Trevelyan Micah discusses the motives of the hostile civilization in the Great Cross region. They cannot want to conquer for economic gain and must know that the Stellar Union has no such intentions so their opposition to human civilization can only "'...be culturally based.'" (p. 61)
"'Our civilization may be so unlike theirs that contact would be devastating.'" (ibid.)
That is what happens in Poul Anderson's World Without Stars. Trevelyan continues:
"'Imagine, for example, that they have a very conservative aristocratic-religious setup. Interpenetration by our culture would bring upheavals their ruling class could not afford. That's only one guess, and most likely a wrong one.'" (pp. 61-62)
Purely for speculative purposes, Trevelyan projects a past kind of human social formation onto X whereas the Alori culture turns out to be genuinely alien. However, he is right that interpenetration causes upheavals especially when responses differ.
Indian responses to British rule:
3 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
And it is arguable that it would have been better for India if British rule had continued--esp. if that had evolved into India gaining Dominion status a la Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. I've speculated about Edward VII starting a process leading to that.
Interestingly, in Stirling's BLACK CHAMBER books, we see India becoming the center of the British Empire after the German terror gas bombing of London had destroyed it. The court, gov't, parliament (and millions of Britons) left for India. It ended up with everybody in India gaining the full civic and political status Britons had in the Home Islands.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: although that's helped by the BC universe's global development -- it's not a history which encourages thoughts of successful separatism. Everyone needs affiliation with one of the great power-blocs.
The German and Japanese empires which are the Oceanian Alliance's rivals are both viciously predatory and much more nakedly xenophobic, and don't bother to even pretend otherwise.
Plus the nonexistence of the Russian Revolution removes the organization which, post-1918, acted to actively encourage colonial unrest and to practically support it(*). Granted they did it for their own purposes and planned to betray their "allies" at the appropriate moment, still, rhetoric matters -- and they were in a position to pretend at least that they had different motivations.
In the BC history, the globe is dominated ideologically by slightly different flavors of integralist great-power nationalism. This alters the political calculus in fundamental ways everywhere.
(*) for example, the Soviet backing for the Kuomintang Republicans in China was absolutely crucial to that movement becoming dominant, if in a shaky fashion, by the late 1920's -- the "Northern Expedition" which spread KMT power at the expense of the warlords was done with Soviet money and guns and troops trained by Soviet advisors.
Both the Communists and the KMT were waiting for the opportunity to do the other in later on, and the KMT struck first in 1927, but without that Soviet aid it's unlikely that the KMT would ever have been able to extend itself beyond the hinterland of Canton. The warlords and the Japanese would have remained dominant.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Your first paragraph: I agree, the Black Chamber timeline shows us centralizing alliances, not the anarchy we have now, of hundreds of small nations acting independently.
Second paragraphy: again, I agree. I would note that not everyone in the Greater German Reich approved of that vicious predatoriness. I recall mention being made of the scruples and hesitations of Wilhelm II and Paul von Hindenburg.
Wilhelm II and the Chancellor might have been reduced to being figureheads, but what of their successors? Would the Kaiser's eldest son Crown Prince Wilhelm be content with being merely a figurehead after succeeding? Winston Churchill, in his history of WW I, had a high opinion of the Crown Prince's intelligence and strength of will.
Also, what of Austria-Hungary? I noted with interest how DAGGERS IN DARKNESS stated that many people there resented how their country had to yield to the wishes and demands of Berlin. A resentment shared by Kaiser Karl as well.
Third paragraph: I agree. Lenin and Stalin were "anti-colonial" for their own self serving reasons, and not because they gave a cuss about the peoples they were stirring up unrest in.
I did see how impotent the KMT regime was in DAGGERS IN DARKNESS. It's effective actual control was limited to Canton and its adjacent hinterland. The warlords and the Japanese treated the KMT only with contempt.
Both the KMT and CCP were rival aspirants to the Mandate of Heaven in our timeline, even if they did not use such terminology. Stalin supported one or the other as the tactical needs of the moment dictated would most profit him.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment