Global power shifts in different directions in Poul Anderson's fictional futures: in Tau Zero, Sweden; in the Maurai History and The Enemy Stars, the global South. In The Enemy Stars, English is spoken only in the British Isles and a few enclaves in North America. It is spoken by:
"'...ignorant provincials, on exhausted lands between bombed-out cities...'" (p. 95)
As a literary and scientific language, it is dead. David Ryerson never spoke it after leaving the Hebrides yet Magnus Ryerson tries to force feed Tamara with this dead language. He is proud of the heritage of his white ancestors:
"'We were no more vicious than any other men...'" (p. 96)
In other words, they were every bit as vicious as any other ruling group!
He thinks that Tamara was:
"'...brought up to hate the West because it was once your master. Your teacher.'" (ibid.)
Many do indeed hate, not without reason, but a more objective assessment that Magnus' is necessary.
Addendum: Of course English is not quite dead yet in the situation described but I was quoting Tamara who was understandably hacked off with Magnus. She was prepared to treat him with respect according to the customs of the time but received absolute disrespect from him.
26 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
While I agree Magnus Ryerson should have been gentler to Tamara, I'm not sure he treated her with such "absolute disrespect." But I would need to reread THE ENEMY STARS.
Ad astra! Sean
Kaor, Paul!
And Magnus Ryerson did have a good point: Western civilization, after about 1500, was far more dynamic and transformative than any other civilization has been to date in world history. Sung Dynasty China, which had been in many ways innovative, might have been equally dominant if it had developed a true science, but failed to do so. Anderson suggested in "Delenda Est" and IS THERE LIFE ON OTHER WORLDS? how certain philosophic and religious beliefs (Christianity) led to the rise of a true science in the West.
It's not surprising so many Western nations were aggressive, ambitious, ruthless, vicious, etc. Being composed of Fallen humans they were all prone to such things, as was the case with everybody else. The main difference being how the West was so much more powerful and effective in imposing its will.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Science started because of a series of accidents. Rigorous thought, originating in ancient Greece, then (mis)applied to theological dogmatism, was reapplied to practical matters by Germanic barbarians with the help of decimal numbers from India. See my post "The Birth Of Science" (Wednesday 20 November 2013), summarizing Anderson.
Modern Western civilization, defended by Magnus Ryerson, kick-started its wealth with slavery and generated, among other things, the aberration of industrial genocide.
Paul.
"and generated, among other things"
... the abolition of slavery.
I am a fan of the Enlightenment & note that the perpetrators of "industrial genocide" were very much against the Enlightenment.
In Haiti, slavery was ended by slave resistance.
Kaor, Paul and Jim!
Paul: Of course there were other factors besides Christianity (I disagree with your "(mis)applied") leading to the rise of a true science. That's why I mentioned IS THERE LIFE ON OTHER WORLDS?, so readers could look up Anderson's fuller argument.
I agree science was misused for aberrations like the industrialized genocide of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, et al.
Bad example, mentioning Haiti. Because that example of the only truly successful slave revolt in history ended with its leaders founding what has become the most miserable and utterly failed nation now existing.
Jim: And the perpetrators of that industrialized genocide (listed above) also hated and feared Christianity.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But they still ended slavery. Haitians, like everyone else, still have to keep working at making this planet and this planetary system the places they can be.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Did they really? The horrible history of Haiti over more than 200 years shows its people being de facto slaves of so many tyrants, some of them grotesque monsters. I have next to zero expectation of things getting better in Haiti any time soon.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But is the practical implication that slaves should not resist?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Far better for slavery to end as it did in Hispanic America and the British Empire, by legislative action and compensation for the slave owners. Not by what happened in Haiti: a bloody genocidal war and a seemingly endless series of tyrants.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
We cannot preach to slaves that they must wait for legislation.
Compensation for slave owners, not for slaves?
Paul.
"Compensation for slave owners, not for slaves?"
I too consider that to be the wrong way around.
However, if that was the only politically possible way to end slavery, it is far better than having slavery continue.
Kaor, Paul and Jim!
Paul: Considering the horrible history of Haiti, almost anything else would be better. Esp. since France was one of the earliest European nations to abolish slavery in its colonies.
You need to understand, a unilateral, uncompensated abolition of slavery all at once would have ruined many, many people, both directly and indirectly, bringing on violent protests and catastrophic upheavals. Cheaper and less politically costly to compensate former slave owners.
Jim: Exactly, which is what the British Empire and Tsarist Russia did, using compromise and compensation to bring about abolition of slavery and serfdom.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
You write with the benefit of hindsight. No one can know in advance whether a struggle for freedom will be successful or what its outcome will be. Slaves motivated to organise and fight cannot look ahead and say, "But inevitably our country will have a horrible history after this."
Do slave owners not deserve to be ruined if all their wealth is dependent on slavery and they have invested in nothing else?
Let's look at the later Apartheid system. Various people opposed sanctions. The British Daily Mail newspaper trumpeted, "What can black South Africans expect except some reforms within the existing system. None that this paper can see!" Ideas about what can be accomplished can be far too timid and far too deferential to current power-holders.
Look at the state of the world now. There will certainly have to be some upheavals before the threats of climate catastrophe and of nuclear warfare are finally averted.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
It does not matter whether or not slave owners deserve compensation, if the issue the State, any State faces is how to be rid of slavery with as little disruption as possible. No responsible gov't is going to deliberately bring on chaos, anarchy, bloody upheavals, etc., in pursuit of dreamy, hopelessly unrealistic "ideals."
No, far better to achieve a desired end by persuasion, compromise, compensation, as did the UK and Russia. A stubborn refusal to make mutual concessions was what brought on the US Civil War in this same time period.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Loaded language as ever! Universal freedom is not an unrealistic ideal.
Governments want to make changes because of resistance from below. Many injustices would still be with us if the people on the receiving end had waited patiently for gradual limited reforms from above.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Then we cannot agree. I firmly believe the most lasting reforms or changes for the better were those which came about precisely because of the kind of gradualism you seem to dislike. Quite often because of religious beliefs or technological/economic changes.
So I will continue to favor the approach taken by the UK and Tsarist Russia.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But I don't think the approaches are incompatible. Victims of injustice should take action against it and governments should be persuaded to legislate against it.
I think that you weaken your case when, having presented your argument, you pile on dismissive adjectives like "unrealistic," "idealistic" etc. This sounds like reassuring yourself rather than strengthening the argument.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Then I think you should have expressed yourself more precisely, mentioning the long struggle of abolitionist politicians like William Wilberforce (1759-1833) at persuading Parliament to abolish first the British slave trade in 1807 and slavery itself in 1833. I thought some of your statements came dangerously close to supporting even civil war, if literally construed.
No, if people hold what I consider unrealistic and Utopian views I see nothing wrong in saying so.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I was precise. I do believe that slaves are entitled to fight back and to end slavery by force. Of course, it would be better if they did not have to do so. Indeed, it would have been better if they had not been enslaved in the first place.
Everything that we now take for granted would once have been put down as Utopian before it existed: universal suffrage etc.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Fight back how??? I read of how the abolitionists were assisted by former slaves and even ex-slave traders who became disgusted at what they took part in. Often for religious reasons, btw.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
We cannot dictate to the oppressed how they should fight back! If your social group (e.g., white Christian Americans) was enslaved by another social group (e.g. Chinese Maoists), then some of your group would plan to acquire weapons and fight back. You might or might not join them.
If I were a rebelling slave, then I would not rape slave owners' wives or kill their children. Unfortunately, I cannot guarantee what other rebelling slaves would do. Obviously, we need to ensure that such social conditions are never reproduced in future.
Paul.
Sean,
I feel that there is a failure to understand process here. There is not a single group that considers whether to end slavery by slave rebellion or by reforming legislation. Instead, there are some slaves who want to rebel and some politicians who want to legislate. Of course, if the politicians act quickly enough, then rebellion becomes unnecessary...
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I plan to respond when I have more time.
Ad astra! Sean
Kaor, Paul!
Your comment immediately above clarified what you were trying to say. And I agree with them.
Slavery has existed thru out history in all human societies. Sometimes it might gradually die out, as in Europe. In other places it was deliberately abolished. But before it can abolished enough of the leaders and people of a nation has to be convinced it should be abolished, as happened in the British Empire.
Other times attempts at abolishing slavery fails and a huge bloody botch is made of it, as in the US Civil War.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment