Is this a touch of Andersonian humour? The president of World Militants for Peace issues a statement that ends:
"'We make no threats. But let the militarists beware.'" (VI, p. 46)
"Beware" is certainly a warning and what else can it be here but a threat? I remember a work colleague who told me, "There was a clique developing! And I'm not mentioning any names! And Richard was in it!" As I laughed, he looked at me apparently unaware that he had contradicted himself or might have said anything amusing.
In The Star Fox, as in the same author's Ensign Flandry, there are militarists and peacemakers. The disagreement between these factions is fully authentic with one exception. He cannot help it but the author inevitably weights the dice by creating a fictional world in which the militarists' view of the facts is the correct one. Knowing what we do about the Merseian Roidhunate, we cannot possibly think that there can be any peace with it. But we get a more positive view of Merseians as a species in A Knight Of Ghosts And Shadows.
Does anyone know who Argilus and Witch Helena (V, p. 42) were?
21 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
Of course people who use menacing language like "Beware" are being threatening.
Sometimes "militarists" are right in the real world as well, not just in fiction. All you have to do is read Churchill's THE GATHERING STORM, relating how, during his "wilderness" years, he was often dismissed as a crank and militarist when he warned of the danger posed by Hitler and the National Socialists as early as the 1920's. Churchill was also arguing about the UK's need not to fall dangerously behind in modernizing its armed forces when Germany and Japan were expanding their armies/navies and becoming more menacing.
We should not be too dismissive about "militarists." As Flavius Vegetius said in DE RE MILITARI, "If you want peace prepare for war."
Ad astra! Sean
Believing what you want to be true is a universal human failing.
For what it is worth, my beliefs about the way the world is do not correspond to how I would like it to be.
I do not believe in a hereafter. Although I am convinced that a better future on Earth is possible, I must emphasize POSSIBLE. Look how many obstacles there are in our path. Many wielders of power insist on dragging us backward.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling and Paul!
Mr. Stirling: Absolutely! Esp. if the opposite of what you want to believe is true happens to be very unpleasant and all too real.
Paul: Just a bit puzzled, I said nothing about the hereafter, which I believe is real and for which there is evidence for its reality which cannot be easily waved away, such as the miracles recorded at Lourdes.
A better future is possible on (and off) Earth. But I don't believe it will be the kind of future you prefer. E.g., something like either the Solar Commonwealth of the Technic stories or the World Federation of THE STAR FOX, presiding over mankind leaving Earth to settle other worlds. Nor do I believe humans will ever cease to be competitive, contentious, strife prone, aggressive, warlike, etc. Because the qualities causing such things are innate, latent, and likely to be "activated" in all humans. Meaning it's not just "...wielders of power [who] insist on dragging us backward." It's all human beings!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
And I didn't think you said anything about a hereafter! I was merely responding to the suggestion that people often believe what they want to believe. I would like it if consciousness did not end at death - but I do not believe that there is a hereafter.
I know you don't believe that the better future will be the one I prefer! Again, my point was that I am all too aware of massive obstacles in the way of that future.
Wielders of power have a lot to answer for and of course we have a responsibility to do something about them. I do not agree that strife and contention are innate or latent but we have been through all this before. I keep showing how there can be circumstances in which the causes of conflict no longer exist and people can do what they want to do without having to fight anyone else to do it. But the idea was not to reopen this disagreement yet again.
Paul.
Paul: you can't wield power on a large scale without coercion, sometimes violent coercion.
It's just not possible, because large numbers of people will never universally agree on -anything-.
So some of them will refuse to obey, and that can lead to massive unraveling and chaos if not nipped in the bud.
I agree that power involves coercion or, indeed, is coercion.
Kaor, Paul!
And the State, any State, good or bad, has to have that power to coerce when necessary (as will sometimes be the case even with bad gov'ts), else things will unravel massively into chaos. Which is exactly what is happening to Haiti!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I agree that states are instruments of coercion.
Paul.
Paul: yes, States are instruments of coercion.
It's notable that of human remains from non-State societies, about 25-35% of adult males and about half that number of adult females -always- show evidence of dying by violence.
And that's a guaranteed underestimate since soft tissue damage doesn't show on bones.
Eg., Otzi the Iceman, preserved in a glacier by a freak accident, was shot in the back with an arrow and had 'defense cuts' on his forearms.
We wouldn't know that if he -hadn't- been deep-frozen; there are no marks of it on his bones.
So the most likely way for an adult human male to die in a pre-State culture was to be killed by other human beings.
This is typical of 'social carnivores' like wolves, and quite common also among chimps. We're a species of chimp that started imitating wolves...
Women somewhat less so, but they were kidnapped all the time, being one of the things males fought -about-.
I accept all that. I hope for a post-State society where the conditions (competition for food, territory, women etc) no longer exist so that the need for state coercion can become redundant. Granted there is currently a state monopoly of violence and, without it, there would be looting etc but that is in present conditions, not in the better conditions which I think we can, not inevitably will, build in the future. At least we should try to work toward that, neither trying to impose it by force immediately (contradictory) nor making a self-fulfilling prophecy that better conditions are impossible. Even now, civilized people know that they can at any time call on the police but most of the time don't need to.
Kaor, Paul!
But you are still insisting on something Stirling and I don't agree with: change the "conditions" of life in which humans live and then mankind will no longer be so competitive, violent, aggressive, etc. And those changes will allegedly result in the State "withering away." No, that will not happen because the things that makes humans so prone to being violent, aggressive, etc., are innate in all humans and can be "activated" at anytime, anywhere, in anyone. And that unpredictability of human violence means the State, with its monopoly of violence, will continue to exist.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Men fought for food, territory and women. There can be conditions in which they do not have to fight for any of these things. It is not innate in you or me suddenly to become aggressive and violent for no reason in any place and at any time. We simply do not do that. You are describing human behaviour that happens in particular circumstances and then saying that it can happen in any circumstances. It does not. Let us improve the material and social conditions for everyone and then see if you are right.
Paul.
Paul: human beings get angry at -relative- deprivation, not absolute.
Eg., the supply of willing women is inherently limited.
Hence the anger of 'incels' these days. In most societies, they'd all be married. In ours, they're... well... involuntarily celibate.
That will drive some men to violence, just as sure as the sun rises in the east.
Kaor, Paul!
I disagree, and Stirling why I believe you to be wrong more clearly than I would have, trying to make the points he did.
And the sexual imbalance and hence the frustration and anger of many millions of males will be esp. bad in China, Taiwan, S. Korea, Japan, etc. Violence is more than likely!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: the sexual imbalance is much greater in China than the other countries you mention, and it's been decreasing.
Tho' when I was in Chengdu last year, I talked with a number of young women. They often had several young men competing for their favor... and the ones I talked to said they often didn't like any of them.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I am not sure if you meant "increasing," instead of "decreasing."
If the sex imbalance in China is 15 (!!!) males to every woman I am not surprised those young women had such importunately unwelcome suitors. I can well imagine how desperate many males are.
Ad astra! Sean
How did such a big imbalance come about?
Kaor, Paul!
That has been discussed before in this blog. A big reason for the sexual imbalance in China was due to Mao's successors imposing the infamous "one child only" policy around 1980, decreeing that parents could have only one child. A policy ruthlessly enforced by compulsory abortions on women who already had a child. Another reason was the cultural preference for sons, meaning too many parents would abort girl babies till a son was born. And, then, as the regime ordered, there would be no more children. The results were a disaster for China and were not reversed once the one child only policy was repealed about 10 years ago.
Gov'ts can discourage population growth, but it's much harder for them to reverse that!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
So that is specific to China?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
The brutal, coercive parts, yes. But the somewhat similar demographic problems faced by Taiwan, S Korea, Japan are due more to cultural factors. Such as many women being unwilling to marry and have children. Or, even if married, have children at all. Slower, but also disastrous for those countries!
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment