Masteroftheuniverse
Well-known member
Is it just me or is the world of The Two Georges actually pretty dystopian? It seems that, aside from the Anglosphere, the entire planet is either ruled by repressive absolute monarchies or under colonial rule.
-
Hi Guest!
The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Alternate History General Discussion
- Thread starter Elektronaut
- Start date
Walpurgisnacht
It was in the Year of Maximum Danger
- Location
- Banned from the forum
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Is it just me or is the world of The Two Georges actually pretty dystopian? It seems that, aside from the Anglosphere, the entire planet is either ruled by repressive absolute monarchies or under colonial rule.
There's a weird tendency in AH (mainstream and non-mainstream) to regard continued colonial empires as basically fine, or even better than OTL. If we think very, very, hard, we might be able to work out why.
There's a weird tendency in AH (mainstream and non-mainstream) to regard continued colonial empires as basically fine, or even better than OTL. If we think very, very, hard, we might be able to work out why.
I know I've said this before, but The Churchill Memorandum is one of the weirdest examples of this. It's basically "Yeah, repressive, expansive, dominant state power is good, as long as you're allowed to legally take drugs."
That surprises me about Churchill Memorandum, since the writer's very libertarian.
In Two Georges, is it meant to be dystopian where you start to go 'oh hang on'?
In Two Georges, is it meant to be dystopian where you start to go 'oh hang on'?
That surprises me about Churchill Memorandum, since the writer's very libertarian.
It doesn't really surprise me. A lot of American "Free Man in the Wilderness Lair" libertarians have a totally unjustified love of THE OLD SOUTH, so I can definitely see British ones of a similar nature doing the same for THE EMPIRE.
JesterBL
Gastronaut
- Location
- Flyover Country, USA
- Pronouns
- he/him
I was reminded of this old school internet AH/alternate geography website in a different conversation today, and was pleasantly surprised that I both remembered the name and that it is still around. I remember really enjoying it and finding it shortly after reading Guns, Germs and Steel myself.
- Pronouns
- He/Him
It doesn't really surprise me. A lot of American "Free Man in the Wilderness Lair" libertarians have a totally unjustified love of THE OLD SOUTH, so I can definitely see British ones of a similar nature doing the same for THE EMPIRE.
“Nothing, Dr Markham, is forever,” he said. “The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils. By the nature of things, however, the artifices of one generation must be supplemented by those of the next. All we can do is try to ensure that our own prevention of evils does not raise up less surmountable problems for those who take our place.
“In a country like England, there is no shortage of wisdom and forethought. There is also no shortage of folly, and even of what may be regarded—if only in its effects—as treason. These qualities are not abstractions. They are manifest in the characters of men. If, from time to time, the Divine Providence gives chances, it is up to us to seize those chances. It is for us to ensure that men such as Harold Macmillan said he wished to raise to greatness shall remain in harmless obscurity.”
Powell sat down again behind his desk. He looked past me at the portrait of Canning, and laughed without any sign of joy. I lit another cigarette and wondered when I could take myself aside for a shot of morphine that would get me through the rest of the day. “Next year,” he struck up again, “or the year after that, we shall stretch forth the hand of renewed friendship across the Atlantic. The Americans may sniff it with hostile suspicion. They may affect to see a few spots on it of their own blood. They will ask by what tune of our own composition they are being called to the dance. But they will allow us to help them through their first and tottering steps. For the moment, things remain exactly as they have been for the past few decades.” He looked at me and past me to the Canning portrait. “The balance of the old world is not yet in need of redress. Until such time as it is, the new world has no need to exist.
brb off to write a story about rebel leader Harold Macmillan
For an averted-ARW dystopia there’s always We’ll Meet Again
And for realistic Space filling empires there is B_Munro’s and then there were ten
And for realistic Space filling empires there is B_Munro’s and then there were ten
Map Thread VIII
That Fatherland map is quite good; it keeps very well with the spirit of the book and the maps in it. In the future, however, try to keep the map at its original size. This way looks bad. Also be sure to check out the basemap thread '… all in UCS!' (I can't remember its full name now); there's...
www.alternatehistory.com
Viewing nonWestern cultures as backwards and alien, and believing Postcolonial states prove independence is a failure among othersThere's a weird tendency in AH (mainstream and non-mainstream) to regard continued colonial empires as basically fine, or even better than OTL. If we think very, very, hard, we might be able to work out why.
The following is all very broad brush strokes, but:
I think another reason is that most authors are likely to be from the colonising side of the equation, rather than the colonised. Even those who aren't a little too fond of painting the map their preferred colour will probably have a less visceral reaction to thinking of "colonial empires ensure into the 21st century" as a consequence of their PoD, or as a setting to explore. This means they're more likely to run with it as an idea, whether as dystopia; naive "empire, but nicer"; or full blown apologia.
I think another reason is that most authors are likely to be from the colonising side of the equation, rather than the colonised. Even those who aren't a little too fond of painting the map their preferred colour will probably have a less visceral reaction to thinking of "colonial empires ensure into the 21st century" as a consequence of their PoD, or as a setting to explore. This means they're more likely to run with it as an idea, whether as dystopia; naive "empire, but nicer"; or full blown apologia.
Last edited:
- Soviet/American World War IIIs that occur shortly after World War II are far more unambiguously "Alternate History" than the ones that take place in the present/near future from publication. They exist and there's a lot more of them.
- Because of the different nature, I don't really consider them to be in the same group as post-Vietnam Fuldapocalypses. They're more an offshoot of World War II stories.
- I have had terrible luck in finding good ones.
- Pronouns
- he/him
Since I normally drone on about the inherent racism underlying popular images of Western empire, I'll take a different tack and say, let's be generous:
Part of this does come from a misunderstanding of the process of decolonisation. People do a little reading and are stunned by how, in the final years of empire, Britain, France et al seemed to suddenly rush out of their colonies without leaving the infrastructure, educational, governmental and bureaucratic systems necessary to build a lasting state.
The reader sometimes thinks that the lesson here is that decolonisation should have happened, but it should have happened slower. Hence, longer lasting empire.
It's an easy mistake to make, but it breaks down when you consider that any empire interested in building up their colony to that extent wouldn't have colonised them in the first place.
More to the point, before those final years decolonisation was often a process of people delaying and delaying and murdering and delaying for as long as they could.
I don't pretend this explains all of the phenomenon, mind you, but I wanted to change my record.
Part of this does come from a misunderstanding of the process of decolonisation. People do a little reading and are stunned by how, in the final years of empire, Britain, France et al seemed to suddenly rush out of their colonies without leaving the infrastructure, educational, governmental and bureaucratic systems necessary to build a lasting state.
The reader sometimes thinks that the lesson here is that decolonisation should have happened, but it should have happened slower. Hence, longer lasting empire.
It's an easy mistake to make, but it breaks down when you consider that any empire interested in building up their colony to that extent wouldn't have colonised them in the first place.
More to the point, before those final years decolonisation was often a process of people delaying and delaying and murdering and delaying for as long as they could.
I don't pretend this explains all of the phenomenon, mind you, but I wanted to change my record.
In any case, I find the lack of discussion about France’s modern overseas territories to be puzzling- this could make a case either for or against “empire but nicer”The following is all very broad brush strokes, but:
I think another reason is that most authors are likely to be from the colonising side of the equation, rather than the colonised. Even those who aren't a little too fond of painting the map their preferred colour will probably have a less visceral reaction to thinking of "colonial empires ensure into the 21st century" as a consequence of their PoD, or as a setting to explore. This means they're more likely to run with it as an idea, whether as dystopia; naive "empire, but nicer"; or full blown apologia.
Something I do find annoying is that any latter day Jacobins or any that are inspired by them in the early 20th or late 19th century will inevitably be a variety of hardline communists or socialists.
Now, I know Lenin and the Bolsheviks heavily admired Robespierre and the Jacobins, the Communist International says that Babeuf was the first communist, all that stuff, but I just find it kind of cliche. I mean, yes they were one of the first revolutionaries, but people tend to forget that they were also defenders of property rights, even writing it into their constitution, and also cracked down hard on the left like Hebert and Roux.
It’d be more interesting, or at least more original to see them as more of a social democratic group, definitely left leaning, but still defending property rights and wanting to uphold capitalism.
Now, I know Lenin and the Bolsheviks heavily admired Robespierre and the Jacobins, the Communist International says that Babeuf was the first communist, all that stuff, but I just find it kind of cliche. I mean, yes they were one of the first revolutionaries, but people tend to forget that they were also defenders of property rights, even writing it into their constitution, and also cracked down hard on the left like Hebert and Roux.
It’d be more interesting, or at least more original to see them as more of a social democratic group, definitely left leaning, but still defending property rights and wanting to uphold capitalism.
The C4SS?Something I do find annoying is that any latter day Jacobins or any that are inspired by them in the early 20th or late 19th century will inevitably be a variety of hardline communists or socialists.
Now, I know Lenin and the Bolsheviks heavily admired Robespierre and the Jacobins, the Communist International says that Babeuf was the first communist, all that stuff, but I just find it kind of cliche. I mean, yes they were one of the first revolutionaries, but people tend to forget that they were also defenders of property rights, even writing it into their constitution, and also cracked down hard on the left like Hebert and Roux.
It’d be more interesting, or at least more original to see them as more of a social democratic group, definitely left leaning, but still defending property rights and wanting to uphold capitalism.
You mean the book by Robert Heinlein? I’m not too sure what that has to do with a non-socialist Jacobins.You're thinking of The Moon is a Harsh Mistress
The Jacobins were a lot of things, but one thing they sure as hell weren’t were libertarians, hell, they were the exact opposite of that.The revolutionaries in the book are libertarian minarchist Jacobins, down to wearing liberty caps.
Was Heinlein going for a historical joke or irony on that?