The violence had stopped and the crowd in the Stadium was electing a new President. I would have left them to it. That President and any government that he would have been able to lead would have implemented disastrous policies? Maybe. Such accusations are always made during elections. Of course, Pournelle as author loads the dice so that his readers and those characters whom we regard as trustworthy know that this time the accusation is accurate. But it is never as clear cut as that in real life. People claim to know the truth of every contradictory proposition. And does such certainty justify replacing an election with a massacre? Never.
Sure, Falkenberg's men were fired on in the Stadium but this was because they had gone into the Stadium where Falkenberg had then announced the arrest of everyone present. And, after being fired on by some of those present, Falkenberg's men then, on his orders, used grenades and bayonets against a mostly unarmed crowd. Did Pournelle set out to defy and sicken his audience?
The novel is entirely about how human beings, both as individuals and in groups, large or small, interact with each other. This is what novels should be about. But this is an sf novel which should also be about our place in the universe and that does not mean just under-described terrestroid planets used as platforms for a continuation of all-too-familiar Terrestrial violence.
I am not sure how much more of Pournelle I will reread.
As previously stated, I will be away from this computer from early tomorrow until late on Friday. Saturday will be the last day of this month so maybe there will be a few more February posts then.
17 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I continue to disagree, what was going on in that stadium was a coup attempting to overthrow the already established gov't of Hadley. Coups are going to be either resisted or succumbed to. And since the violence was started by the rebels, responsibility for all who died there rested with them, not Falkenberg.
In 1871 the French Third Republic bloodily crushed the Paris Commune precisely because it was a rebellion against its rule. Practically all gov'ts will not tolerate such rebellions and do what it takes to put them down. Even if it becomes a long civil war, as happened with the US in 1861-65.
Ad astra! Sean
"Violence is always the ultimately decisive means of political action."
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Exactly, with Anderson realistically acknowledging that truism in many of his stories. If the issues are important enough or they have no other choice, men will fight.
Ad astra! Sean
Yeah. In THE MERCENARY, the massacre in the stadium is based on something that happened in Constantiople early in the reign of Justinian and Theodora, with Belisarius doing the chopping.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I've known for many years that incident in THE MERCENARY was based on the historical Nika Riots of 532, when the Blues and Greens set aside their quarrels to unite trying to overthrow Justinian by proclaiming a rival Emperor. A panicked Justinian and his advisers thought of fleeing, till Theodora rallied them and Belisarius was ordered to attack the rebels in the hippodrome.
I knew you and Dave Drake used Belisarius as a model for Raj Whitehall in THE GENERAL books. An able soldier determined to do what was necessary to save civilization on the planet Bellevue, even if he hated much of what he did.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
You cannot be serious. Some rebels fired at Falkenberg's men who returned the fire, killing some of the armed rebels. OK so far.
Also, however:
the stadium was packed with unarmed men, women and children;
Falkenberg ordered his men to throw grenades into this crowd and to attack the front of the crowd with bayonets;
those who fled from the stadium were not allowed to escape but instead were shot and killed by other men of Falkayn's who were stationed outside surrounding the stadium.
You defend this massacre? You and I will always be on opposite sides in any such conflict. And such events are happening now.
Paul.
I have emailed links to reports of current atrocities.
So used to writing about Falkayn that I inserted his name instead of Falkenberg's. Bad.
Kaor, Paul!
I absolutely disagree, and I can cite a perfect example from UK history itself demonstrating why inadequate measures won't work: the Gordon Riots of 1780. In late May/early June of that year, huge crowds gathered in London to protest passage of the Catholic Relief Act of 1778. The demonstrations became violent and mobs attacked the chapels of Catholic foreign nations and the houses and warehouses of Catholics known to be wealthy, with massive destruction. At first the Lord Mayor did little or nothing, refusing to read the Riot Acts and make attempts to disperse the mobs. By June 7 both George III and the PM, Lord North, were so fed up that Army troops were sent to break up the mobs with force, if necessary. Repeated warnings were ignored and the soldiers opened fire, with at least 285 rioters killed (some figures go as high as 700 rioters killed). Another 30 were tried and hanged after the riots.
I defend the use of whatever force is necessary to restore order if rebels and rioters refuse to surrender/disperse after being given chances to do so. All
coup attempts or out of control riots should be suppressed by established gov'ts. The measures you seem to prefer invites only anarchy and chaos.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I absolutely disagree.
The "measures that I seem to prefer" do not include throwing grenades into a crowd, bayoneting unarmed men, women and children and surrounding a stadium in order to kill anyone who tries to escape from it.
This is repression and barbarism which you would oppose if your country's perceived enemies did it. This really does define a boundary beyond which I think that it is impossible to conduct any discourse.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Then that seems to imply, assuming you were PM today, that you would do nothing to suppress similar rebellions/riots in London, no matter how violent or destructive (and attended with inevitable loss of life) they were. The first duty of any self-respecting State, any State, is to keep the peace. Gentle measures will not always be possible, as the Gordon Riots showed. More likely, half- hearted half measures will worsen them.
Any PM who was so ineffectual would face a storm of protest in Parliament, a No Confidence motion would be moved in the Commons, be passed and the PM would have to resign or be dismissed by the King if he tried to stay in office. A new PM would come to power willing to do whatever it took to restore order.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
It implies nothing of the sort. We go round in circles here. Stick to the facts of this particular case: a stadium full of men, women and children, only some of the adults bearing guns. At the particular moment, they are engaged only in a mass meeting to elect a new President. Falkenberg arrives and announces their arrest. Some of those present fire at his men who, on his order, return the fire.
THEN -
Falkenberg orders his men to throw hand grenades into a packed mass of mostly unarmed men, women and children;
he orders his men to attack the front rank of the crowd with bayonets;
when people flee from the stadium, they are shot and killed by more of Falkenberg's men surrounding the place.
You have not explicitly defended this massacre yet because you have not mentioned it. I have had to repeat it by now more than once. We are like two armies charging past each other. Can we instead and just once discuss the actual case? Do you agree with those grenades, those bayonets and that shooting down of unarmed people trying to escape? If so, then we have nothing morally in common and no basis on which to discuss the issue. All that we can do is state which side we would be on in an actual conflict.
Paul.
Occasionally, people need to be reminded of why and how the government claims a monopoly of violence.
But not by bayoneting unarmed crowds?
Paul: in the original massacre, Belisarius' men were vastly outnumbered and didn't have firearms. Their only advantages were discipline and purpose. Armed men in that situation can be swamped, unless they put the terror of death deep into the other side.
Sure. I am still sickened by what Falkenberg and his men did.
Well, it ended an attempt to overthrow the legitimate government. Politics is not for the squeamish, particularly when the legitimacy of the system is in question... which means that politics revert back to "who can kill who".
Post a Comment