Can you give some examples of wars that were NOT identity wars? All wars require some practical way of distinguishing friend from foe. “Practical” means using simple criteria. Voila! “identify” war!
Spengler/David Goldman has been writing about this for a while, sort of. I think his central response is that history has offerred two solutions: partition or universal religion.
According to Goldman, western society has created only two examples of universal religion: Holy Roman Empire and the United States’ Constitution (I would add British Monarchy under Common Law to the list). All other Western States are essentially tribal in nature.
The only hope for Africa and SE Asia is that they either partition peacefully or find a universal religion (hopefully not Jihadist Islam). Which isn’t much of a hope.
With this in mind, it seems a great idea that we continue to enthusiastically embrace multiculturalism and its attendant hordes of “the different”. What could go wrong?
“Identity wars”–you gotta be kidding. What planet are you from? Just call it “the Caliphate”; it’s more honest. Christians are not trying to take over vast swathes of land; the Muslims, however, are.
Your link to the Foust article is broken, and I believe his name is spelled “Foust,” not “Faust”.
WRM, your subject matter is both weighty and despairing – such generally is social and political philosophy. Conflicts between groups (humans) are age old problem – man’s inhumanity to man needs no survey here. Yet, your exposition brings to mind “Patrimonial Power in the Modern World” (The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science – July, 2011). The editors argue that unless madiating factors exist within differing cultural, religious, and/or ethnic backgrounds wno inhabit the same stretch of land a sense of depersonalization forms and contributes to inclination towards “The Eternal Return of the Tribe” (Nation). I fear our 21st century “Scariest Thing In the World” turns on how we interpret and genuinely aspire humanly to proffer ways out of this growing revanchist behavior.
Coming from India, I have a slightly divergent opinion on this whole multi-ethnicity issue in weak democratic states. India has multiple religions (and sects and castes within), languages, ethnicities and cultures all (largely) peacefully co-existing together in a vibrant democracy with one of the most rapidly growing economies in the world.
When talking about how ethnic conflict or religious conflicts tear a nation apart, it is rather easy to find examples. When looking at how states can rise above such problems, it helps to look at a proven success story. I highly recommend you look into the Indian example as a model for other diverse nations seeking to establish lasting democracy.
I agree about Nigeria, but Kyrgyzstan should be fairly stable for some time. It borders Xinjiang autonomous region, therefore China is unlikely to let up her hegemony and risk inflamation of ethnic unrest in Xinjiang.
Typically regions of frozen conflict are peaceful until imperial control fails – Yugoslavia, USSR, British Empire, Alexander’s empire etc. When the overlord control comes off the conflicts come unfrozen. This is therefore unlikely to happen in Kyrgyzstan until China changes significantly. Which is not to say life will be pleasant, particularly for the poor Uzbeks.
Please read Steven Pinker’s wonderful review of the history of violence, “The Better Angels of our Nature.”
The Kyrgystan flare-up was not caused by religious differences, both are Sunni Muslims. It appears to have been set off deliberately by angry members of the govt. replaced by Roza Otunbayeva (sp?). Still, the ethnic fault line did exist…but when in history have they not existed?
India is in may ways unique, composed of many thousands of endogamous locl communities stratified by caste buy united by a religious world-view that, while not universal, encompasses the entire sub-continent (minus the Mulsims of course, which is a problem).
China, on the other hand, includes something like 700 million Han, and I am given to understand that nationalist passions are just beneath the surface (remember when we accidentally bombed their embassy in Belgrade?). Certainly the modernization process is churning the demography more or less as it did in Europe. Whether in case of break down this is more likely to lead to regional war-lordism as it did in the 1930’s or one giant ethnic “beast” maurauding through Asia is a question I hope never gets answered. What does an 800 lbs Gorilla take?
It’s not racism to refer to African (or other) tribes as tribes, rather than nations. Africa is home to hundreds of tribes few of which could ever constitute a nation in the sense we know it. Some tribes actually have a great deal in common but are blood enemies. So it upis with the Hutu and Tutsi who are ethnically similar, speak the same language and live traditionally in the same territory — but hate each other. On the other hand, the Hausa, Ibdo, Yoruba and a half dozen other tribes of Nigeria are of several ethnic groups, all speak their own languages and have disparate cultures but have managed generally to live as a single nation until
recently (they have a secession in the 60s but so did
we). Militant Islam may divide the nation but if so, it will not be tribal.
In North Africa, we have recently learned how important tribes are in Lybia, notwithstanding the fact that almost everyone is an ethnic Arab, speaks Arabic and shares the same Sunni Muslim faith and thousand year old culture. If Lybia comes apart along tribal lines, we would be foolish to view the pieces as nations in the sense that Slovaks or Slovenians comprise a nation.
In Iraq, we learned that tribes were still important but tribal membership cut across the far more important Sunni-Shia divide.
And in Afghanistan, there are dozens of tribes just among the ethnic Pashtuns who share a language, culture, religion and history. While it is possible to imagine a nation of Pashtunistan, there will never be a nation of the Afridis, the Waziris, the Durrani or the Mohmand.
While there is a great variety among sub-Saharan tribes, they are much more like nations than like Arab and Berber tribes. They speak different languages, for one thing, and often have quite different customs. While some are small, many are quite large (millions of members) and quite a few have a history of political independence and state building before the colonial era. These are on the whole much more serious and consequential entities than the tribes of the Arab world.
@ 6, error correction: 4th sentence should read: The editors argue that unless mediating factors exist within differing cultural, religious, and/or ethnic backgrounds, those who inhabit the same stretch of land can develop a sense of depersonalization; such sense can contribute to predilection towards “….”
I’m going to jump on board with the notion that the idea of identity conflicts being at all historically recent is bumpkiss. Prior to the Reformation it’s easy to pick out conflicts obviously based on identity: the Crusades (ALL of them, including 1204), the Byzanto-Iranian Wars of Late Antiquity, etc etc etc.
Ideas shot ‘Us’ and ‘Them’ are an innate aspect of human nature and have been driving us to new heights of slaughter and violent excess since we have been human.
@John Alsina says:
November 7, 2011 at 12:15 pm
Are you kidding us? Did you even READ the essay?? If you did, did you give it any thought at all???
American Revolution, American Civil War, the Continental European wars of the 18th century, the imperial conquest wars of Rome and of Great Britain… I could go on and on and on.
Those were wars of revolution against a mother country that was alike in ethnicity and religion, a civil war between two powers who were also alike in religion and ethnicity, wars between dynastic powers that were so limited and so tightly governed that the inhabitants of opposing powers sometimes didn’t even realize they were at war, and wars by imperial powers solely interested in materiel gain, powers who could care less about the ethnicity or religion of their foes, powers who, regularly or occasionally, employed the martial services of their former enemies.
Identity wars are wars centered on race and/or ethnicity and/or religion and/or ideology; they are wars for no real practical materiel gain (or where practical gain is concomitant with or subordinate to other issues), wars often waged by one people against another who otherwise seem to be so similar that observers sometimes scratch their heads and wonder what possible quarrel the two sides could have with each other.
They are wars that resemble more than anything blood feuds writ large; blood feuds become total wars in the modern era…
North America has not had terrible “identity” wars in the 400 years that Europeans have settled here. The worst war was our Civil War which was (mostly) over slavery. European ethnic groups that were at each other’s throats in the Old Country, learned to put aside their hostilities within a couple generations in America. The US’s fights with Canada petered out by the mid-19th Century, and they didn’t amount to much in the way of blood and treasure expenditures. We stole a big chunk of Mexico, but they’re to weak to fight back. Well, they’re immigrating into America so heavily, maybe they’ll take back the SW that way! But it’s not a bloody, violent conflict.
Oh please Mr. Mead. Brutal wars in the Balkans are old news. The Turks killed half the population conquering them, as before them the Huns, the Romans, the Macedonians, the Greeks and the Persians had done. Hulagu Khan left about a million skulls outside Baghdad. Caesar killed about a million Gauls. None of these occured in modern nation states, heck the Persians were a multi-ethnic empire, comprised of many subject peoples. As was the Turkish Sultanate, and the Macedonians under Philip and Alexander.
The Balkans in particular were a seething cauldron of hatred kept “peaceful” by Tito’s brutality, although less bloody than Saddam’s on the same model. No one should have been shocked with his passing, the place would blow up into hyper-violence. Any more than the power-struggles among the French and Hapsburgs would turn Germany into abbatoir, with Sweden and Russia getting into the act.
All that modernizing did was give better weapons to large, industrial states that could not be matched by smaller, less modern states (Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Greece) or archaic, pre-modern states (Russia). With nukes as a commodity now, and the AK-47, and IED, the ability to conquer and hold with industrial infrastructure is negated. India must fear and tolerate every Pakistani provocation because Pakistan can wipe out its cities.
Turks are not European, any more than Europeans are Muslims, or Africans, or Asians.
There is nothing wrong with nationalism. It actually WORKS. Multi-nationalism as you note fails, by its very nature it is corrupt and brutal, resting on the suppression of most to benefit a few (the Saddam model in various Tito, Xerxes, Alexander, Stalin, Mao, and Napoleon permutations). You and every other human are engineered to trust people who look and act like distant relatives. Nationalism can engender high-trust societies. It is necessary but not sufficient of course to a wealth producing society that innovates.
No innovations, came out in a steady stream from multi-national empires. Nation-states alone create a constant flow of innovation, change, and technological vitality critical to creating and defending wealth. [India is a pest-hole with forced child brides and suttee and the rest of the barbaric stuff that marks them as utter and complete failures. Yes they produce dirt-cheap English speaking semi-competent laborers. This is not an accomplishment.]
So a central component of Professor Mead’s thesis is that identity wars in Africa represent some sort of contagion from Europe and the ME? Identity wars, i.e. conflicts between tribal entities, have been part and parcel of Africa’s political landscape for thousands of years. It is quite plausible that the migration of early humans from Africa to Eurasia was at least partly due to tribal identity wars. To lay recent occurrences of identity wars in Africa at the feet of Europe seems a bit cockeyed to me.
How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie roll, tootsie pop?
This essay reminds me of one that appeared here 06 September, _Under the Bus: A Pack of Pouting Greens_. I commented that for several decades there had been a school-of-thought that, long-term, the Earth could support about one-billion people and that based on about thirty-two years of formal & informal study & travel I considered that one-billion figure to be likely to be true.
I didn’t state that that figure was an established fact or that it even qualified as a “theory” since a theory is accepted by the scientific-community at large and not just the individual who proposes it. An individual proposes a hypothesis.
In any case I was attacked, I gather with “glee,” and accused of wanting to commit genocide. (I had suggested no such thing). A couple of enlightened individuals suggested that I kill myself first.
That one-billion figure still hasn’t been proven, and probably won’t be in my lifetime, but this current essay reminds me of that verse of scripture, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own country.”
Of course, one tribe (of humans) has been trying to annihilate another since long before the Earth’s population reached that first billion, circa 1800. But it seems to me–and this isn’t profound–that over-population pressures can only exacerbate the problem of identity-wars.
Wow, Whiskey! I didn’t know you were so knowledgeable.
I am inclined to agree that “identity” is too broad a term (in Europe, one would have to include the Crusades and not argue that it began with the Reformation). But your larger point is I think well taken.
The danger in Asia is that its major actors will repeat the disastrous history of Europe from 1890 to 1945. The prevalence of nuclear weapons gives grounds for hope that large-scale war can be averted, but in a multipolar world it may be harder to avoid conflict than in the bipolar world of the Cold War.
Just as Britain began to lose its maritime advantage after 1890, it is likely that the means to disable satellites and sink expensive surface fleets in the next decade or two will reduce America’s present advantage and make every country in Asia less secure. The 1914 scenario could repeat itself: a jihadist terror attack on India finally provokes India to attack Pakistan, dragging in China and then America and Russia. Or China could finally put pressure on Taiwan to give up its independence or assert maritime claims that Japan cannot tolerate.
Asians know the history of the twentieth century and are in no hurry to repeat it. But the arms race in Asia shows no sign of abating, and it may be more difficult to prevent a clash from triggering a conflict that no one really wants.
Not sure I see any sign that these conflicts are proliferating in Africa or Asia… if we look at the last 50 years, do we see anything to match the ferocious conflicts we saw in Liberia/Sierra Leone, Cambodia/Vietnam, Algeria, Biafra (Nigeria), Ethopia/Eritrea, Sudan, Congo (1999-2004), Rwanda/Burundi, Angola, and Pakistan/India/Bangladesh? All of these were intertribal/communal conflicts/civil wars. Seems like the world got a lot more peaceful in the last two decades to me.
Isms are a constructed facade to be used as a rallying point or target. This is not to say isms are utterly baseless. No, they’re ubiquitous. Obviously what is constructed is not the fact that isms exist in the natural state but the power structure that puts them to use in binding groups of people.
Western notions of natural law/common law/constitutions sought to unravel that utility. When the experiment works, power is dilluted. Now then, see the reason the west is hated?
A badly written article. Ever hear of taking things from rough to refined draft?
And the thinking is just ignorant, with no sense of history. How can you just blame whitey for something so universal as in-group out-group conflict? Sad excuse for a thinker you are, Mr. Mead. Funny what passes for “publishable” writing these days.
“Over the next 100 years, more than a hundred million people died in wars as multinational empires in Europe and the Middle East ripped themselves apart in paroxysms of war, genocide and ethnic cleansing.”
Someone, here, mentioned that you are Professor, if I am not mistaken? I wonder… what kind?
This article is clearly written with certain ideological point of view. Therefore, I do not take it as a serious or “scientific” one. It is rather neocolonial and neoliberal in its core, and as such looking for excuse for numerous massacres and famines committed and caused by imperial forces and administrators even to this day. An Iraq may serve as the most prominent and gruesome example. This article is written with very strong dose of late Samuel Huntington.
Those, “more than a hundred million people” are victims of colonial(s) lunacy and their planners. Just to mention handling of dissolution of Ottoman Empire by Western powers and Russia and for that matter the Balkans question in 1919 – Treaty of Versailles. Or, Drang Nach Osten. All those victims are victims of deep-rooted Westphalian national cultural fixation and its “culture”. As we can see that “culture” tearing EU apart, even today.
Maybe Dear Professor, you should read the book of one other professor: Mark Mazower,
“Dark Continent: Europe’s Twentieth Century”.
One thing is certain: Those with “identity” (Westphalians) are very successful in exporting their best product to those without it: violence.
Yugoslavia was mentioned, few times here, as an example of to paraphrase of impossibility of multi-cultural state. Yugoslavia is/was the country where I was born, and where I lived happily along the other without “identity”. When “brutal” dictator Tito died, and “democracy” arrived/imposed, the population found themselves in an inter-communal war which is in essence imposed by the EU and US. I, myself, ended up as a refuge, which I am going to be the rest of live, i.e., with f….. life.
Not sure are you good or bad… but you are for sure: Westphalian.