Poul Anderson understands the dynamics of civil war. In the territories so far conquered by Olaf Magnusson:
"As yet, few had openly embraced the Olafist cause. The basic requirement laid on everybody was to refrain from resisting it." (p. 387)
Indeed. Some Navy officers lead guerilla resistance. Most do not.
We concurrently read fiction and news and sometimes they parallel each other. See A Newspaper And A Novel and Parallel Narratives. I have just read a report that some Americans fear civil war. Surely not? That would require a split in the armed forces. But Americans are certainly capable of buying guns and killing each other.
11 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
And some Navy officers, with an "antiquated" attachment to their oaths of allegiance, fled to those parts of the Empire held by Gerhart.
Some of us do fear the possibility of civil war breaking out in the US. Because the arrogance, folly, and disastrous policies of the left might provoke such a thing. But I still hope not!
I still have some hope that the mid term elections in 2022 and the presidential election in 2024 will severely chastise and rebuke "Josip" and the Democrats.
And one reason for the recent spike in gun sales is the fear caused by the rapid jump in violent crime of all types. Again, because of the folly and stupidity of the Democrats, with their pampering of criminals, insane talk of "defunding" or even abolishing the police.
All human beings have the natural right to defend themselves, up to and including lethal means.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I hope that the "disastrous policies" can be opposed democratically?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
That is something I still hope for, the disastrous policies of the Democrats being reversed peacefully and lawfully.
Ad astra! Sean
"Violence is always the ultimately decisive means of political action", as Max Weber put it.
Or to quote another saying: Government is not eloquent. It is not persuasion. It is power; it is force.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
That is what it ultimately boils down to. I also recall it being considered in THE DAY OF THEIR RETURN that the use of state power is legitimized coercion.
But what if the state loses its legitimacy? Then all it could do is to fall back on raw force. And that might provoke civil war. Which I certainly hope does not happen in the US.
Ad astra! Sean
Force successfully deployed for long enough acquires legitimacy. Eg., England in 1070 and England in 1170 vs. a vs. the aristocracy descended from the Norman conquerors.
Incidentally, a recent study showed that people in England with Norman names -- actual male-line descendants of the Norman conquerors -- still, to this day, have more education, more property, and higher incomes, on average, than people with Anglo-Saxon names.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Oh, I agree, the thuggish and brutal founders of a regime might have descendants and successors who were not only far milder but also had come to be accepted as legitimate rulers.
Even NOW, Anglo/Norman French families still have an edge? I find that interesting!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: advantage tends to be self-perpetuating over time. For one thing, people with advantages attract intelligent, ambitious mates.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Oh, I agree! But I have also read of how some of the really old, post-Conquest gentry families have fallen on hard times after WW I. Death duties (an abominable notion), income tax, other taxes, high costs in general, etc., seems to have driven many of them to poverty. Or at least forced them into other lines of making a living.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: there's always churn.
Eg., British agriculture entered a long, long period of depression in the 1870's; rents and land values fell steeply. Except for a brief spell between 1914 and 1919, things didn't really improve on a sustained basis until after 1939.
OTOH, a lot of actual aristocrats had already diversified their holdings out of agriculture by then, into things like coal mines, urban real estate, company directorships (promoters were fond of having a lordship or two on the Board), etc.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I had not known of the depression in land values and agricultural profits starting in the 1870's. But it helps to explain why landowners were so bitterly opposed to abolition of the Corn Laws, attempts to artificially support or raise the prices of agricultural products.
And if many of the gentry and aristocracy had the wit and determination to change and diversify after WW I, more power to them! A healthy society needs people like that.
I still think needless burdens were placed on landowners after WW I via death duties and high taxes in general. Before the Change, in your Emberverse books, Sir Nigel Loring was find it very difficult to make ends meet, as a land owner.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment