Ysengrimus
Active member
So I'm reading a book by Lauren Berlant called Cruel Optimism. The idea behind the title, the core concept, can be easily explained with this quote:
"A relation of cruel optimism exists when something you desire is actually an obstacle to your flourishing. It might involve food, or a kind of love; it might be a fantasy of the good life, or a political project. It might rest on something simpler, too, like a new habit that promises to induce in you an improved way of being. These kinds of optimistic relation are not inherently cruel. They become cruel only when the object that draws your attachment actively impedes the aim that brought you to it initially."
I am curious about, since we are historians and alternate history historians at that, the idea of cruel optimism. We are aided in this by the powerful tool called hindsight. When is your favorite case of cruel optimism in alternate history? I'll give an example.
-Bayezid I takes Constantinople in 1402. This is a bit more of a poison-pill than one might think, as demonstrated in this other thread here. By taking what he wanted, Bayezid may have made Ottoman empire ultimately weaker and less able to expand, with multiple Byzantine heirs in the winds and the promise of a series of embargoes and possible attempts to re-install them from European power.
- The Mongols take Northern China easily, instead of the decades-long slog they actually had to deal with. In my estimation, they'd be so busy plundering and exploring North China, that they might not turn their attention to the Kwazerim Empire--or expand in that direction. By trying to loot North China early, it seems likely that the Mongols would try to settle themselves there, thus falling into the classic flaw of the nomad people when they come into close contact with sedentary cultures.
What do you guys think? Favorite moments of cruel optimism in history/alt-history?
"A relation of cruel optimism exists when something you desire is actually an obstacle to your flourishing. It might involve food, or a kind of love; it might be a fantasy of the good life, or a political project. It might rest on something simpler, too, like a new habit that promises to induce in you an improved way of being. These kinds of optimistic relation are not inherently cruel. They become cruel only when the object that draws your attachment actively impedes the aim that brought you to it initially."
I am curious about, since we are historians and alternate history historians at that, the idea of cruel optimism. We are aided in this by the powerful tool called hindsight. When is your favorite case of cruel optimism in alternate history? I'll give an example.
-Bayezid I takes Constantinople in 1402. This is a bit more of a poison-pill than one might think, as demonstrated in this other thread here. By taking what he wanted, Bayezid may have made Ottoman empire ultimately weaker and less able to expand, with multiple Byzantine heirs in the winds and the promise of a series of embargoes and possible attempts to re-install them from European power.
- The Mongols take Northern China easily, instead of the decades-long slog they actually had to deal with. In my estimation, they'd be so busy plundering and exploring North China, that they might not turn their attention to the Kwazerim Empire--or expand in that direction. By trying to loot North China early, it seems likely that the Mongols would try to settle themselves there, thus falling into the classic flaw of the nomad people when they come into close contact with sedentary cultures.
What do you guys think? Favorite moments of cruel optimism in history/alt-history?