(ii) There were too many natives to exterminate so the settlers "had to" enslave them - although they also had to avoid the terminology of slavery.
(iii) Thus, the Draka wound up putting all of their own children through intensive military training so that they will be able to maintain a permanent grip on a much larger population of "serfs."
(iv) For the survival of the Draka as "the Race," serfs must be kept permanently subordinated, uneducated and (mostly) illiterate. If serfs were liberated, then some would kill all Draka and also all former serfs who remained loyal to the Draka.
(v) The Draka state also needs a much larger Jannisary army of comparatively able and privileged serfs.
(vi) Treating serfs essentially as property, Draka men take concubines from among serf women. However, the young Eric von Shrakenberg, given a concubine by his father at the age of fifteen, is, according to Draka values, at fault when he values her as an individual.
(vii) Abandoning any pretense at Christianity, the Draka explicitly base their collective philosophy on writers like Nietzsche.
(viii) Rebel serfs escape to surrounding free areas from where they hope to return better armed so the Draka "have to" conquer more and more territory.
(ix) They conquer all of Africa and, after their participation in the Great War, much of Asia.
(x) Other civilized countries disapprove of Draka values and are inclined to boycott the Domination.
(xi) Consequently, the Draka, acknowledging their own incompatibility with all other social systems, realize that they must eventually conquer the whole Earth, reducing all other populations to serfdom.
(xii) My opinion: this is completely impossible. But: what happens in the rest of the tetralogy? I am only half way through reading Volume I. This is all relevant on a Poul Anderson Appreciation blog. Anderson speculated about diverse social systems, some of them in alternative histories. Stirling develops the idea of alternative histories much further and his Draka are an extreme example of social/political speculation.
A black work colleague described himself to me as a "field nigger." He explained that "your house niggers" are your maids, nannies and cooks who regard themselves as part of the family whereas "your field niggers" are plantation workers who want to burn down the whole estate. I use this usually offensive word, inside quotation marks, only because he did. The Draka create and preside over a population of "field niggers." I cannot see this lasting for very long but then I must read on to find out what happens next...
13 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I can see your point about it being implausible for the Draka, creating and ruling such a "high pressure" society as theirs, could be so successful that they threatened the conquest of the entire world. I can only argue that S.M. Stirling at least managed to make me think it was POSSIBLE. And, of course, the Draka books are speculations about what might happen if every thing went as badly wrong as it was possible.
Sean
There's a term I've seen: "the Idiot Ball," the meaning of which is that someone who's "been handed the Idiot Ball" will thereafter act in the stupidest possible manner that will advance the story's plot. Handing someone the Idiot Ball is often considered poor writing, as it gives the other side an unjustified advantage.
The relevance here is that it's often said the Draka series hands the Idiot Ball to every other nation on Earth, in that they don't seem to fully realize how very dangerous the Draka are and how necessary it is to take action against them while they're still small enough to stop.
On the other hand, it should be remembered that a war game based on the 1940 Fall of France had a number of scenarios, including one called the "Idiot's Game" in which the French seem to do EVERYTHING wrong. The "Idiot's Game" is also known as "what historically happened."
David,
I thought when reading 1984 that it assumed that all the forces for good in the world had gone to sleep whereas all the forces for evil had cooperated in a way that they never do.
MARCHING THROUGH GEORGIA quotes 1984 without attribution.
I am on a roll with Stirling and Anderson.
Paul.
Greetings, David and Paul!
Both of you gentlemen have made very interesting comments.
David: I have never heard of the Idiot's Ball or Game before now. But the example of how BADLY France handled the war against National Socialist Germany is proof enough that it is possible for nations to be ruined by sheer folly. So, it's not entirely implausible to see a similar situation in Stirling's Draka books.
Another real world example where the better side nearly ruined themselves playing the Idiot's Game was the "Protracted Conflict" between the West, led by the US and the USSR after WW II. We just barely held together well enough and long enough to outlast the threat posed by the USSR.
Unfortunately, we are AGAIN faced with an existential threat in the form of militant, jihadist Islam (esp. if a new caliphate arises to even partly unify Islam and threaten the rest of the world). It remains to be seen how well the West handles that menace!
Paul: I've never thought before of comparing Orwell's 1984 to the Draka books. After all, these Stirling books are far more colorful than the drab, grim, "grey": bureaucratic nightmare we see in Orwell's book. Also, where in MARCHING THROUGH GEORGIA did you see the unattributed quote from 1984?
I am glad Stirling's books has given you so much pleasure. And I certainly appreciated the occasional allusions to Anderson which Stirling sometimes gives us. It would be unrealistic, considering how different the Draka timeline would have been by its 1926, to expect Poul Anderson to have been born then. Still, have you seen any overt or covert allusions to Anderson in MTG?
Sean
Kaor, Paul!
A few additional thoughts, this time based more directly on your blog piece here, came to mind.
I remember the situation described in your point "vi." Yes, by valuing the serf girl given him at age 15 as a human being in her own, Eric von Shrakenberg put himself seriously at odds with Draka beliefs. This was when he first began to dislike the "peculiar institutions" of the Draka.
And, as regards your point "vii," the Draka virtually HAD to abandon Christianity. The beliefs, ideas, principles, ideals, etc., of Christianity with the "distinctive" ideas and practices of the Draka as they were taking form. If the Draka were to remain even half seriously Christian, then they would HAVE to accept reform and amelioration of their society. Badly handled, it would very likely lead to the violent overthrow of the Draka (a better scenario would be one where the Draka merely lost at least some of their power and wealth). So, since no one likes to think they are evil, I can see why the Draka replaced Christianity for a philosophy based on Nietzsche.
Sean
Sean,
No allusion to PA yet. On p. 230, Evira Naldorssen has written, "The purpose of Power is Power." That is word for word from 1984 and is the rationale for the Big Brother regime.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Thanks! I looked up that text. And I can certainly see why Stirling made this quote from 1984 part of Evira Naldorssen's MEDITATIONS: COLDER THAN THE MOON. I remember how the remorseless logic of Naldorssen's thought bothered even some of the Draka, some of whom called her "a crazy b----."
Sean
Sean,
My fear is that Orwell in turn was quoting from somewhere else! But the purpose of blog discussion is to bring such hidden facts to light.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Your comment here immediately made me wonder if Orwell had the works of either Nietzsche or Lenin in mind.
Sean
Orwell actually said 'the object of power is power'.
Anonymous,
Thank you very much! I will have to look it up.
Paul.
There is a scene in Marching Through Georgia where the host of a visiting American journalist describes the Draka system as "Oligarchical Collectivism". Which it basically is, since the Citizens as a group own everything in the Domination (including serfs) and dispose of them as they see fit.
Hi, Lee!
Thanks for your comment. I recall a similar passage in THE STONE DOGS where Eric von Shakenberg described the Domination as an aristocratic republic--with the Draka as the ruling aristocracy. The practtical results were the same, of course, Draka Citizens owning everything that mattered in the Domination and disposing of this property (including the serfs) as they pleased.
Sean
Post a Comment