Talk:Divide and rule

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Historical Background 2 India 3 doing the same that the Islamsits did? 4 Neutrality and sources 5 Major omission: Ireland 6 Shia and Sunni 7 Compare with "Having divided to conquer, we must reunite to rule." 8 Bias 9 Supporting Friendly People Divide and Conquer?

[edit] Historical Background

I have amended and expanded the historical attributions. In a nutshell, the principle "Divide et impera" appears to be of early modern origin, retrojected with various degrees of accuracy upon the policies of the Roman Empire. Its attribution to Philip II appears to be bereft of historical merit. Although numerous writers attribute it to Machiavelli, I have been unable to corroborate his advocacy of "Divide et impera" as a political principle.

From the article:

Effective use of this technique allows those with little real power to control those who collectively have a lot of power. It is a folk truism that today's world population of six billion people is ruled by approximately ten thousand people, who in turn are ruled by a committee of 300.

A "committee of 300"? Boggle.

It's a Zionist conspiracy!!1

I have deleted this nonsense. This article deserves to be purged of such demagoguery. Larvatus 21:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)larvatus

[edit] India

An anonymous editor added the para about British "Divide and Rule" in India. First, it's in the wrong place, second, the second sentence about Britain splitting India into Hindu India and Muslim Pakistan is a bit dubious. Surely this division was at the instigation of the communities themselves? Camillus (talk) 13:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

similarly, the comments at the end of the article about the british keeping indians divided on lines of caste seems unrealistic. Indians have done this to themselves for centuries without any help from the brits.

I agree, very dubious. Like most such arguments it assumes no agency on the part of the colonised at all. So we're expected to believe that 350 million people remained entirely passive while approximately 150,000 Brits did this to them? That the inhabitants of the subcontinent had no input at all into the formation of their modern identities? Dream on. These sorts of divisions have emerged in all societies, colonised or uncolonised since the beginning of the 19th century. It's always easier to blame it on somebody else when it causes problems, injustice and suffering, but modern Governments and societies must take responsibility for things like the caste system and religious nationalism themselves.Sikandarji 23:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

OK - my point was about the British partitioning India, which I don't think was a case of "Divide and Rule" as it occurred after British rule ended, and was at the instigation of the communities involved, but I don't think we should deny that the British Empire (and other empires before and since), used the tactic of "Divide and Rule" - yes, the divisions where already there, but what the empire-builders do is to exploit these differences, favouring one section over another (often a minority section) - the (quite intentional) effect of this is to make the communities turn in on themselves, rather than uniting against their common "master". So "Divide and Rule" is very real.

I am ready to accept that the British Empire was not completely evil, as some portray it - but in the end, people want to be the masters of their own destinies, and I think they should be supported in this. Mahatma Gandhi and Nehru and many millions of Indians did manage to overcome "Divide and Rule" and force the British to relinquish control. It was the people's own choice to then split into India and Pakistan - if it's the people's wish, then so be it. Camillus (talk) 13:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not India was partitioned based upon "divide and rule" is debatable. But Wikipedia must present these views (*note- not as facts but as scholarly opinions, because there are scholars who would think that divide and rule was responsible for partition). Nonetheless, many believe that the British played upon religious, ethnic and other tensions to prevent an uprising against the British Raj. Such matters must come to the fore, and a subsection must be created about India to voice these notions, and those who disapprove of the ideas can present a counter argument. Jai Hind! Kshatriya Grandmaster 04:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

If you watch the Gandhi movie with Ben Kingsley you will see in a few places that the film depicts the British as sowing the seeds of animosity between the Hindu and Muslims. Although I don't find this particularly controversial I have not had an easy time finding documentation of this (not that I have looked very hard -just hoping someone will do the research for me...). There is a brief mention of the British fostering Hindu/Muslim opposition in James Carroll's historical survey about the relationship between Judaism and Christianity, Constantine's Sword, which I will add to the article for now, though I hope more links are added and more direct sources used. It just feels like this article is hard to find. BTW, as much as I dislike whitey, emotional appeals will only further class war (Hindu/Muslim, Shia/Sunni) and not convince anyone. Check out Emmanuel Levinas's essay "Difficult Freedom". --Teetotaler

a movie? thats your source? perhaps encouraging the division is a better phrase then "sowing the seeds" It is hard to take that racist rant seriously, but Gandhi did say that the conquest of India was done with the compliance of the Indians. It could even be said Indians saw it as liberation from the Mugals. most of Prick's rant is irrelevant, this article is about Conquer and Rule, a very common strategy used by conquers of all races and religion. Of course does that imply that the Conquer doesn't try to assimilate the conquered to his way, thus uniting and not dividing. Perhaps it should be viewed as two different strategies, 1. adding conquered people to your nation and army, and 2. keeping conquered people divided, under your nation and army. Genghis Khan, and Alexander is know for doing the first. The British and other European powers often did some of both. First allying with some native tribes, to conquer the dominate local Empire and then imposing rule over those allies. The British even used Indian troops to conquer Burma and other Southeast Asian nations. Rds865 (talk) 20:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] doing the same that the Islamsits did?

What is this doing here? "doing the same that the Islamsits did and at times, still do." ? All groups are probably guilty but if you're going to single one out, more information should be provided.

[edit] Neutrality and sources

I've tagged this article for neutrality and sources. Statements like this:

The British purposely created the borders of Lebanon and Iraq to include multiple ethnicities,tribes .religions, and religious sects in order to stop the rise of powerful Arab states independent from Europe and in control of their oil resources.

are very non-neutral, and are especially assertive. This shouldn't be done unless there are sources to back it up.

In addition, modern examples (Middle East, Africa) are given their own sections, yet past examples, like the Roman Empire, are only mentioned in the introduction. This can bring about a bit of a slant against nations that have used the tactic in modern times. --Wafulz 20:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure, there are significant problems...but maybe the article is just stubby. :) Electrawn 03:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major omission: Ireland

This article should include a reference to the British policy of exploiting the Roman Catholic/Protestant divide in Ireland, especially Ulster. Bill Tegner 12:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shia and Sunni

The ways in which the US military and media reduce each Iraqi as either a Shia or Sunni is certainly a means of divide and conquer (or rule). A section should be added in the main article on this. Teetotaler

Dividing Iraq into "Sunni", "Shia", and "Kurdish" sections was a key element in the US's occupational policy according to people within the Bush administration. There should also be a mention of the so-called "Shia Crescent". - Am86 05:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe one news source reported that Saddam a Sunni had oppressed the majority Shia Iraqis, implying that they would therefore be more anti-Saddam, and more pro-American. As the invasion was seen as a liberation, the US looked to those most oppressed by Saddam. Also, foreign Islamic insurgents have sought to divide Iraq to weaken the US backed government. A form of divide and conquer? Rds865 (talk) 19:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Saddam did not oppress the Shi'as to a serious extent, as opposed to the Kurds. You will find that many Iraqi immigrants in other countries are often of mixed Shi'a and Sunni backgrounds, and that opposition between Shi'a and Sunni in Iraq was very minor, or non-existent before the invasion. --Hamster X (talk) 15:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Compare with "Having divided to conquer, we must reunite to rule."

I came across "Having divided to conquer, we must reunite to rule." a while back and like it quite a bit. I sourced it back to Michael Jackson (the computer scientist, not the pop star): Michael Jackson, “Some Complexities in Computer- Based Systems and Their Implications for System Development,” International Conference on Computer Systems and Software Engineering, Tel-Aviv, Israel, May 1990, pp. 344-351.

But I haven't been able to get a copy of the actual article to see if he attributes it to any source. Michael Jackson's formulation supports the article's observation that: "Maxims 'Divide et impera' or 'Divide ut regnes' are traditionally identified with the principle of government of Roman Senate. This attribution is not entirely reliable, insofar as the Roman policy mainly aimed to unite the conquered nations both politically and culturally, under Roman rule."

I post this comment in hopes that it may prove useful in getting to origin of the maxim. --Nick (talk) 21:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bias

It seems that this article is more of a list of how the British caused ethnic conflicts. It most cases the divide and conquer strategy simply exploited existing divisions. Some of the claims seem a stretch, like that the British caused the Jew-Arab conflict. A conflict always arrives when two people want the same thing. A lot of these conflicts come from the Colonial power uniting two groups. Before colonial conquest there was no India, and British rule actually united India. More sources besides a controversial book are needed Rds865 (talk) 19:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

As you can see, that bit of the article was merely citing a source. James P. Carroll wrote it in his book and that paragraph was a direct copy of a paragraph in the book. By the way, this article is about Divide et impera, and that uniting through colonial influence is a different subject altogether. --Hamster X (talk) 15:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Supporting Friendly People Divide and Conquer?

many of the examples given are of one nation supporting another in hopes that it will act in their favor. For example, the case of encouraging migration of British people to Ireland was the hopes that Ireland would become more British, and Unite, not divide. The strategy that my enemy's enemy is my friend, and supporting allies is not Divide and Conquer. If this was the case then American Support of the British was a attempt to divide Europe.