"'...ever since Akhnaton ruled in Egypt, probably since before then, a school of thought has held we ought to lay down our weapons and rely on love. That, if love doesn't work, at least we'll die guiltless. Usually even its opponents have said this is a noble idea. I say it stinks. I say it's not just unrealistic, not just infantile, it's evil. It denies we have any duty to act in this life. Because how can we, if we let go of our capability?'"
-Poul Anderson, Ensign Flandry IN Anderson, Young Family (Riverdale, NY, January2010), pp. 1-192 AT CHAPTER EIGHTEEN, p. 192.
Flandry to McCormac:
"'Read some [history] and see what the result of every resort to violence by reformists has been.'"
-The Rebel Worlds, CHAPTER FIFTEEN, p. 511.
Thus, Poul Anderson's characters dispose both of pacifism and of violent reformism. A long time ago, I would have disagreed with Abrams. Now I just think that his comments warrant further discussion. First, who are "we"? The referent of this word is contextual. Secondly, what capabilities do we have apart from destruction?
8 comments:
Destruction and creation are linked.
Kaor, Paul!
The French Revolution began with reformers. Look what happened when those reformers discarded compromise, the rule of law, patiently putting up with their opponents, etc.! And so on with all similar revolutions since then.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: Loyalists got rather short shrift in the American Revolution; 100,000 or so left (a large number in a population of 2.5 million) and among other things founded English-speaking Canada.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I agree, losers in civil wars, which is what the US War of Independence was, usually get punished harshly by the victors.
But the US War of Independence at least did not feature things like the September Massacres, the Reign of Terror, the Vendean genocide, the mass drownings at Nantes, the bloody crushing of Lyons, etc., all of which belongs to the French Revolution.
Ad astra! Sean
Yup, the French revolution was worse -- that's what happens when idealistic intellectuals with unrealistic expectations of human nature take over the government.
Culminating in Napoleon, who at least restored some stability.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Absolutely! Far better to be governed by the first 1000 names taken from the Boston phone directory than by the faculty of Harvard University.
The problem with Napoleon was he was not satisfied with ruling just
France--he wanted to rule Europe as well!
Btw, hatred of the Revolution still lingers in western France.
Ad astra! Sean
As Talleyrand said, when asked why he abandoned Napoleon: "He did not know when to stop."
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Napoleon trusted trusted too much to his star and luck!
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment