What Abrams had said:
First, he denied that all beings, or even all men, are brothers or ever have been.
Comment: I think that we can work towards "brotherhood" but are certainly not there yet.
Secondly, Abrams agreed that war is degrading but added that there are worse degradations and agreed that peace is wonderful but added that it is not always possible, further that it is possible only on the basis of "'...hard common interest...'" (p. 56)
Comment: That sounds to me like the Great Powers agreeing to preserve their existing borders and spheres of influence which are not necessarily in the interests of anyone else.
Thirdly:
"'Sure, the Empire is sick. But she's ours. She's all we've got.'" (ibid.)
Comment: Then some kind of change or reform is called for, not just the preservation of a "sick" status quo.
Fourthly:
"'Son, the height of irresponsibility is to spread your love and loyalty so thin that you haven't got enough left for the few beings and the few institutions which rate it from you.'" (ibid.)
But which are those beings and institutions? Abrams will limit the options to "us" and "them" while simultaneously eliminating "them"! There must be scope for different views and longer-term goals within the Terran Empire.
Of course, it is built into Anderson's narrative that the Roidhunate (not all Merseians) is pro-actively expansionist and supremacist, treating diplomacy as war by other means, but not all of history is like that.
40 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
Your first comment: I agree more with Abrams and not with you. Such ideals as the brotherhood of man under the fatherhood of God are darn hard enough to merely approach, never mind achieving. If some of us, SOMETIMES, manage to be like the Samaritan who succoured the traveler beaten and robbed by bandits, that alone would be a massive achievement.
Your second comment. Like it or not there ARE going to be great powers whose agreements among themselves determines whether or not there will be Great Wars or World Wars. There may well be minor powers aspiring to become Great Powers who resent such arrangements and want to upset them. Such as Serbia in 1914 or Iran today.
I do not see that kind of competivity between rival powers ever going away because it is innate to human beings. At most one power eliminates its rivals and becomes master of all.
Your third comment. Reform will be possible only by starting from that status quo, and has to include seeking to keep what was good or tolerable. Fanatical attempts by "reformers" to sweep away the entire status quo to set up an "ideal" regime is far more likely to end in bloody chaos and brutal tyranny. Thank you, I will take Louis XVI and Nicholas II any day over blood drenched monsters like Robespierre and Lenin!
I thought it was plain, Abrams meant the Empire, its institutions and the races within its domain as the ones rating Flandry's love and loyalty. And by and large, for his pretense of cynicism, that was how Flandry lived his life.
For most or all of human history diplomacy HAS been war by other means, and it is not realistic to think that will ever change. Because the competitive spirit is innate to human beings.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
If we only discuss the conflicts and frictions between the great powers and the minor powers, what that leaves out of account is the populations oppressed by these powers.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Except, again using 1914 as an example, there was widespread loyalty in all the great powers for the regimes ruling them--otherwise even Tsarist Russia would not have lasted as long as it did in WW I.
Yes, great and minor powers can be brutal and oppressive, such as the USSR (and Putin's regime), Maoist China, Iran, N Korea, etc.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Just those?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Lots of tyrannical regimes all over the world! E.g, most of Africa is ruled by corrupt, kleptocratic thugocracies.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
You seem to avoid acknowledging that regimes which you support have ever oppressed anyone.
Paul.
Paul: the difference between oppressed and oppressor isn't morality, it's just opportunity.
Hence the old maxim: "Do unto others, before they get a chance to do unto you."
Kaor, Paul!
First, you have not listed any regimes I favor that you consider oppressive. So I don't know what exactly you mean.
Second, I think most of the real allies of the US, such as Taiwan, S Korea, Japan, the UK, etc., are vastly preferable to the specific examples I've listed.
Third, what exactly can the US do about most tyrannical regimes? Invade and conquer them? It would take a serious provocation, risk, or hostile attack before DC does that. And as Iraq and Afghanistan has shown, I don't think the US is much good at running an empire.
I now think the US should have just smashed the Taliban in Afghanistan, restore the exiled king, and then quickly leave (and see Stirling's comment above). Trying to "build democracy" in a nation with none of the history, ideas, institutions needed for that was unlikely to succeed. To say nothing of how "Josip's" disgraceful bugout from Kabul last year threw away whatever gains the US had made.
Ad astra! Sean
"To say nothing of how "Josip's" disgraceful bugout from Kabul last year threw away whatever gains the US had made."
If you are going to bring up US politics...
My understanding is the 'disgraceful bugout' was set up by Trump & dumped in Biden's lap. (I think you are using 'Josip' as a name for Biden.)
I'm not wildly enthusiastic about Biden, I just think he is better than Trump.
Sean,
Do I need to say that the US supported the Shah of Iran and Marcos, helped to overthrow Allende and supports Israel? The UK has been guilty of crimes in Ireland.
Paul.
Kaor, Jim and Paul!
Jim: Wrong, the situation in Afghanistan was stable when Pres. Trump left office. Matters had been so arranged that, with a minimum of US forces (about 2,500), the Taliban was held at bay and the US supported Kabul gov't ruled most of the country. Not perfect but better than the mess that senescent BUNGLER "Josip" made with his chaotic, pell mell, tail between the legs skedaddle out of Kabul!
Joseph R. Biden is called "Josip" as a sign of contempt, because in many ways that aged bungler reminds me of the bad Emperor Flandry served. In fact I more and more think the "real" Josip III would have been better than Biden. And that amazes me!
Paul: Good, it was RIGHT of the US to support Mohammed Reza Pahlavi. I think you are forgetting the long discussions Stirling and I had with you about Iran. Including such little things as the USSR trying to use Mossadegh as a tool for grabbing control in Tehran.
Ditto the US' role in ousting Allende. Better that than letting Chile become a Soviet client--and the endless trouble and danger that would give the US. The US has a right to defend itself from attacks by other great powers, covert or open. MY unyielding belief is that some alternatives in the REAL world are better than others. No matter how messy that can be.
And it is right of the US to support Israel, both as a counter balance to Russia and Iran and because it is the only real democracy in the Mid East.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Ousting Allende, causing a brutal military dictatorship, was right?
There is a lot of repression in Israel.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Yes, even a military dictatorship would have been better than a left wing dictatorship subservient to Moscow. Btw, that military dictatorship eventually and peacefully surrendered power 17 years later.
What you call "oppression" in Israel I call Jews defending themselves from fanatics who want to exterminate them.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
This is the line in the sand. Allende's government was elected, not a dictatorship. If you and I had been in Chile, then I would have felt obliged to defend Allende whereas you would have felt obliged to overthrow him. If overthrowing the elected government of a sovereign country in another continent is regarded as legitimate self-defence, then we disagree about what constitutes "defence"!
The generals, having destroyed democracy, are praised for restoring it 17 years later!
The Israelis are in conflict with a population, not just with fanatics. They, the Israelis, misrepresent anti-Zionism as anti-semitism. Here, anti-Zionists cooperate with Jewish people and organizations in Holocaust Memorial events and against the ever-recurring threat of fascist organizations.
Paul.
On Israel I have a lot of sympathy for Sean's POV.
Israel has made errors, but from the start they have had to deal with 'fanatics who want to exterminate them'.
Kaor, Paul!
Need I remind you how the USSR was still seeking to aggressively expand its power worldwide in the 1970's? Moscow was using Allende as its catspaw in seeking to control Chile. And the US was right to resist that.
Yes, I might very well have been one of those Chileans who supported the military coup, as being better than a regime taking its orders from Moscow.
Disagree about Israel. That "population" is dominated by fanatics who want to destroy Israel and exterminate Jews, in both the West Bank and Gaza. As long as that "population" tolerates those thugs there will be no peace.
Ad astra! Sean
Kaor, Jim!
Thanks! I can agree Israel has made errors, but the Jerusalem gov't has acted with far better faith and willingness to compromise than the PLO or Hamas has ever done
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But that is just a power struggle between US and USSR with the latter weaker (and eventually bankrupted) right from the start! Many people in the 70s wanted national liberation, independence and freedom from both power blocs. Allende's government was elected yet the US supported a military coup.
Israel is set up as a Jewish state. All states should treat everyone within their borders with full equality.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Disagree. in the 1970's the US, in many ways felt itself to be weaker and under covert attack by an indisputably aggressive USSR. It took time, including the accession of weaker, post Brezhnev leaders, for the internal contradictions of the USSR to visibly undermine it.
Like it or not power blocs exist and will continue to exist. And great powers will continue to control or recruit clients and allies. As China is doing right now, for example. I frankly prefer the power bloc led by the US to be calling the shots!
There are plenty of non Jewish Israeli citizens. At a minimum Israel has every right to ask Muslim Israelis to renounce exterminationist ambitions. There can be no "equality" with people who want to kill you.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
There can be no equality with people who treat others as second-class citizens.
The US was never weaker. Of course some people said it was.
Many of us want no power blocs. The US has been involved in overthrowing a democracy and has supported dictators.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
We are not going to agree about Israel. There can be no "equality" with fanatics who want to exterminate Jews.
You don't understand, there was a PERCEPTION of weakness in the US in the 1970's, esp. because of the catastrophic policies favored by the Democrats.
Power blocs exist and will continue to exist because they spring from the innate drive of humans to compete, to seek power and status. This is a condition that can only be managed, not solved. And I would prefer the managing to be done by the US and Western civilization. It is dangerously UNREALISTIC to ignore/wave away this innate drive for competition, status, power, etc.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I agree that those fanatics exist - and also a dispossessed, oppressed population. Two sides of a coin.
There was a perception of weakness because that suited vested interests.
I neither ignore nor wave away. The power blocs must be actively opposed. Economic power underlies political power.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul
IOW, you would support a power bloc for opposing power blocs, which is absurd. Power blocs exist for reasons springing from INNATE human needs, instincts, and desires. And those innate qualities are not going away, no matter how much we bemoan the ways they are expressed.
It is not Israel which is oppressing the Palestinians. The real oppressors are the corrupt goons of the PLO and the brutal thugs of Hamas. Plus Iran's Hezbullah catspaws in southern Lebanon.
It certainly suited the left wing of the Democrats to weaken the US!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
No. Popular resistance to each power bloc from within it.
I have heard testimony that the Israeli state itself is discriminatory and oppressive.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul
Kaor, Paul!
What you advocate is totally implausible, because the vast majority of human beings don't and won't behave or think like that. You puzzlingly persist in overlooking the loyalty people can have for their countries (or "tribes"). And many times the leaders of those nations believe the safety and security of their "tribes" depends on aligning with one power bloc or another. And they can usually count on a good deal of support from their peoples for that choice.
Compared to its neighbors Israel is a shining beacon of civilization!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Compared to its neighbours? But we need more than that! I do hear accounts of repression in Israel.
It is hoped that the Sudanese Neighbourhood Committees which resist military rule will become the nuclei of a new society. I acknowledge that a new society has to be demonstrated in practice and that it has to turn the tide against human and social inertia and to cast off "the muck of ages" as someone said.
Paul.
Sean,
Not instant perfection, just stop the oppression. Of course atrocities work both ways. Of course hope is not enough. We seem to have a totally polarized discussion!
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Because I don't agree with you about Israel, which has always been more willing to make compromises with its enemies in its modern history. In fact, before the State was even founded, its leaders were willing to accept the UN plan partitioning the British Mandate, awarding Israel only the Negev region and the Tel Aviv-Jaffa coast. But, motivated by hatred of Jews, this was rejected by the surrounding Muslims.
Until they get rid of the PLO and Hamas, I will have little sympathy for the Palis.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But I understand that there is oppression going on in Israel - which surely has grabbed more territory.
Paul.
I am sure that at least some of the things that we say just go past each other without contradicting.
Kaor, Paul!
What you call "oppression" looks more like self defense to most Israelis. So I disagree.
And Israel grabbed those territories because it DEFEATED enemies trying to destroy it. Those enemies lost and paid for their stupidity.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
There is something fundamentally wrong with a country that has been set up in such a way that it has to defend itself against so many of the people living within it.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Wrong, because Israel has never annexed the West Bank or Gaza. The people there are not Israeli citizens. Ad astra!
Sean
Sean,
I just don't get it! All this conflict and the state of Israel has done nothing wrong?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Of course Israel, like ALL nations, has done wrong. But I deny it is uniquely wicked, evil, malevolent, etc. And is in fact better than all its neighbors.
Conflict is simply a fact of human life, a problem to be managed, not solved.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Israel was founded on dispossession and exclusion. Hence the conflict as there was in N. Ireland.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I still disagree. First, the Jewish leaders in the old British Mandate were willing to accept a very unfavorable UN partition plan, which the Arabs REJECTED. Second, the founders of Israel were willing to live in peace and friendship with the Muslims, but such efforts were rebuffed.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But the problem is the treatment of Palestinians by Israel.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
The problem is the rejectionist, exterminationist attitude taken about Israel by those who claim to speak for the Palestinians, such as Hamas and the PLO.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
No, the problem is the treatment of the Palestinians. That causes Hamas and the PLO to exist. Like the IRA in N. Ireland.
Paul.
Post a Comment