this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2023
69 points (100.0% liked)

Chat

7498 readers
1 users here now

Relaxed section for discussion and debate that doesn't fit anywhere else. Whether it's advice, how your week is going, a link that's at the back of your mind, or something like that, it can likely go here.


Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Like, the only reason countries exist is because some rich guys decided that they ruled this chunk of land, and everyone else just kinda said "Yeah, whatever, I don't really give a shit, just let me farm and leave me the fuck alone".

Then the rich guy on the next bit of land said "I want a bit of what he's got going on", and before we knew it, all the bits of land were ruled by people who's only claim to them was that they were the first to have the idea.

Fast forward a few thousand years, and some of the bits of land are ruled by people who wear gold hats and spout a load of bollocks about divine right, while some of the bits of land are ruled by people who convinced the rest of the people to let them do it, and really, there's no difference between, like, France and Spain, but some old dudes drew a line and said "Nah, that bit speaks this version of a language, and that bit speaks another version of it".

You ever think about that?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Thrashy 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not just territory, but social stratification and ingroup-outgroup dynamics are present in nearly every social species of animal. Some are more strict and/or violent about it, but everything from fish to birds to other primate species have social hierarchies, a concept of territory, and a willingness to fight over both. Great apes have been documented conducting violent wars with other troupes over territory and resources.

I have to say that I've always found the argument that "X is an tool of control by the rich!" to be reductive. The implicit (or sometimes explicit) corollary is that "X" is therefore arbitrary, artificial, and bad, whereas I tend to think that usually inverts cause and effect. "X," whether it's social hierarchies, the concept of property ownership, or in this case territorial boundaries, are more often than not rooted in some innate social instinct that can often be found not just in people but throughout the animal kingdom. The powers-that-be may well be manipulating those behaviors to their benefit, but that doesn't mean that the solution is to deny that they are innate and claim that we can make a better society if we could only ignore them hard enough. You have to make changes keeping in mind the limitations of the human mind and behavior if you want to create a viable real-world solution.

[–] upstream 2 points 1 year ago

Not only is it reductive, but it’s also a rather lacking analysis in terms of richness.

As you say, territorialism and social hierarchies is common.

Animals don’t value each other on the basis of their bank accounts, and neither did humans.

Money and wealth are fairly modern concepts. So are nations, but the point I’m trying to make is that we divided land into territories long before wealth had anything to do about it.

And while having territories definitely cause some issues it also creates a common cause. If it’s your household, your neighborhood, your municipality, your county, your nation, or your continent.

But as always, the further close to home the more engaged we are. You are more invested in keeping your house clean than the street outside of it.

Democracy works the same, and it works better on lower levels. On national levels it seems to work less and less.