The Coastal Post - May, 1998

The Rulers And The Ruled

By Dorth Lamont

How come some nations get to be rulers and others end up being ruled over?

How did this crazy situation happen?

What gives those nations the right to rule over others?

Not by right, by power! We know that some nations, ours among them, meddle furiously in the internal affairs of other nations. Covertly or openly, our CIA, along with other agencies like USAid, do cooperate with big and small multi-national corporations. Together, they direct the economics and politics of other peoples and their lands. Especially those we claim are un- or underdeveloped. And our military forces step in to protect the extraction of natural resources for our own advantage.

The people in the nations that are ruled over soon find out that for them this direction and protection becomes a matter of life or death-of sheer survival.

But that's OK. According to the theory of "survival of the fittest," if the ruled over don't survive it must be because they are not fit. So it's all right for them to be coerced, exploited, and die.

So, isn't it only natural that they die and the rulers survive?

Now, wait a minute...!

Well, I mean, the rulers survive so that proves they are stronger, smarter, more moral, with better religions and more democratic governments...doesn't it?

So you can see how the rulers must be superior to the inferior, backward people of un- and underdeveloped lands.

Well, no! And not!

Consider this: When it comes to "survival of the fittest," we know that some of those so-called inferior peoples have been living in their undeveloped lands thousands of years longer than the rulers have been living in their developed lands.

Oh, don't blame the condition of backward people on their land! They're inferior because they are dumber or weaker, or something, aren't they?

Again no and not.

The power, if not the right, of the rulers, comes first of all from the original, natural superiority of their ecology.

Well, so what is this superior ecology that's supposed to give the rulers this power over the ruled?

To begin with, a more temperate climate-one that doesn't get in the way of the hard work and sustained effort of civilization.

Second, a fertile soil to nourish the plants and the animals that must feed a large, healthy, working population.

Third, pure and abundant waters for drinking, crops, cleaning and industry.

Fourth, some other natural resources to develop or to trade.

Five, a location good for transportation and migration to and from other lands.

Without most of these ecological advantages, the people of the ruling nations would still be backward, instead of rulers, and their lands would be undeveloped.

All right, what happened to give the rulers that superior ecology? How'd they get, it anyway? Don't they deserve it because they're fitter?

Stay tuned for more on the ecology of rulers versus ruled.

Coastal Post Home Page