Ythrians, based on a suggestion by John W. Campbell, are a post-mammalian evolutionary stage. Thus, the basis of their creation was completely different. They appear in two novels and one collection, the Earth Book. Every Ythrian story was published in 1973 except the first which was in 1972.
When Merseians fight Terrans, we support the Terrans whereas, when Ythrians fight Terrans, we support the Ythrians. "Ythrians," as citizens of the Domain of Ythri, include Avalonian human beings.
I am summarizing what we already know in a quick breakfast post before walking over to Morecambe to visit Andrea above the Old Pier Bookshop.
15 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
And I would support the Terrans in the conflict between the Domain and the Empire.
Ad astra! Sean
Me too. In any conflict, I support those closest to myself. As the old saying goes, "Me against my brother, me and my brother against my cousin; me, my brother and my cousin against the world."
Conflict is normal. It's essentially "us and them" not "good and bad"; that's usually just propaganda.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Absolutely! Our primary loyalty has to be, should be, to our own people/nation.
Ad astra! Sean
With the caveat that a loyal citizen of country X might believe that it is a mistake for country X to fight country Y and urge some sort of negotiated settlement of a dispute.
If I had a brother, then it would be quite feasible for him and me to wind up on opposite sides of a civil war. It would depend on what the issues were and what we both thought about them.
Kaor, Jim and Paul!
Jim: I can respect "conscientious objectors" if they are willing to accept the penalties imposed for refusing service to their country. But not if they scuttle off to other countries to dodge whatever service might be demanded of them.
Paul: The last time the UK had a civil was during the '45, when supporters of the exiled Stuarts made one last attempt to restore them to the throne. That must have split many families!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
More recently, industrial disputes can have the same divisive effect.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I mean a real civil war, a conflict fought within a nation by rival factions with organized armies. Like the one described by Anderson in "No Truce With Kings."
Ad astra! Sean
People have conflicting identities.
Sean,
I understood what you meant but, believe me, some national industrial disputes have come to feel like Cavaliers versus Roundheads, really dividing the country.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Yes, but squabbling over pay rates, holiday time, or petty administrative changes does not deserve the kind of passions which causes civil wars.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
The Great British Miners' Strike, 1984-85, was about closing down most of the mines in Britain. There were battles between police and pickets.
Note that when -nations- come into conflict, particularly in nations with a developed collective consciousness, social divisions are usually put aside. Tribe trumps economics.
Kaor, Paul and Mr. Stirling!
Paul: If those UK coal mines were losing money, no longer paying their way, it was inevitable they would eventually close down. One partial solution would be to buy out, pension off the older miners.
Mr. Stirling: A classic example of that was what happened in 1914, when the socialist parties in all the major belligerents of WW I voted for the war credits needed for paying the costs of the war. Patriotism trumped the nonsense about the "international brotherhood of workers."
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Of course that was the argument. My only point here was that it was not a squabble about pay but a major issue which became like a civil war.
International brotherhood is nonsense? Disagree. International solidarity preventing WWI would have been a very good thing. Unfortunately, the Social Democrats caved in.
Paul.
Post a Comment