• 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

Consequences in Alternate History: The Garibaldi Problem

It’s a good article, @Thande. Personally, I’d mention the Mercedes problem, where Edmond Dantès’s fiancée elicits the ‘named like a car’ reaction.

However, while your position on Garibaldi may be the majority in the UK, in France AND in Italy, you’d be regarded as the village simpleton. Garibaldi’s fame is impossible to overstate. He raised troops for any Republican cause he could find beside Italian unity. He volunteered to fight for the Franco-Prussian war, in addition to the offer he made to Lincoln to lead the US army. This was despite France sending troops against him in one of his ill-fated forays in Rome against the Pope and France having annexed his hometown of Nizza. The Republican French duly admired him and many cities returned him as their député in the 1871 elections. The monarchical majority’s decision to refuse to sit him prompted outrage and curled on the Republican side of the Assemblée and many Republican députés resigned in protest. Five years later, this was a major plank of the Republicans campaign that the dastardly monarchists had refused to seat hero Garibaldi.

Another sign of his popularity and its endurance is that when arch-Confederate Wade Hampton III (monster!) founded his fascistic militias to terrorise freedmen and reconstructionists into submission in South Carolina, he needed to exalt his thugs somewhat and dubbed them Red Shirts as they were supposed to fight for freedom. This is one of Hampton’s (murderer!) lesser sins as the man was an unapologetic slave owner, war criminal and traitor but it features up there and is another reason why his name should never been mentioned without the appropriate cursing and spitting.
 
Hendryk said:
Poor guy must have had quite a busy schedule.

Another example that comes back to mind is Goldfinger--I don't think many people outside of the UK know that the original Goldfinger was an architect, and that Ian Fleming named the iconic villain after him because he loathed Brutalism.
Click to expand...
For that matter, a lot of people will think of the film rather than the bird when they hear Goldeneye.
 
Redolegna said:
It’s a good article, @Thande. Personally, I’d mention the Mercedes problem, where Edmond Dantès’s fiancée elicits the ‘named like a car’ reaction.

However, while your position on Garibaldi may be the majority in the UK, in France AND in Italy, you’d be regarded as the village simpleton. Garibaldi’s fame is impossible to overstate. He raised troops for any Republican cause he could find beside Italian unity. He volunteered to fight for the Franco-Prussian war, in addition to the offer he made to Lincoln to lead the US army. This was despite France sending troops against him in one of his ill-fated forays in Rome against the Pope and France having annexed his hometown of Nizza. The Republican French duly admired him and many cities returned him as their député in the 1871 elections. The monarchical majority’s decision to refuse to sit him prompted outrage and curled on the Republican side of the Assemblée and many Republican députés resigned in protest. Five years later, this was a major plank of the Republicans campaign that the dastardly monarchists had refused to seat hero Garibaldi.

Another sign of his popularity and its endurance is that when arch-Confederate Wade Hampton III (monster!) founded his fascistic militias to terrorise freedmen and reconstructionists into submission in South Carolina, he needed to exalt his thugs somewhat and dubbed them Red Shirts as they were supposed to fight for freedom. This is one of Hampton’s (murderer!) lesser sins as the man was an unapologetic slave owner, war criminal and traitor but it features up there and is another reason why his name should never been mentioned without the appropriate cursing and spitting.
Click to expand...
That's kind of the point I was making. Garibaldi was well known and respected in the UK in his lifetime, and if he didn't have a biscuit named after him, you'd probably still get people at least occasionally bringing him up with regards to political historical analogies. But because of the biscuit, nobody can hear his name without laughing. By contrast, for example, if a UK politician brought up Mazzini, he'd be thought to be being obscure, but people would take it seriously.
 
To be honest, I think you're drawing a long bow here.

Out of curiosity, I just did a search in Hansard for all the times Garibaldi has been mentioned in either House since 1950. Leaving aside the odd football reference, most of the time it's explicitly in the context of him being a great revolutionary hero given shelter in Britain.

So Morgan Philips Price (Labour) in 1958- "After all, in 1860 all the Liberal element in this country stood behind Garibaldi and supported the Italian Rissorgimento. I do not think that Nasser and the Arab leaders are Hitlerists, although I admit again that a year ago I called him a "petty Napoleon". I would like rather to think of him as a leader of the Arab nationalist movement, a Garibaldi if hon. Members wish; but a coarse, ruthless and very unprincipled Garibaldi. Unfortunately, as I think Mirabeau said, revolutions are not made by angels."

Michael Foot, 1961 (a bunch of Garibaldi references in this debate, none of them to biscuits)- "Does the noble Lord think that Garibaldi came here to keep his mouth shut or that Mazzini came here in order to be absolutely silent? "

Lord Goodman, 1968- "I am told that the Biafrans are rebels. I venture to doubt whether some decades ago we would have used that phrase about Garibaldi. Garibaldi was certainly a rebel. Would we have said that we were entitled to provide arms to the people who were seeking to defeat him in his fight for freedom? Would we have said that we were entitled to deny arms to the Greeks in their battle against the undoubtedly legal occupation of the Turks, because the Greeks were rebelling against oppression?"

Lord Avebury in 1977- "Would the noble Lord agree that, while we would all condemn terrorism and the murder of innocent civilians, there have been many occasions in our history when British Governments have supported the struggle of peoples against oppressive dictatorships, from the days of Garibaldi, when he was fighting against the atrocious dictatorship of King Ferdinand (Bomba) in the Kingdom of the two Sicilies, to the Maquis in the last war; that when constitutional means of change are not open to a people then armed struggle may be the only alternative; and that after 11 years one could hardly disagree that that situation has been reached in Zimbabwe? "

And here's one from 1999 which, in fairness, also mentions biscuits!

Mr. Corbyn: "Today, I had a long chat with some Italians about Garibaldi, who lived in Islington for a while—as did many others. They all pass through; some of us stay."

Mr. McNamara: "Some become Prime Minister."

Mr. Corbyn: "Some stay on the Back Benches, and are happy with that. Biscuits were named after Garibaldi.

Under the Bill, Garibaldi would be locked up as quick as anything, as he was calling for armed insurrection and the overthrow of the Government in Italy. He was successful, and went back and achieved that. Sun Yat Sen, who campaigned against the Chinese Emperor, would have been culpable under the Bill."



I agree with the overall thrust of the article, Thande, but I really think that the idea that British politicians can't talk seriously about Garibaldi simply doesn't stand up.
 
SenatorChickpea said:
To be honest, I think you're drawing a long bow here.

Out of curiosity, I just did a search in Hansard for all the times Garibaldi has been mentioned in either House since 1950. Leaving aside the odd football reference, most of the time it's explicitly in the context of him being a great revolutionary hero given shelter in Britain.

So Morgan Philips Price (Labour) in 1958- "After all, in 1860 all the Liberal element in this country stood behind Garibaldi and supported the Italian Rissorgimento. I do not think that Nasser and the Arab leaders are Hitlerists, although I admit again that a year ago I called him a "petty Napoleon". I would like rather to think of him as a leader of the Arab nationalist movement, a Garibaldi if hon. Members wish; but a coarse, ruthless and very unprincipled Garibaldi. Unfortunately, as I think Mirabeau said, revolutions are not made by angels."

Michael Foot, 1961 (a bunch of Garibaldi references in this debate, none of them to biscuits)- "Does the noble Lord think that Garibaldi came here to keep his mouth shut or that Mazzini came here in order to be absolutely silent? "

Lord Goodman, 1968- "I am told that the Biafrans are rebels. I venture to doubt whether some decades ago we would have used that phrase about Garibaldi. Garibaldi was certainly a rebel. Would we have said that we were entitled to provide arms to the people who were seeking to defeat him in his fight for freedom? Would we have said that we were entitled to deny arms to the Greeks in their battle against the undoubtedly legal occupation of the Turks, because the Greeks were rebelling against oppression?"

Lord Avebury in 1977- "Would the noble Lord agree that, while we would all condemn terrorism and the murder of innocent civilians, there have been many occasions in our history when British Governments have supported the struggle of peoples against oppressive dictatorships, from the days of Garibaldi, when he was fighting against the atrocious dictatorship of King Ferdinand (Bomba) in the Kingdom of the two Sicilies, to the Maquis in the last war; that when constitutional means of change are not open to a people then armed struggle may be the only alternative; and that after 11 years one could hardly disagree that that situation has been reached in Zimbabwe? "

And here's one from 1999 which, in fairness, also mentions biscuits!

Mr. Corbyn: "Today, I had a long chat with some Italians about Garibaldi, who lived in Islington for a while—as did many others. They all pass through; some of us stay."

Mr. McNamara: "Some become Prime Minister."

Mr. Corbyn: "Some stay on the Back Benches, and are happy with that. Biscuits were named after Garibaldi.

Under the Bill, Garibaldi would be locked up as quick as anything, as he was calling for armed insurrection and the overthrow of the Government in Italy. He was successful, and went back and achieved that. Sun Yat Sen, who campaigned against the Chinese Emperor, would have been culpable under the Bill."



I agree with the overall thrust of the article, Thande, but I really think that the idea that British politicians can't talk seriously about Garibaldi simply doesn't stand up.
Click to expand...
That's in Parliament to each other, I'm talking about to the general public.
 
Fair enough. Also, I noticed that when I copy and pasted over from Hansard the highlights around Garibaldi have somehow translated into italics, which makes my post read as somewhat cattier than intended.
 
I accept your point in principle. It is an issue for me as I am 80,000 words into an AH novel featuring the 1st Duke of Wellington. However, I do think there are two things working in our favour.

1) The people who tend to buy AH books will often pride themselves on their historical knowledge. I have also met people who are tentative about reading AH unless they know that history well, but can be persuaded if you have solid historical notes.

2) Many people today are ignorant even of recent history as is becoming apparent with the references to Stalin, let alone the kulaks, in the current UK election campaign. I have taught Business students who feel that anything older than 10 years is 'irrelevant' to them. Now, they are unlikely to buy AH books, but if they stumbled across one, they are unlikely to believe Tupac to be anything other than you portray him as it is 23 years since Tupac Shakur died and so that is not on their radar. I always go back to why the movie of 'Fatherland' (1994 from novel 1992) did not receive wide release, because young test audiences in the USA were unaware of who had actually won the Second World War, somehow mixing up East Berlin with the 1964 Berlin under Hitler portrayed in the movie.

Another factor is that it is liable to be impossible to avoid this kind of thing. With every passing year it is likely that more people and products are liable to use historical names. However, I would not over-estimate the harm to our work. Many people in the UK when they hear the name 'Churchill' think first of the nodding dog ornament advertising insurance, but that did not stop 'Darkest Hour' (2017), 'Churchill' (2017) and 'Churchill's Secret' (2016) all with Winston Churchill at the centre of them, being successful.
 
Alexander Rooksmoor said:
I accept your point in principle. It is an issue for me as I am 80,000 words into an AH novel featuring the 1st Duke of Wellington. However, I do think there are two things working in our favour.

1) The people who tend to buy AH books will often pride themselves on their historical knowledge. I have also met people who are tentative about reading AH unless they know that history well, but can be persuaded if you have solid historical notes.

2) Many people today are ignorant even of recent history as is becoming apparent with the references to Stalin, let alone the kulaks, in the current UK election campaign. I have taught Business students who feel that anything older than 10 years is 'irrelevant' to them. Now, they are unlikely to buy AH books, but if they stumbled across one, they are unlikely to believe Tupac to be anything other than you portray him as it is 23 years since Tupac Shakur died and so that is not on their radar. I always go back to why the movie of 'Fatherland' (1994 from novel 1992) did not receive wide release, because young test audiences in the USA were unaware of who had actually won the Second World War, somehow mixing up East Berlin with the 1964 Berlin under Hitler portrayed in the movie.

Another factor is that it is liable to be impossible to avoid this kind of thing. With every passing year it is likely that more people and products are liable to use historical names. However, I would not over-estimate the harm to our work. Many people in the UK when they hear the name 'Churchill' think first of the nodding dog ornament advertising insurance, but that did not stop 'Darkest Hour' (2017), 'Churchill' (2017) and 'Churchill's Secret' (2016) all with Winston Churchill at the centre of them, being successful.
Click to expand...
Oh, I think Wellington is more of an example specifically in the USA where the boot is better known than the man. I think that Churchill example is exaggerated (I certainly hope it is - on the other hand your Fatherland example is worrying!) I certainly wasn't suggesting this is a reason not to write history or AH books, it's just one of the strange quirks of history that in naming something in honour of someone or something, one can paradoxically overwrite the original object of the tribute.

These things are cyclic as well. I think there was a period in the mid-20th century where nobody could talk about the Battle of Waterloo without someone joking about it being at Waterloo Station, but you don't hear that anymore.

As you say, providing good historical notes is important. I'm reminded of the recent-ish film of "The Man from U.N.C.L.E." which gave a quick keynotes version of the Cold War through animation at the start to recap it for a younger audience.
 
The Emperor Hadrian is remembered for the wall in northern England. No-one remembers the patronage of the arts he allowed during his reign. Anyone else know that the teenager Elagabalus invented the whoopee cushion when he was Roman Emperor for four years?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top