Gratillonius's social policies are extremely enlightened:
"As for the basilica in Aquilo, it was full of the homeless and the orphaned. Corentinus supported him in the idea that their needs outweighed the government's." (1, p. 372)
"'What with the refugees we're getting, we'll skirt the edge of famine ourselves.'" (p. 373)
"'Whoever comes to us does it of his own choice.'" (2, p. 375)
"'We're accused of harbouring runaways. All I can reply is that we aren't magicians, to hear men's inner thoughts. Idlers, thieves, and ruffians don't get leave to stay. If someone believes he can identify a person who belongs elsewhere, he is free to come and try.'" (ibid.)
There is an entrenched prejudice that smears all refugees as idlers, thieves and ruffians.
Gratillonius:
fights and kills brigands and pirates and commandeers their booty to pay the exorbitant taxes of those who would otherwise be impoverished;
accepts refugees and anyone willing to work;
does not accept idlers, thieves or ruffians;
pays extra cash contributions for Imperial defence;
does business with those who do not understand patriotism but at least understand business;
organises an armed defence force discretely when this is necessary but has been declared illegal.
Can you find any fault with Gratillonius?
9 comments:
Human beings are generally prejudiced against outsiders/foreigners/strangers, and usually this serves them well.
Strangers don't have the set of understood, mutual obligations than kinfolk and long-standing neighbors do.
This is particularly important in a crisis or in bad times, when the circle of "people I have obligations to" shrinks severely.
They may also come from cultures with severely different beliefs -- eg., "a woman wearing that is a whore and I can treat her like one", or "I can piss and crap wherever I like".
All in all, you're well-advised to be at least mildly suspicious of strangers and outsiders. The worse the general circumstances are, the more suspicious you should be.
Also, bear in mind that a substantial proportion of human beings are just plain -bad-. and if they're strangers you have far less of an idea who is what.
Note also that moral judgments are essentially -arbitrary-. You can argue -from- a moral assumption, but you cannot argue -to- one.
People often don't see this because they assume their basic moral orientation is "true", instead of just being ubiquitous in the environment they're operating in/have been raised in.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Again, I agree. Like it or not a certain wariness regarding strangers, till bona fides has been established, is necessary.
And I noted how not everyone taken in by Gratillonius and Corentinus were accepted blindly. Idlers, thieves, and ruffians were expelled.
Ad astra! Sean
There are idlers, thieves and ruffians among established residents as well as among immigrants.
Kaor, Paul!
Of course, such can be found anywhere at any time!
Ad astra! Sean
Paul: but, as the saying goes, they're OUR idlers, thieves and ruffians... 8-).
(The original is "He's a son of a bitch... but he's OUR son of a bitch.)
In other words, if you're born into a group, you have inherent rights: to be accepted when you're an outsider, you need to convince the current members that you're a desirable member.
Your relatives, those you're stuck with.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I agree. Sometimes, whether we like it or not, both relatives and sons of bitches are "ours," whom we have to often accept, with gritted teeth!
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment