@Reginleif said:
@TheWitchingHour: To be fair though Africa's never ending gerrymandering lays in the problem that they almost entirely reflect colonial boundaries, not ethnic ones. Only a few African states represent historic states, Morocco, Mali, Egypt and only a few represent ethnic ones (Lesotho). I could see a division of the US based on North and South though...
I'm not sure if gerrymandering is really the most (lol) appropriate term but I understand what you're saying and I agree ;)
English, French, Belgian, and Italian colonialism absolutely were cornerstones of the modern Africa. But those same colonial powers manipulated Ethnic, Political, or Religious schisms that were already in place. In smaller communities these schisms wouldn't have been as much of a problem but on a national scale they render a nation unstable and vulnerable to colonization. Like you said the historic states of Morocco, Mali, and Egypt remained relatively sovereign through the colonial era and continue to do so today. Because they were established and developed states.
@aztek_the_lost said:
@TheWitchingHour said:
New nations spring up from hardly developed ones. Africa has been constantly shifting political boundaries for years because of war, disease, poverty and military regimes. The United States is in a remarkably different situation. It's too tied into the global economy at this point to wither without serious consequences to the rest of the world and more importantly multinationals. Americans consume like no other country on earth and it's in the best interest of virtually every producer out there to ensure our survival.
That's not really true though, most nations broke off from a nation that was pretty old, America for example. I'm not saying its presence wouldn't continue to exist, I'm not even saying it is on the verge of collapse, I'm just saying history shows it'll probably fragment into smaller territories and I'm kind of surprised it hasn't already but that might be because it was created all along with the idea that it's a number of loosely-allied states rather then a single nation.
@Lunacyde said:
Depends what you mean. Many nations have existed for thousands of years. They may go through phases, and change, but they still exist. The era of American dominance MAY be waning, but America is not going to violently collpse and be taken over by invading hordes. Also an American notion coming from a Serbian? How absurd.
But that doesn't really count, where there's people there will be a nation. Simple as that. I never said anything about invading hordes, I meant like collapsing and becoming multiple nations like every other country (including itself) has done in the past. And actually, I didn't know AtPhantom was Serbian, then that notion makes no sense at all.
I get what you're saying. Historical evidence shows that empires fall and new ones take their place. But you also have to take into consideration the fundamental difference between eras. For example the Middle Ages relied on land to dictate power. Fuedalism was the law of the land and that socio-economic policy formed nation/states. But we're currently in the Digital Age. Our currency is information as opposed to land. And that information and data is tied up with everyone elses data. Also countries we are indebted to have an interest in seeing us someday paying off that debt. I agree that something analogous to the downfall of Rome is bound to happen. I just don't think Germanic tribes are going to show up and loot us anytime soon.
Log in to comment