aren't perfect but they’re an awful lot closer to perfection than say Somalia or the US.

    But is this optimistic assumption really true?

    Policy makers, political theorist and other people that make a living from the promise of being able to fundamentally reform developing countries would like to make us believe that it is.

    But I don’t agree. I would posit that countries are indeed trapped by their own history, and virtually none escape.

    In fact, I cannot think of a single modern state that has truly and completely departed from its traditional norm without a major change in ethnicity or being ruled by long period of time by a domineering colonial power, or in the case of the Arabian oil giants, having a huge supply of free money underneath their feet.

    Why?

    Well, I think we can all agree that cultural background is the largest single factor how a political system fares in a given country.
    Cases of poorly matched political systems are abundant. Just in the last decade, democracy has been forced upon nations whose cultures are completely incompatible with it, and thus have resulted in complete trainwrecks of governments.

    So then if political system’s success or failure in a given country is linked with culture, what is culture linked with?
    Well, culture is, by definition, the result of historical events and conditions on a given ethnic group.

    Ethnicity is pretty firm and fixed. Short of genocide, mass exodus, or mass intermarriage, the ethnicity of region will likely remain inert.
    And major fundamental cultural changes in a given ethnicity are at best rare and incredibly slow.

    So we come to the conclusion that short of a major change in the ethnic makeup of a given region, its effectiveness with a given (or ANY given) political system will remain unchanged.

    In other words, successful nations with a proven record are usually perennial successful regardless of their political system (with the exception of extreme forms like North Korean communism, which usually prove short lived). And unsuccessful nations are perennial unsuccessful, regardless of their political system.

    Now, I can see the responses already:
    “What about China, South Korea, Argentina, or Italy and Greece?”

    China, South Korea, and all the other “Asian Tigers” were all once successful countries prior to the modern period. Their failure to modernize in the Industrial Age was not so much a failure as a lack of exception success. East Asia was doing just fine by the standards of the past millennia. Their return to success in the postwar period is nothing more than a return to a historical norm.

    Italy is not inhabited by ethnic Romans anymore, just as Greece is not inhabited by ethnic ancient Greeks. Expecting either country to match the exploits of people who weren’t even their ancestors is silly.

    Argentina’s failure in the latter 20th century is more a case of not having enough data to set expectations. Argentina’s initial success was due mainly to the fact that it was largely “virgin”. It’s the only South American country with no significant native population prior to European colonization. So the abundant resources were easily exploited by the Spanish and German settlers. It’s like having massive oil reserves under your feet; it doesn’t take much to do well. Argentina as it is now is likely to be Argentina for the foreseeable future, unexceptional among other Latin American nations.

    If you can think of another counter-example, let me know, we'll discuss.
    It's an interesting proposition, and one i'd have to look into a bit more. Off the top of my head though i notice that you haven't commented too much on the impact of the type of political system in place (Specifically in Western democracies- their are many different kinds of democracy) and how this influences a states options.

    The UK here as my example, the collapse of Empire is still something that can be felt as Britain has struggled the past few decades politically as well as economically to find out how the heck to continue as a state which survived it's own Empire- it wasn't really until Hong Kong was returned that many see the Empire as truly coming to an end, and prior to this with the likes of Thatcher and co you have a political establishment who mostly continued to act on the world stage as if Britain had lost no influence or power what-so-ever...and yet had to contend with the fact that it had.

    It's only really relatively recently in the past decade or so i'd argue that the UK has finally found it's new role in the world- As a European economic powerhouse, being the second largest...of course again due to legacy of Empire, you see many British reports on this as relatively scathing- since of course 2nd in Europe USED to be taking into account Empire 1st/2nd or 3rd in the world, so something that's actually quite fantastic is seen as not quite measuring up to standards of the past.

    To a certain extent politically too the UK is trapped by it's Imperial past- overseas deployments to Afghanistan, Iraq in contemporary thinking- defense of the Falklands, and indeed the attitude to overseas deployment/interference is felt justified and necessary as a lot of the issues faced in the middle-east or East Africa have a lot to do with former British Imperial policy and there's an attitude that if you screwed it up, you can't really just walk away (the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan is a perfect example- having been drawn by a British Governor and not taking into account tribal or ethnic lines).

    So in a way indeed your points valid that a nation is trapped by it's historical past and commitments, these directly shape it's modern foreign and political policy- a very clear cut example here even more so than the UK of course would be France- who unlike the UK is quite active in many of it's former possessions.

    BUT i do believe that a change in the nature of a political system allows states to quite easily change tact. My first instance would be the Scottish Referendum in the UK, this has led to growing calls and discussions about the devolution of the whole UK, as many groups, counties and indeed countries believe the centralized London model is a mess that merely benefits the South-East (Respectively per head Londoners get roughly £5000 a head spent on them, while those in the North of England £400)- a state which has always been rather highly centralized in Westminster. Looking to the example of Scotland (who advocates indeed the Scandinavian model for a fully devolved or newly independent Scotland) the rest of the UK have seen how devolution can be economically beneficial and lead to arguably greater local accountability. Now if the UK did indeed devolve in a meaningful way, you'll have an entirely different beast of a state than previously- the radical change in political system (One of devolved areas or cities or counties) where local politics are far more meaningful and accountable, you'll see a UK perhaps not able or willing to meet it's previous 'historical' commitments of punching far above it's weight on the world stage.

    A change too in political attitudes- the two and a half party system is already receiving a thrashing from upstart new parties (the SNP who are looking to get into Westminster, UKIP, Growing popularity of the Greens) which means newer voices with far more varied agendas than previously.

    All of this in a way in an upsurge in the creation of a new 'political identity' for the UK and one which invariably will impact on overall policy. Perhaps again a more globally active Britain using it's economic position within an international system and accepting a diminished 'hard power' stance, or indeed a UK whose more passive on the world stage, or insular looking (anti-EU project, anti- foreign adventure, something highly likely for a while after a decade of global deployments).

    So i'd add a change in the citizens stance in regard to political system can break the mold so to speak in certain cases (specifically in reference to the former Imperial powers).
    House of Caesars: Under the Patronage of Char Aznable

    Proud Patron of the roguishly suave Gatsby


  3. #3

    Default Re: Are countries trapped by their history?

    Good post and well thought out, It is late though so I will respond when I get up. I did want to mention though I think you meant to say immigration and not intermarriage in the ethnicity paragraph. Sorry if I am wrong just seemed like that is what you meant. Though intermarriage still works it just seems a lot less of a nation changer than immigration which you did not mention. (in that paragraph).

  4. #4
    Ecthelion's Avatar Great Ramen Connoisseur
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    The land beyond the River Styx
    Posts
    1,304

    Default Re: Are countries trapped by their history?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dante Von Hespburg View Post
    It's an interesting proposition, and one i'd have to look into a bit more. Off the top of my head though i notice that you haven't commented too much on the impact of the type of political system in place (Specifically in Western democracies- their are many different kinds of democracy) and how this influences a states options.

    The UK here as my example, the collapse of Empire is still something that can be felt as Britain has struggled the past few decades politically as well as economically to find out how the heck to continue as a state which survived it's own Empire- it wasn't really until Hong Kong was returned that many see the Empire as truly coming to an end, and prior to this with the likes of Thatcher and co you have a political establishment who mostly continued to act on the world stage as if Britain had lost no influence or power what-so-ever...and yet had to contend with the fact that it had.

    It's only really relatively recently in the past decade or so i'd argue that the UK has finally found it's new role in the world- As a European economic powerhouse, being the second largest...of course again due to legacy of Empire, you see many British reports on this as relatively scathing- since of course 2nd in Europe USED to be taking into account Empire 1st/2nd or 3rd in the world, so something that's actually quite fantastic is seen as not quite measuring up to standards of the past.

    To a certain extent politically too the UK is trapped by it's Imperial past- overseas deployments to Afghanistan, Iraq in contemporary thinking- defense of the Falklands, and indeed the attitude to overseas deployment/interference is felt justified and necessary as a lot of the issues faced in the middle-east or East Africa have a lot to do with former British Imperial policy and there's an attitude that if you screwed it up, you can't really just walk away (the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan is a perfect example- having been drawn by a British Governor and not taking into account tribal or ethnic lines).

    So in a way indeed your points valid that a nation is trapped by it's historical past and commitments, these directly shape it's modern foreign and political policy- a very clear cut example here even more so than the UK of course would be France- who unlike the UK is quite active in many of it's former possessions.

    BUT i do believe that a change in the nature of a political system allows states to quite easily change tact. My first instance would be the Scottish Referendum in the UK, this has led to growing calls and discussions about the devolution of the whole UK, as many groups, counties and indeed countries believe the centralized London model is a mess that merely benefits the South-East (Respectively per head Londoners get roughly £5000 a head spent on them, while those in the North of England £400)- a state which has always been rather highly centralized in Westminster. Looking to the example of Scotland (who advocates indeed the Scandinavian model for a fully devolved or newly independent Scotland) the rest of the UK have seen how devolution can be economically beneficial and lead to arguably greater local accountability. Now if the UK did indeed devolve in a meaningful way, you'll have an entirely different beast of a state than previously- the radical change in political system (One of devolved areas or cities or counties) where local politics are far more meaningful and accountable, you'll see a UK perhaps not able or willing to meet it's previous 'historical' commitments of punching far above it's weight on the world stage.

    A change too in political attitudes- the two and a half party system is already receiving a thrashing from upstart new parties (the SNP who are looking to get into Westminster, UKIP, Growing popularity of the Greens) which means newer voices with far more varied agendas than previously.

    All of this in a way in an upsurge in the creation of a new 'political identity' for the UK and one which invariably will impact on overall policy. Perhaps again a more globally active Britain using it's economic position within an international system and accepting a diminished 'hard power' stance, or indeed a UK whose more passive on the world stage, or insular looking (anti-EU project, anti- foreign adventure, something highly likely for a while after a decade of global deployments).

    So i'd add a change in the citizens stance in regard to political system can break the mold so to speak in certain cases (specifically in reference to the former Imperial powers).
    The UK, or more specifically, England, is the classic example of my thesis actually.

    Let’s first define a “successful government” (and yes, I am shamelessly plagiarizing Franni Fukiyami here… somewhat)

    • A strong centralized state with a meritocratic and efficient bureaucracy
    • The rule of law that supersedes all temporal authority figures, constitution before king
    • An accountable government where there is balance between the power of the state and the power of the people. The state’s level of power and organization must be balanced with the people’s unity, cohesion and civic trust.

    I would argue that these 3 core conditions were already reached long before England transitioned into a modern liberal democratic state.
    By the time of the Glorious Revolution, England had undoubtedly accomplished all 3 goals of successful statehood. But a modern liberal democracy was still centuries away. And despite all the political changes in continental Europe, England continued on its political evolution.

    But would this be possible in every country?
    Franni says yes. I say NO.

    The path to the English Glorious revolution was started in the distant past. How far back? To the "rights of Englishmen" in the early medieval period? To the Magna Carta? No, I would argue that England as set on its path long before the first Angle or Saxon left Jutland.

    Let’s take Denmark, which is Franni’s favorite example of 10/10 governments. The Danish, like the English, were able to achieve the 3 points of government very early on.

    The northern Germanic tradition (Angles and Saxons anyone?) of individual warrior prowess and prestige based on individual acts of courage is central to all future political evolution. The Danish peasantry did not feel inherently inferior to their nobility. The concept of every man being fundamentally equal has a long history in northern Germany. And once literacy became common place in Denmark thanks the Lutheran "let's teach people to read the Bible in the vernacular" campaign of the late 17th century, the Danish peasantry had both the means (literacy) and the mindset (Viking) to assert themselves and work with the King to undermine the power of the aristocracy and shed the last vestiges of feudalism.

    This northern German tradition goes all the way back to pre-Roman times. From what we know, ancient German society was split into 3 ranks: Freemen, Slave, and Freedman. So as long as you are not now nor have ever been a slave, you are equal to all other men. Compare this with Hinduism’s caste system, or Confucianism’s own strict 4 relationships system, and it’s not hard to see why the Danish naturally became democratic and successful, whereas the Chinese are still living in a society completely underpinned by patronage (Confucius would be pleased), and India is still strongly caste based.

    So as ridiculous as it might seem, the Germanic European path to successful, democratic, meritocratic government was embarked upon at around the same time Confucius was laying down the philosophy that would trap China in a state of unending patronage, obedience, tutelage, and submission to central authority that lasts to this very day.
    Last edited by Ecthelion; December 11, 2014 at 04:15 AM.
    This is my signature. Isn't it awesome?

  5. #5

    Default Re: Are countries trapped by their history?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ecthelion View Post
    Italy is not inhabited by ethnic Romans anymore, just as Greece is not inhabited by ethnic ancient Greeks. Expecting either country to match the exploits of people who weren’t even their ancestors is silly.

    I don't want to get in this discussion, to much stuff to debate on...

    But I would like to know what you mean by ethnic Romans.There is no such thing.Anyway, if by ethnic Roman you mean a Repubblican or Imperial Roman citizen living in Italy 2000 years ago...then your are wrong.Those Romans were indeed the ancestors of modern Italians.It's a common mistake to assume the barbarian invansions impacted greatly Italy's population in the 5/6th centuries.Italy was inhabited by milions while the foreigners were a few thousands.This , by the way, it's true for most invasion/migrations throught history.


    PS: A better example for Argentina would be Italian settlers not Germans.In any case, Uruguay has a similar culture/ethnic make yet it fares much better.On the other hand, Chile was rather influenced by native population and now it's probably the best SA state out there.
    Last edited by Caesar Germanico; December 11, 2014 at 10:14 AM.

  6. #6
    Caelifer_1991's Avatar Vicarius
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Bristol, United Kingdom, European Union
    Posts
    2,924

    Default Re: Are countries trapped by their history?

    Well, if you like exceptions, then Botswana comes to mind. In the space of about 30 years it went from being one of the worlds poorest countries to having developed its internal economy (GDP PPP) up to the standard of Poland and Turkey. Now, granted, Poland and Turkey are not the richest countries around, but the transformation for a country that was essentially the very stereotype of Africa in regards to its lack of history prior to colonisation (as opposed to many other African countries that do have quite extensive histories such as Mali, Nigeria, Ethiopia, etc) has been quite profound. Conversely, one might look at Somalia and see that for essentially all of its history it has done better than it is doing right now, this is not a difficult achievement to be sure, but it should be seen that its rise and fall was very much in line with that of the Middle East: for many centuries it existed as a relatively prosperous trading state similar to (though less powerful than) Oman, and it felt its influence and wealth dissipate as did the Middle East with the rise of Europe and the destruction/ circumvention of the former trading networks, leading to the current dynamic.

    Also, I wouldn't say that countries or populations are trapped by their history per say, but rather that the same conditions that led them to be poor are generally still in effect to some extreme or another and that change is as such, slow. To put it another way, it depends on the timeframe that you are looking at, if you consider the change that might happen within a decade or so then yes, everyone is essentially a slave to their own history, but that is because real, transformational change usually takes centuries or millennia. Regions of the world have not generally risen or fallen as compared with each other in short timespans, rather, a general dynamic ensues lasting at least the better part of a century and usually many centuries; Europe's rise took about 500 years, the rise of the Far East has been ongoing for about half a century depending on where you look and is still ongoing, the Middle East was the foremost region for centuries as well and took equally as long to diminish. In order to see change in the place of stagnancy, it is necessary to observe history with a wider view angle, exceptions such as China's or Botswana's are just that, exceptions, and such meteoric alterations are generally nought but peaks and troughs in the grand scheme of history.
    Last edited by Caelifer_1991; December 11, 2014 at 08:18 AM.

  7. #7
    Ecthelion's Avatar Great Ramen Connoisseur
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    The land beyond the River Styx
    Posts
    1,304

    Default Re: Are countries trapped by their history?

    Quote Originally Posted by Caelifer_1991 View Post
    Well, if you like exceptions, then Botswana comes to mind. In the space of about 30 years it went from being one of the worlds poorest countries to having developed its internal economy (GDP PPP) up to the standard of Poland and Turkey. Now, granted, Poland and Turkey are not the richest countries around, but the transformation for a country that was essentially the very stereotype of Africa in regards to its lack of history prior to colonisation (as opposed to many other African countries that do have quite extensive histories such as Mali, Nigeria, Ethiopia, etc) has been quite profound. Conversely, one might look at Somalia and see that for essentially all of its history it has done better than it is doing right now, this is not a difficult achievement to be sure, but it should be seen that its rise and fall was very much in line with that of the Middle East: for many centuries it existed as a relatively prosperous trading state similar to (though less powerful than) Oman, and it felt its influence and wealth dissipate as did the Middle East with the rise of Europe and the destruction/ circumvention of the former trading networks, leading to the current dynamic.

    Also, I wouldn't say that countries or populations are trapped by their history per say, but rather that the same conditions that led them to be poor are generally still in effect to some extreme or another and that change is as such, slow. To put it another way, it depends on the timeframe that you are looking at, if you consider the change that might happen within a decade or so then yes, everyone is essentially a slave to their own history, but that is because real, transformational change usually takes centuries or millennia. Regions of the world have not generally risen or fallen as compared with each other in short timespans, rather, a general dynamic ensues lasting at least the better part of a century and usually many centuries; Europe's rise took about 500 years, the rise of the Far East has been ongoing for about half a century depending on where you look and is still ongoing, the Middle East was the foremost region for centuries as well and took equally as long to diminish. In order to see change in the place of stagnancy, it is necessary to observe history with a wider view angle, exceptions such as China's or Botswana's are just that, exceptions, and such meteoric alterations are generally nought but peaks and troughs in the grand scheme of history.
    There's far more striking examples of economic explosive growth than Botswana.

    But that's not the point. Being richer or poorer does not a fundamentally better nation make.

    And let's not forget the nations that have experienced the most explosive economic growth in the last 3 decades are nations which, prior to the 19th century were perennially wealthy and well developed like Korea. It's not a departure from their history, but rather a return to their historical norm.

    To this day, I cannot think of a single nation that has truly escaped their history without escaping their culture and ethnicity first.
    This is my signature. Isn't it awesome?

  8. #8
    Caelifer_1991's Avatar Vicarius
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Bristol, United Kingdom, European Union
    Posts
    2,924

    Default Re: Are countries trapped by their history?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ecthelion View Post
    There's far more striking examples of economic explosive growth than Botswana.

    But that's not the point. Being richer or poorer does not a fundamentally better nation make.

    And let's not forget the nations that have experienced the most explosive economic growth in the last 3 decades are nations which, prior to the 19th century were perennially wealthy and well developed like Korea. It's not a departure from their history, but rather a return to their historical norm.

    To this day, I cannot think of a single nation that has truly escaped their history without escaping their culture and ethnicity first.
    1) Botswana's economic growth averaged 9% for 33 years between 1966 and 1999, the highest economic growth rate in the world. http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=e...growth&f=false

    2) The entirety of Europe did in the Renaissance.
    Last edited by Caelifer_1991; December 12, 2014 at 01:21 PM.

  9. #9
    Ecthelion's Avatar Great Ramen Connoisseur
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    The land beyond the River Styx
    Posts
    1,304

    Default Re: Are countries trapped by their history?

    The Renaissance did not change Europe fundamentally.
    In most ways it was just a resumption of Classical traditions that had been dormant for a millenia.
    This is my signature. Isn't it awesome?

  10. #10
    Caelifer_1991's Avatar Vicarius
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Bristol, United Kingdom, European Union
    Posts
    2,924

    Default Re: Are countries trapped by their history?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ecthelion View Post
    The Renaissance did not change Europe fundamentally.
    In most ways it was just a resumption of Classical traditions that had been dormant for a millennia.
    Europe changed from being an impoverished collection of warring tribes during the dark ages to being a collection of impoverished warring micro states and disorganised monarchies and fiefdoms during the Medieval period, to being at the top of the world for centuries from the Renaissance onwards in terms of expansion, wealth, technology, science, government, and almost every other area; the change could not have been more extreme. If a continent has not utilised traditions for millennia, as you say, then how can they be considered to have those traditions at all? It would be like saying that Somalia has a tradition for international trade. What's more practically every part of the world has risen and fallen relative to every other, meaning that if culture can be considered to be dormant (instead of non-existent) indefinitely, then everyone can be said to have dormant cultural traditions that tend toward prosperity.

    An explanation that fits the evidence far better is to say that culture is derived from circumstance, and that circumstance is principally derived from geography; thus, instead of having a perpetual undercurrent of culture, what you have is a perpetual force, pushing a civilisation one way or another, and that as history goes on such civilisations find themselves returning to the same principles and values time and again because they keep finding themselves in the same kinds of circumstances time and again, because their geography has not changed notably (excluding obvious places where it has, such as North Africa, the Sahara, et al, where indeed permanent changes did happen).
    Last edited by Caelifer_1991; December 13, 2014 at 07:49 AM.

  11. #11
    Ecthelion's Avatar Great Ramen Connoisseur
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    The land beyond the River Styx
    Posts
    1,304

    Default Re: Are countries trapped by their history?

    Quote Originally Posted by Caelifer_1991 View Post
    Europe changed from being an impoverished collection of warring tribes during the dark ages to being a collection of impoverished warring micro states and disorganised monarchies and fiefdoms during the Medieval period, to being at the top of the world for centuries from the Renaissance onwards in terms of expansion, wealth, technology, science, government, and almost every other area; the change could not have been more extreme. If a continent has not utilised traditions for millennia, as you say, then how can they be considered to have those traditions at all? It would be like saying that Somalia has a tradition for international trade. What's more practically every part of the world has risen and fallen relative to every other, meaning that if culture can be considered to be dormant (instead of non-existent) indefinitely, then everyone can be said to have dormant cultural traditions that tend toward prosperity.

    An explanation that fits the evidence far better is to say that culture is derived from circumstance, and that circumstance is principally derived from geography; thus, instead of having a perpetual undercurrent of culture, what you have is a perpetual force, pushing a civilisation one way or another, and that as history goes on such civilisations find themselves returning to the same principles and values time and again because they keep finding themselves in the same kinds of circumstances time and again, because their geography has not changed notably (excluding obvious places where it has, such as North Africa, the Sahara, et al, where indeed permanent changes did happen).
    Empirically, you are correct, however you ignore the fact that the basics of Germanic culture did not change. And many of its tenets survive to this day and have been shaping the nature of politics since ancient times.

    What do I mean?

    * Germanic respect for the law. Contrary to popular believe, the Germans were some of the most law abiding people in the ancient world. They observed a very rigorous set of legal customs well prior to their contact with the Greeks or Romans. The tradition of judges and juries of peers also were in place even if they were not known as such, with the judges being usually the chieftain or war-leader.

    * Germanic egalitarianism. As I mentioned earlier, the Germans did not acknowledge strict multi-layered hierarchies as their "civilized" contemporaries did. They certainly had no Hindu style caste system or Confucian social status pecking order based on birth and profession. Nor did they submit to hereditary noble classes like the Roman patricians. In pagan Germany, a freeman was as free as any other man. And could not simply be arbitrarily mistreated by the chieftain or made to serve without consent.

    * Germanic expansionism and innovation. Originating in Scandinavia, the Germans were ever seeking new and fresher pastures. This spirit of longing for exploration and new land was what drove the Europeans to explore well beyond their borders, even at great risk and treasure. Along with their desire for new lands, comes the desire for new things and ideas. With the mental prison of Catholicism broken in the Lutheran countries, this native desire for learning and the sciences immediately reasserted itself as the scientific revolution followed. The Chinese had the means and the economic motivation, but ultimately forewent the opportunity due to the cultural mindset of "what we have is all we need". They were able to achieve great beginnings but rarely kept pushing due to a lack of state sponsorship and or the general Confucian spirit of intellectual conservatism.

    In short, all the core German ethnic and cultural characteristics which were briefly stifled by the Roman Catholic Church, sprang to life again with the Reformation, and led Germanic Europe (AKA Western Europe sans Spain and southwestern France) to new heights of human development while the rest of the world languished in their own status quo. This is why countries/regions like Germany, England, and Flanders have perennial been successful over-achievers largely regardless of their political system.

    Whereas other regions of other cultures and ethnic groups have never been able to do well regardless of their political skin. Again, I point to Italy. The north, or Lombard Italy, has always been a top performer in Europe and would be today if not for the burden of southern Italy, which unlike the north was not endowed with Germanic culture. Spain and the southern, non-Germanic regions of France are the same.
    Last edited by Ecthelion; December 13, 2014 at 08:39 AM.
    This is my signature. Isn't it awesome?

  12. #12
    Caelifer_1991's Avatar Vicarius
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Bristol, United Kingdom, European Union
    Posts
    2,924

    Default Re: Are countries trapped by their history?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ecthelion View Post
    Empirically, you are correct, however you ignore the fact that the basics of Germanic culture did not change. And many of its tenets survive to this day and have been shaping the nature of politics since ancient times.

    What do I mean?

    * Germanic respect for the law. Contrary to popular believe, the Germans were some of the most law abiding people in the ancient world. They observed a very rigorous set of legal customs well prior to their contact with the Greeks or Romans. The tradition of judges and juries of peers also were in place even if they were not known as such, with the judges being usually the chieftain or war-leader.

    * Germanic egalitarianism. As I mentioned earlier, the Germans did not acknowledge strict multi-layered hierarchies as their "civilized" contemporaries did. They certainly had no Hindu style caste system or Confucian social status pecking order based on birth and profession. Nor did they submit to hereditary noble classes like the Roman patricians. In pagan Germany, a freeman was as free as any other man. And could not simply be arbitrarily mistreated by the chieftain or made to serve without consent.

    * Germanic expansionism and innovation. Originating in Scandinavia, the Germans were ever seeking new and fresher pastures. This spirit of longing for exploration and new land was what drove the Europeans to explore well beyond their borders, even at great risk and treasure. Along with their desire for new lands, comes the desire for new things and ideas. With the mental prison of Catholicism broken in the Lutheran countries, this native desire for learning and the sciences immediately reasserted itself as the scientific revolution followed. The Chinese had the means and the economic motivation, but ultimately forewent the opportunity due to the cultural mindset of "what we have is all we need". They were able to achieve great beginnings but rarely kept pushing due to a lack of state sponsorship and or the general Confucian spirit of intellectual conservatism.

    In short, all the core German ethnic and cultural characteristics which were briefly stifled by the Roman Catholic Church, sprang to life again with the Reformation, and led Germanic Europe (AKA Western Europe sans Spain and southwestern France) to new heights of human development while the rest of the world languished in their own status quo. This is why countries/regions like Germany, England, and Flanders have perennial been successful over-achievers largely regardless of their political system.
    ... and yet where did these cultural traits come from? There is little reason to believe that they are in any way innate to Germans more than to anyone else, and indeed Germany and Western Europe still spent more than a millennium trapped in an autocratic, authoritarian and hierarchical structure in the form of aristocratic feudalism. What's more many other parts of the world have exhibited similar traits, many countries in the Middle East, West African Empires such as Mali and Songhai, numerous Indian states, and so on. It seems to me that the German tendency toward egalitarianism, respect for the law, and drive toward expansion is more due to Germany's central position on the continent of Europe, whereby expenditure of resources toward the purpose of maintaining internal stability must be minimised at all costs such that the greatest possible effort can be made toward securing (and thus expanding, in a similar way as Russia and indeed everyone else on the wider European plain stretching from France to the Urals) its borders.

    Its culture, like any other, is a product of circumstance and geography, what's more, like every other, it has changed dramatically throughout its history, and only returned to similar ideas as necessary dependent upon circumstance: it is a product of its geography as much as anywhere else, or to put it another way, Germany is yet still another example of culture being an effect, not a cause, of history - an intercorrelated effect, and a reinforcing one, but an effect nonetheless. What's more, all this is subject to yet another condition, that we look only at the last couple of thousand years; humanity has 12500 years of history, depending on where you look, and for 10000 years of that history Germany, and for the entire rest of Europe, for about 9000, was an undeveloped backwater, even assuming that its culture was continuous and maintained its basic facets, than for the vast majority of its history its effects were clearly marginal at best or negative at worst.

    Going further, lets consider China, shall we not say that it has had every bit as much of an expansionist culture as anywhere in Europe, that its history has been a continuous one of expansion, collapse, and re-expansion, and that indeed the only reason for Europe having conquered the Americas and that China remained within its current borders, is not for any cultural traits, but rather than both regions expanded toward their natural boundaries, and that whereas China would have had to cross the entire Pacific Ocean, with unfavourable winds on the return journey, making the foundation of a permanent colony impossible, that conversely Europe had only the much smaller Atlantic Ocean to cross, with very convenient alternating cross winds across varying latitudes. What's more, even if we do consider culture, can we not say that that itself is only an effect of the relative success of each area, in that China successfully expanded to its natural borders whereas the varied topography of Europe prevented such, causing China to have no choice but to adopt a culture centred on consolidation and order in order to maintain its gains? Thus even again, the operating variable here is geography, with culture playing the role of a tool to navigate the circumstances derived from such.
    Last edited by Caelifer_1991; December 13, 2014 at 09:01 AM.

  13. #13
    dogukan's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Middle freaking east
    Posts
    7,777

    Default Re: Are countries trapped by their history?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ecthelion View Post
    In this modern age we like to believe that all nations are capable of progressing to Scandinavian levels of state perfection. Sure Denmark and Norway aren't perfect but they’re an awful lot closer to perfection than say Somalia or the US.

    But is this optimistic assumption really true?

    Policy makers, political theorist and other people that make a living from the promise of being able to fundamentally reform developing countries would like to make us believe that it is.

    But I don’t agree. I would posit that countries are indeed trapped by their own history, and virtually none escape.
    I somewhat agree up to here. However my problem is with how you reason. edit:completely somewhat agree previously lel

    In fact, I cannot think of a single modern state that has truly and completely departed from its traditional norm without a major change in ethnicity or being ruled by long period of time by a domineering colonial power, or in the case of the Arabian oil giants, having a huge supply of free money underneath their feet.

    Why?
    Now, I can see the responses already:
    “What about China, South Korea, Argentina, or Italy and Greece?”

    China, South Korea, and all the other “Asian Tigers” were all once successful countries prior to the modern period. Their failure to modernize in the Industrial Age was not so much a failure as a lack of exception success. East Asia was doing just fine by the standards of the past millennia. Their return to success in the postwar period is nothing more than a return to a historical norm.
    Your problem here is obvious. You take modernity, which is defined by capitalism, which itself is a specific historical form of social relations for granted. This is a highly euro-centric view. We judge societies by modernization because that specific form had came to dominate the world. There was no guarantee that capitalism would have prevailed. It is a product of specific conditions in a globally tied world. Rather, focus should be on from where and how capitalism emerged and expanded. At what point and context(social, political, economic, geographic...etc) other countries were absorbed into this system...


    Well, I think we can all agree that cultural background is the largest single factor how a political system fares in a given country.
    Cases of poorly matched political systems are abundant. Just in the last decade, democracy has been forced upon nations whose cultures are completely incompatible with it, and thus have resulted in complete trainwrecks of governments.
    You cannot throw this around like its a fact. Its a debated phenomena. Besides, culture is not a static phenomena, it is something that changes. Only things being, it is tied to its previous moment. But the previous moment can still be left behind highly.

    So then if political system’s success or failure in a given country is linked with culture, what is culture linked with?
    Well, culture is, by definition, the result of historical events and conditions on a given ethnic group.
    Thats fine. But you have to keep in mind that in our every moment we are making history. Culture is not a finished product. That this is not compatible with this is a flawed argument.

    Ethnicity is pretty firm and fixed. Short of genocide, mass exodus, or mass intermarriage, the ethnicity of region will likely remain inert.
    And major fundamental cultural changes in a given ethnicity are at best rare and incredibly slow.
    It takes one generation of indoctrination to greatly change a culture. Thought thats under ideal circumstances. Culture can however change rapidly, its just, there is rarely a context where it can change rapidly.

    So we come to the conclusion that short of a major change in the ethnic makeup of a given region, its effectiveness with a given (or ANY given) political system will remain unchanged.
    A flawed conclusion on a flawed argument. Within a given ethnic group, there can be multiple cultural forms as well as ideologies. Ideologies not necessarily in the political form but in the daily life practice form. Political system have changed drastically in the past in under a few years.
    I think you should shift your argument to local conditions or quality of life or something. Political context can change very rapidly. Its happening everywhere in the world a we speak.

    In other words, successful nations with a proven record are usually perennial successful regardless of their political system (with the exception of extreme forms like North Korean communism, which usually prove short lived). And unsuccessful nations are perennial unsuccessful, regardless of their political system.
    It is weird how much you can dismiss economic conditions don't you think?


    Argentina’s failure in the latter 20th century is more a case of not having enough data to set expectations. Argentina’s initial success was due mainly to the fact that it was largely “virgin”. It’s the only South American country with no significant native population prior to European colonization. So the abundant resources were easily exploited by the Spanish and German settlers. It’s like having massive oil reserves under your feet; it doesn’t take much to do well. Argentina as it is now is likely to be Argentina for the foreseeable future, unexceptional among other Latin American nations.
    Your arguments being significantly flawed, there is an actual legit case on what you are close to saying in academia. You should check "new institutional economics" and people like Douglass C North, Daron Acemoğlu, Timur Kuran...etc



    ps: recently, I have realized that gaming in grand strategy game creates a completely ideological perception of what is right, good, developed, modern...etc. This is something to keep in mind because most games tend to be created so that there is a linear progression to a higher stage...this has its roots in 19th century Euro-centric positivism. The reason political context, culture, nationality...etc takes so much value also goes into this. Games really do shape your world view. So I was wondering if you play all the total war games or paradox games or any other grand strategies where each culture would have specific "traits" and the process of development would be linear?
    Last edited by dogukan; December 15, 2014 at 03:08 AM.
    "Therefore I am not in favour of raising any dogmatic banner. On the contrary, we must try to help the dogmatists to clarify their propositions for themselves. Thus, communism, in particular, is a dogmatic abstraction; in which connection, however, I am not thinking of some imaginary and possible communism, but actually existing communism as taught by Cabet, Dézamy, Weitling, etc. This communism is itself only a special expression of the humanistic principle, an expression which is still infected by its antithesis – the private system. Hence the abolition of private property and communism are by no means identical, and it is not accidental but inevitable that communism has seen other socialist doctrines – such as those of Fourier, Proudhon, etc. – arising to confront it because it is itself only a special, one-sided realisation of the socialist principle."
    Marx to A.Ruge

  14. #14
    Hobbes's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Hobs Crk
    Posts
    10,732

    Default Re: Are countries trapped by their history?

    What complete nonsense. Ethnicity? Some abstract definition of culture without any historicity? Is this some sort of nationalistic rant?

  15. #15
    dogukan's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Middle freaking east
    Posts
    7,777

    Default Re: Are countries trapped by their history?

    post-industrial society and its ideology of post-modernity did this! Damn it FUKUYAMA and HUNTINGTON!
    Nah actually this whole thing sounds more like positivist 19th century European stuff.

    It is a quiet nationalistic rant I think, in its essence at least even if the OP does not posit one particular nationalism's view. This is what I call an ideological cloud which prevents people from seeing things in their constructed forms(and obviously they cannot see the processes behind things, they take things at face-value). Ethnicity without historicity is extremely meaningless indeed. Not to mention the fact that the language here barely corresponds to reality and misses a whole other abstractions that we use to understand the world.
    "Therefore I am not in favour of raising any dogmatic banner. On the contrary, we must try to help the dogmatists to clarify their propositions for themselves. Thus, communism, in particular, is a dogmatic abstraction; in which connection, however, I am not thinking of some imaginary and possible communism, but actually existing communism as taught by Cabet, Dézamy, Weitling, etc. This communism is itself only a special expression of the humanistic principle, an expression which is still infected by its antithesis – the private system. Hence the abolition of private property and communism are by no means identical, and it is not accidental but inevitable that communism has seen other socialist doctrines – such as those of Fourier, Proudhon, etc. – arising to confront it because it is itself only a special, one-sided realisation of the socialist principle."
    Marx to A.Ruge

  16. #16
    Ecthelion's Avatar Great Ramen Connoisseur
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    The land beyond the River Styx
    Posts
    1,304

    Default Re: Are countries trapped by their history?

    You can argue the logic and theory all you want, but there simply isn't a major counterexample.

    I mean, what major world culture has so dramatically changed in culture within the same ethnicity as to reverse the historical fortunes of its country? And I don't mean temporary reversals or reversions to historical norms. I mean where the fundamental course and nature of the country has changed.

    It just doesn't happen.

    Since the end of the Catholic intellectual domination on Europe in the Reformation, those countries then economically and politically successful have remained so. And those that have not, have also remained so. There were temporary reversals of fortune along the way caused by unequal technological development that led to arbitrage as with the period of European colonial dominance. But once these were normalized in the due course of time, things returned to where they were before. We will soon be back in a world that roughly resembled the one we lived in 500 years ago in terms of relative power and prosperity between regions (with the exception of those countries that didn't exist 500 years ago of course like the US).

    If you want to see more proof of the decisive and enduring role of culture, just look to the Americas.

    The Americas are all "new" nations. But they have old cultures and traditions.

    The US and Canada inherited the largely Protestant Anglo-French culture (there were a lot of Huguenots in Canada), and look where they are now.
    The rest of the Americas inherited the Catholic Iberian culture, and look at where they are now.


    Even very specific problems like mass patronage, weak centralization of government, inability to manage fiscal priorities, these are all problems inherited from Spain over 500 years ago, and they remain the same problems today.
    Nothing has changed.
    Last edited by Ecthelion; December 14, 2014 at 01:16 AM.
    This is my signature. Isn't it awesome?

  17. #17
    Hobbes's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Hobs Crk
    Posts
    10,732

    Default Re: Are countries trapped by their history?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ecthelion View Post
    You can argue the logic and theory all you want, but there simply isn't a major counterexample.
    I am sure that this amazing revelation is going to be the cause of great upheaval amongst social scientists.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ecthelion View Post
    I mean, what major world culture has so dramatically changed in culture within the same ethnicity as to reverse the historical fortunes of its country? And I don't mean temporary reversals or reversions to historical norms. I mean where the fundamental course and nature of the country has changed.
    We see here the misuse of three words. Culture, ethnicity and country. For one, you connect the concept of an ethnicity with that of a country. Not only that but you see the fortunes of countries as being determined by what seems to be immutable characteristics of the ethnicity that defines said countries. Countries also seem to appear to be some abstract concept that have some sort of nature and follow a specific course, but this is not surprising since to you they are defined by what you perceive to be a thing divorced from any sort of historical process, namely "ethnicity". By now we see how self-contradicting your viewpoint is, Ecthelion. Because while you say that countries follow some specific course, in other words they experience some sort of change, the thing that you present as the basis of countries is absolutely fixed.
    To point out that the view that cultures and ethnicities spring from the ground and have not undergone any changes, for example that there has been a Mexican culture, an American one, a Basque one, a Greek one and so on, from time immemorial, is an exercise in prolixity, but I fear I must point it out again as you fail to grasp it. Pray tell, how when were these cultures/ethnicities (is there a difference?) formed? How can you explain their characteristics? Your metaphysical conception of the world doesn't allow you to answer any of these questions.

  18. #18
    Caelifer_1991's Avatar Vicarius
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Bristol, United Kingdom, European Union
    Posts
    2,924

    Default Re: Are countries trapped by their history?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ecthelion View Post
    You can argue the logic and theory all you want, but there simply isn't a major counterexample.

    I mean, what major world culture has so dramatically changed in culture within the same ethnicity as to reverse the historical fortunes of its country? And I don't mean temporary reversals or reversions to historical norms. I mean where the fundamental course and nature of the country has changed.

    It just doesn't happen.

    Since the end of the Catholic intellectual domination on Europe in the Reformation, those countries then economically and politically successful have remained so. And those that have not, have also remained so. There were temporary reversals of fortune along the way caused by unequal technological development that led to arbitrage as with the period of European colonial dominance. But once these were normalized in the due course of time, things returned to where they were before. We will soon be back in a world that roughly resembled the one we lived in 500 years ago in terms of relative power and prosperity between regions (with the exception of those countries that didn't exist 500 years ago of course like the US).

    If you want to see more proof of the decisive and enduring role of culture, just look to the Americas.

    The Americas are all "new" nations. But they have old cultures and traditions.

    The US and Canada inherited the largely Protestant Anglo-French culture (there were a lot of Huguenots in Canada), and look where they are now.
    The rest of the Americas inherited the Catholic Iberian culture, and look at where they are now.

    Even very specific problems like mass patronage, weak centralization of government, inability to manage fiscal priorities, these are all problems inherited from Spain over 500 years ago, and they remain the same problems today.
    Nothing has changed.
    Multiple examples have already been provided. In order for you to see things the way you do, it is necessary that you discount the vast majority of history, merely picking out those areas of it that support your analysis. Your opinion is a classic example of confirmation bias, wherein you confuse cause and effect, or correlation and causation, and then filter out all knowledge that contradicts it, or create terms to support it that are vague enough that no evidence can be used outright to disprove it, even going so far as to abandon logic itself. I want you to take this not as an insult or provocation but as an invitation to take a step back and consider if you are as open minded as you would like to be.
    Last edited by Caelifer_1991; December 14, 2014 at 08:19 AM.

  19. #19
    hellheaven1987's Avatar Comes Domesticorum
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    The Hell called Conscription
    Posts
    35,615

    Default Re: Are countries trapped by their history?

    Quote Originally Posted by Caelifer_1991 View Post
    Multiple examples have already been provided. In order for you to see things the way you do, it is necessary that you discount the vast majority of history, merely picking out those areas of it that support your analysis. Your opinion is a classic example of confirmation bias, wherein you confuse cause and effect, or correlation and causation, and then filter out all knowledge that contradicts it, or create terms to support it that are vague enough that no evidence can be used outright to disprove it, even going so far as to abandon logic itself. I want you to take this not as an insult or provocation but as an invitation to take a step back and consider if you are as open minded as you would like to be.
    That reminds me the method how Communist and Chinese historians try to explain history.
    Quote Originally Posted by Markas View Post
    Hellheaven, sometimes you remind me of King Canute trying to hold back the tide, except without the winning parable.
    Quote Originally Posted by Diocle View Post
    Cameron is midway between Black Rage and .. European Union ..

  20. #20

    Default Re: Are countries trapped by their history?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ecthelion View Post
    The Renaissance did not change Europe fundamentally.
    In most ways it was just a resumption of Classical traditions that had been dormant for a millenia.
    Dude, this is cheating. If you expand the time-span to cover a millenia then you will find examples for everything. Your theory is way to general to be applicable.

    Besides, Germany.
    Have you ever seen Dirty Harry Guns and money are best diplomacy
    "At a football club, there's a holy trinity - the players, the manager and the supporters. Directors don't come into it. They are only there to sign the cheques."

    Bill Shankly

    "Not badly, considering I was seated between Jesus Christ and Napoleon"

    David Lloyd George was pleased with his performance at Versailles.

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •