Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
For example, look at the definition of a failed state as provided in Wikipedia. By this definition, the Sioux Indian Tribe as it lived and dominated the northern plains of the current United States for some 100 + years was a "failed state." As, apparently, are most all tribal based governments.
Historical nitpick - not so. Based on the wiki article's four points:
* loss of physical control of its territory, or of the monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force therein,
* erosion of legitimate authority to make collective decisions,
* an inability to provide reasonable public services, and
* an inability to interact with other states as a full member of the international community.
The Sioux were not a failed state. Their council system supported collective decisions (almost to a fault in some cases). Once they modified their existing cultural support system to deal with horses and other European imports they actually provided very good public services (if you count food and shelter as public services...for one example look at the ability of one major camp to absorb two major waves of refugees during the 1876 Great Sioux War). And if you count other tribes (as well as the various factions and divisions within the Sioux) as an international community of sorts, the Sioux actually did quite well. They came to a working understanding with the Northern Cheyenne and Arapaho, and traded with other groups as well. One could, however, take the position that most reservations could qualify as failed states, but that's a different thread.

Sorry...I had to take a whack at that statement, more to point out that I don't think a tribal system per se creates a failed nation. Where I think you begin seeing failed states is when outside intervention creates artificial borders and confuses an existing tribal structure (for one example, look at the reservation system that played a role in both initiating the 1872 Modoc War and led to the 1877 Nez Perce conflict...both resulted from either an ill-advised resettlement effort or attempting to force two traditional enemies to coexist on the same reservation).

The concept of governmental services is an interesting one, and should be looked at as much as possible from the standpoint of the population. Another Frontier example might be the 1874 Red River War. One of the major causes was the removal or restriction of a very important part of male Kiowa cultural development: the ability to earn honor through conflict (to include stealing horses from neighbors). This created a great deal of pressure on the so-called peace chiefs and allowed the various Kiowa warrior societies to gain in cultural power and eventually encourage their people into war. This also happened to a degree with the Southern Cheyenne in the late 1860s. In both cases you're looking at leaders (as understood in the traditional Western sense) being unable to provide a basic service for their people (the ability to earn honor through traditional means), which in turn undermined their authority within the tribe and created a sort of social insurgency led by the heads of the various warrior societies.

The fact is that in many places that house "failed states" the borders were drawn by a succession of European colonial powers and don't necessarily reflect the reality on the ground. It's that colonial legacy, IMO, that creates most of the problems. And, after all, the US shows up as a moderately failing state in the wiki article, as does most of Europe....