Talk:Divide and rule/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Divide and rule. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

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

doing the same that the Islamists did?

What is this doing here? "doing the same that the Islamists 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.

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)

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)

The Irish divide was not a result of political planning but migration. The initiative to separate Northern Ireland from the rest of the country came not from the British Government, but from the Northern Irish, who feared being made a political and religious minority in a Catholic Irish republic. 86.3.176.162 (talk) 11:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

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)

The U.S.? It seems Al-Qaeda and Iran would be better equipped and more interested in dividing Iraq. Reports from Iraq reflect how difficult it is to stop this from happening. - Roy Boy 16:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

It may be sourced, but it is an incredibly unsound claim. The Jew-Arab rivalry in Palestine actually made British administration more difficult, not less. If anything, the British authorities were trying to smooth over these religious-ethnic rivalries in order to restore stability to the Middle-East, especially when war was looming in the 1930s. The cause of the Jew-Arab conflict was Jewish migration and Arab nationalism - hardly the policy of the British, which enacted quotas to restrict the former and fought wars to suppress the latter. 86.3.176.162 (talk) 11:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

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.

American Omissions?

There are plenty of examples of this sort of tactic in america, especially in the subjugation of minorities through infighting. why are there none here? all I see are other, foreign countries. weird foreign countries and their weird empires. 205.155.225.1 (talk) 22:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

SHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH, Wikipedia in English is overall domain of good patriotic USA citizens who can tell their tale about the rest of the world omitting the examples that are too embarrassing about theirs. America is always an exception... it makes the rules (and the encyclopaedia) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.134.27.213 (talk) 03:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Macaulay

In 1835, Thomas Macaulay articulated the goals of British colonial imperialism most clearly:"I have travelled across the length and breadth of India and I have not seen one person who is a beggar, who is a thief. Such wealth I have seen in this country, such high moral values, people of such caliber, that I do not think we would ever conquer this country, unless we break the very backbone of this nation, which is her spiritual and cultural heritage, and, therefore, I propose that we replace the old and ancient education system, her culture, because if the Indians think that all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their own, they will lose their self-esteem, their native self-culture and they will become what we want them to be, a truly dominated nation." The above quotation is not from Macaulay but is from a hostile reaction to his Minute on Education. All addresses from 1835 are available online; and this text forms no part of any of them. Unless someone can find a reputable source for this text, it should be removed. 60.50.117.38 (talk) 02:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I removed the quotation. It is a fabrication; see clear discussion at [[1]]mukerjee (talk) 11:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

divide and rule as bullying

needs to cover divide and rule in relation to interpersonal relationships and bullying. article has loads on the politics but little on the sociology.--Penbat (talk) 08:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

See

--Penbat (talk) 13:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Adding in Bullying, which is a (poorly defined) psychological and sociological term to this article, can only lead to POV descriptions and a loss of focus for the article. If D&R is a topic in Bullying literature, then a separate article may be appropriate. (E.g., D&R as a bullying technique could be described in that article.) See Talk:Bullying for more.--S. Rich (talk) 14:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I was just going to add, although zapped by a edit conflict, the above refs also clearly demonstrate that the word "bullying" applies to the political world as much as interpersonally, so even within politics the bullying connect is valid. --Penbat (talk) 14:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Come on, such searches demonstrate nothing. See: [2] or [3] or [4] --S. Rich (talk) 14:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

It isnt just quantity, its also quality. Many of my refs have "divide and rule" either in the same sentence or in the same paragraph as bullying. I havent spotted a single one of your refs with items in the same sentence and very few in the same paragraph. Unlike my refs there is no evidence that they are linked in meaning. Also you have no evidence supporting your bizarre idea that bullying, which occurs in any context in which humans interact, doesnt happen in the political world. The converse is probably true, it can be argued that bullying is more common in politics than in other contexts. You are also bizarrely arguing the converse that the phenomina "divide and rule" is purely a political phenomina and never occurs outside politics. It is bizarre to think that there are unique rules for human behaviour in certain contexts. --Penbat (talk) 17:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Several points:

Giving us Google search results that appear because certain search terms are used is not useful -- the results (e.g., the particular articles) are not used in any text or context in WP article. If they are worthwhile, use them in the article
It seems you are saying "Divide & rule might be a technique used by bullies, therefor I'll put the bullying template in this article."
This ignores the purpose of the navigation template -- which is to tie together articles that are related to each other. But divide & rule is not even mentioned in the bullying article. So where is the tie in? The guideline wants actual article relationships, not possible ones.
Indeed, divide & rule is a procedure that can be seen in all sorts of contexts -- from marital and in-law relationships, office politics, parent-child interactions, ecosystems, business competition, animal behaviors, college sports star recruiting, etc. But we do not have articles that describe the technique in those contexts -- this article deals with divide & rule in the political context.
To justify your edits you seem to be saying "bullying is seen in society, therefore it is sociological in nature; divide & rule is seen in society, therefore it is sociological in nature; and since both bullying and divide & rule are sociological in nature, it is proper to describe divide & rule as bullying."
You are ignoring the guidance regarding ledes. It says "the lead should not 'tease' the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article." You are saying "this article might cover a certain subject or aspect of the subject sometime in the future, therefore I'll mention it now."
Since and until this article actually covers bullying and divide & rule in the proper context, it should remain focused.
And WRT your comment below, it seems that neither definition has much to do with sociology or bullying. Divide & rule might be better described -- in some yet to be written article -- as a technique that bullying victims can use to counter bullys.

--S. Rich (talk) 18:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Divide and rule v divide and conquer

Looking at Wiktionary, it looks like divide and conquer relates to politics, military and economics while divide and rule is general purpose:

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/divide_and_conquer

A combination of political, military and economic strategies that aim to gain and maintain power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into chunks that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy.
In order to rule securely, don't allow alliances of your enemies.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/divide_and_rule

To gain and maintain power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into chunks that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy.

--Penbat (talk) 18:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

ive just worked out that most of this article should really be in divide and conquer --Penbat (talk) 18:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

almost all of this article should be moved to divide and conquer although much of it is badly sourced or not sourced and probably be deleted. It is not clear if anything would be left here apart from the wiktionary definition of divide and rule.--Penbat (talk) 18:32, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

No. Divide and conquer is a dab page. (Take a look).--S. Rich (talk) 18:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

yes. almost all of this article should be in divide and conquer. for example Divide_and_rule#Africa explicitly refers to divide and conquer and it looks like the other sections refer to divide and conquer as well. The fact that divide and conquer is currently a dab page is just one component of this horrible mess. As well as having its own dab page divide and conquer should also have its own article. It is very confusing trying to morph it with divide and rule. As it stands this article is complete crap.--Penbat (talk) 18:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Moving the page (to a new name) would work, but that also requires fixing the dab page and redirects. You oughta give it a try.--S. Rich (talk) 19:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

This article and divide and conquer is complete crap. It would take a lot of work to sort it out. I give up. I was actually tempted to slap an AFD on it. From Template:Bullying I am just linking to Wiktionary for Divide and Rule. Divide and conquer is outside my sphere of interest anyway.--Penbat (talk) 19:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)