I am presently reading a book, exhaustingly researched and painstakingly written, about the Sioux indians. The Sioux were not from the great plains, they were originally woodland indians based in Minnesota who were pushed westward by encroaching tribes from the east, those tribes being driven out of their territories by the arrival of whites.
The Sioux were pragmatic, survival was uppermost on their minds and, once pushed out onto the great plains, they discovered great herds of buffalo, horses, and firearms all at about the same time. These three elements enabled their society to flourish for about a hundred years. Other tribes were attempting to prosper as well, but the Sioux were dominant. They were a warrior culture and they ruled. They captured huge swaths of territory and controlled it until being overwhelmed, eventually, by a greater number of better armed warriors swarming in from the east.
What is interesting about this history is, given the conditions of survival that must be met, how societies will form around and then justify specific means of survival. The Sioux used the tools at their disposal to their fullest possible extent. Is such a thing true today?
Jenelle Ball- Unsplash.com
I turn to our present day system of governance and look to see correlations there. Are the tools available being maximized to ensure survival? Yes, they are. But, unlike the Sioux model, where survival meant survival of the tribe- this coming from the absolute understanding, in their nomadic society, that everyone had to work as a team and hoarding was impossible- the present day survival strategy seems to be to individually capture and hoard. In this way control is gained.
But, as in any system, forces act upon it to break it down. Change occurs. The present day hoarding model- control by the few- might very well be approaching its demise. Society at large is already greatly dissatisfied with their lot and asks for more. This is not being provided. How long can the ones at the top continue to play the shell game and hide the real need to keep accummulations of wealth away from the masses? In which direction will this play go? It is sure to transform, nothing is static, though those at the top try to make it so.
The Sioux were a society based on consumption. They had no stores and lived only for conquest. It was all they knew HOW to do, and it worked. When their territory declined, so did they. Could the same fate befall the capturers of our day, the 1%? Has the point of maximum capture been reached? What then?
Control by the few appears to be the only way that those few know HOW to survive. The concept that such a state is NECESSARY keeps this structure in place. Survival of nations and economies depends upon it, we are told. Is it? And if so, how long is this 'guidance' required? World opinion is strongly opposed to the 1% model. Do not the 99% now hold the tools to make decisions that would benefit them directly? Can't we vote on many of our current issues using our computers?
What need then, of legislators, answering to the 1%?
Something to think about.