The Borders of Genre: The Glorification of Fascism Within Alternate History

[Japhy]

As I recall, so does American History X. There's playing with fire, but there's also the issue that fascists and their ilk will throw gasoline on it anyway, and supply their own matches. Or not just the far-right; look at all the American Conservatives who seemingly never actually listened to the lyrics of Born In The USA.

Keep washing your hands there.

 

[Doctor Sulemain]

Keep washing your hands there.

I don't think the point you're making- that people should write about subjects like imperialism and fascism very carefully- and my point, that fascists and Rhodiesboos and the like will twist even explicitly anti-fascist works to there point of view, are incompatible points.

 

[Indicus]

I just wanted to clarify. There are a lot of online questions as to whether Franco and Salazar can be considered fascists. They were horrible far-right dictators but at least in the case of Salazar, I would argue he was not a fascist.

The occasional argument that erupts in these quarters of the internet over whether Salazar was a fascist dictator, or merely a dictator who shared a lot in common with fascism, remains one of the most pointless. There is no hard line between fascism and not-fascism and most right-wing interwar dictators, Salazar among them, are definitely situated in some position within the blur between them. Salazar is ultimately fascist "enough" that to call him such should be uncontroversial.

 

[Doctor Sulemain]

The occasional argument that erupts in these quarters of the internet over whether Salazar was a fascist dictator, or merely a dictator who shared a lot in common with fascism, remains one of the most pointless. There is no hard line between fascism and not-fascism and most right-wing interwar dictators, Salazar among them, are definitely situated in some position within the blur between them. Salazar is ultimately fascist "enough" that to call him such should be uncontroversial.

I think another good case study in this phernonemon is Romania in WW2, which went from a right wing royal dictatorship, to a fascist dictatorship and then back to a right wing royal dictatorship. There was a lot of ideological cross over, as you'd imagine.

 

[Ricardolindo]

I think another good case study in this phernonemon is Romania in WW2, which went from a right wing royal dictatorship, to a fascist dictatorship and then back to a right wing royal dictatorship. There was a lot of ideological cross over, as you'd imagine.

Romania was probably the country where the divide between conservatives and reactionaries, on one hand, and fascists on the other hand was the most visible, though, when the Iron Guard revolted against Ion Antonescu because he was gradually removing their privileges, lost and was banned, read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legionnaires'_rebellion_and_Bucharest_pogrom.

 

[Yokai Man]

Romania was probably the country where the divide between conservatives and reactionaries, on one hand, and fascists on the other hand was the most visible, though, when the Iron Guard revolted against Ion Antonescu because he was gradually removing their privileges, lost and was banned, read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legionnaires'_rebellion_and_Bucharest_pogrom.

Eh,not really. Antonescu turned on them because they got too power hungry and wanted his spot,not to mention just being bad at government. They had the same ideology and views,but different ways of how to be a fash.

 

[Yokai Man]

Incidentally I really hope people stop defending dictators like Salazar or Antonescu or argue if they were REALLY fash-yes,yes they were,stop defending them.

 

[Hendryk]

I'll ask the people who know a lot more about Africa than me (ie you and @Gary Oswald for one): Would an "African Argentina" (ie, state with a majority descended from European immigrants that got that way almost completely through voluntary immigration) even be slightly plausible? From my limited perspective, it doesn't seem like there were that many Europeans willing to go there compared to the Americas, and you'd have to have them all settle an implausibly limited area, and other objections I haven't even thought of...

Whenever I have seen someone attempt such a scenario with French Algeria, the result has invariably been some combination of colonial apologism and anti-Arab racism. One recent instance at the other place went off the rails pretty much right from the start.

As others have pointed out, there's simply no plausible way to get there that doesn't involve at the very least mass population displacement, and probably outright genocide. Unless we have a point to make, most of us don't enjoy dwelling on that kind of event, let alone write about it in painstaking detail.

 

[Warthog]

Whenever I have seen someone attempt such a scenario with French Algeria, the result has invariably been some combination of colonial apologism and anti-Arab racism. One recent instance at the other place went off the rails pretty much right from the start.

As others have pointed out, there's simply no plausible way to get there that doesn't involve at the very least mass population displacement, and probably outright genocide. Unless we have a point to make, most of us don't enjoy dwelling on that kind of event, let alone write about it in painstaking detail.

This is the problem. While many (most) authors proposing such timelines are not necessarily racist, the timelines and whatifs in essence celebrate White Supremacy, even if that isn't the intention. It's not asking questions like what if this uninhabited island had been settled by Europeans instead of by escaped slaves , it's asking what if this nowadays majority black or Arab territory instead had become a majority white settler state . Most such timelines posit the resulting states as more successful than in OTL, and while this may partly be down to the author wanting to write nice/cool outcomes it is in essence celebrating White Supremacy, and the native population is handwaved away or literally genocided.

 

[Pete U]

This is the problem. While many (most) authors proposing such timelines are not necessarily racist, the timelines and whatifs in essence celebrate White Supremacy, even if that isn't the intention. It's not asking questions like what if this uninhabited island had been settled by Europeans instead of by escaped slaves , it's asking what if this nowadays majority black or Arab territory instead had become a majority white settler state . Most such timelines posit the resting states as more successful than in OTL, and while this may partly be down to the author wanting to write nice/cool outcomes it is in essence celebrating White Supremacy, and the native population is handwaved away or literally genocided.

That's a really good point - one of the fundamental AH tropes is for 'successful*' countries to do 'worse*', and for 'unsuccessful*' countries to do 'better*' - if you change the history of an area 'about the same but different' is rarely an outcome.

So if you start with an area that you (the author) see as being relatively unsuccessful, the natural tendency is for whatever change you make to improve* the outcome - but that is often measured by power in it's many guises rather than the actual people

*all these words are subjective and doing a lot of heavy lifting.

 

[Warthog]

That's a really good point - one of the fundamental AH tropes is for 'successful*' countries to do 'worse*', and for 'unsuccessful*' countries to do 'better*' - if you change the history of an area 'about the same but different' is rarely an outcome.

So if you start with an area that you (the author) see as being relatively unsuccessful, the natural tendency is for whatever change you make to improve* the outcome - but that is often measured by power in it's many guises rather than the actual people

*all these words are subjective and doing a lot of heavy lifting.

Indeed, I mean it's a fairly boring story if it painstakingly sets up some complex changes and yet everything is the same at the end!

The problem with that in the context of the current discussion is it can readily lead to implicitly celebrating a fascist or white supremacist state due to it having a "better" outcome than OTL.

Of course there's also enough AH writing out there where it's not at all inadvertent, the author actually believes the white dominated society would of course be more successful

 

[Doctor Sulemain]

That's a really good point - one of the fundamental AH tropes is for 'successful*' countries to do 'worse*', and for 'unsuccessful*' countries to do 'better*' - if you change the history of an area 'about the same but different' is rarely an outcome.

So if you start with an area that you (the author) see as being relatively unsuccessful, the natural tendency is for whatever change you make to improve* the outcome - but that is often measured by power in it's many guises rather than the actual people

*all these words are subjective and doing a lot of heavy lifting.

And you end up riding in the metaphorical baggage train of the conquerer, and the human element- the suffering and misery, gets missed or ignored in favour of this sort of expansionist triumphantism.

It's something I've noticed with Byzantine Revival TLs quite frequently.

 

[Hendryk]

This is the problem. While many (most) authors proposing such timelines are not necessarily racist, the timelines and whatifs in essence celebrate White Supremacy, even if that isn't the intention. It's not asking questions like what if this uninhabited island had been settled by Europeans instead of by escaped slaves , it's asking what if this nowadays majority black or Arab territory instead had become a majority white settler state . Most such timelines posit the resulting states as more successful than in OTL, and while this may partly be down to the author wanting to write nice/cool outcomes it is in essence celebrating White Supremacy, and the native population is handwaved away or literally genocided.

One reason The Years of Rice and Salt was such a milestone in commercial AH was that it unapologetically turned this conceit on its head and started out with the complete depopulation of Europe, which then got resettled by Arab and Turkish colonists. It forced the Western readership to consider what happens when the shoe is on the other foot.

 

[Charles EP M.]

As I recall, so does American History X. There's playing with fire, but there's also the issue that fascists and their ilk will throw gasoline on it anyway, and supply their own matches.

Years ago, I remember a clip from This Is England - a robbery of a newsagents - was on Youtube uploaded by a far-right account. There's no glamorous direction in that scene or music, they're not doing any impressive crime, Combo is repeatedly shown to be an erratic man and a pathetic man in the film, there's a general seedy air... Still an NF guy put it out of context online for his fellow racists to cheer at. What can you do at that point?

 

[Warthog]

One reason The Years of Rice and Salt was such a milestone in commercial AH was that it unapologetically turned this conceit on its head and started out with the complete depopulation of Europe, which then got resettled by Arab and Turkish colonists. It forced the Western readership to consider what happens when the shoe is on the other foot.

Indeed, also achieved without genocide.

It's a really great book, interesting concept, and the very detailed world building one expects from KSR

 

[Alex Richards]

One reason The Years of Rice and Salt was such a milestone in commercial AH was that it unapologetically turned this conceit on its head and started out with the complete depopulation of Europe, which then got resettled by Arab and Turkish colonists. It forced the Western readership to consider what happens when the shoe is on the other foot.

Albeit it's one of those 'on the long-term reading list' ones for me, but being somewhat aware of the premise I'd argue that, well written and interesting as it may be, the very fact that this is colonialism into a world where the land has essentially been entirely depopulated by plague means we can't really take it as a 'shoe on the other foot' situation. It's fantasy colonialism into terra nullius where you don't have to worry about the natives.

There's a risk there, and I really would like to know how well it's handled in this work, that you just end up perpetuating the sort of narratives that go 'oh all the Native Americans died of smallpox, how sad, this was a very tragic occurrence that had no actual agency from the Europeans. Anyway lets take that now conveniently empty land.'

Hmm. Considering it's been 20 years, it's probably been long enough that somebody else could reasonably do a slightly toned down sequel that actually explores 'Europeans, but as victims of colonialism'. Though it would be at risk of triggering the Eurabia etc. nutters.

 

[Charles EP M.]

Hmm. Considering it's been 20 years, it's probably been long enough that somebody else could reasonably do a slightly toned down sequel that actually explores 'Europeans, but as victims of colonialism'. Though it would be at risk of triggering the Eurabia etc. nutters.

That's the premise of Civilisations but with South America colonising, IIRC

 

[Gary Oswald]

That's the premise of Civilisations but with South America colonising, IIRC

Incan and Aztec Conquest yeah. Naughts and Crosses is another, of course. And, on a much smaller scale, there's a poem called 'London Waka' by Robert Sullivan which @SpanishSpy pointed me towards.

One of the many articles I might someday write is a look at the nature of reverse colonisation scenarios, because my instinct is they tend to be much less brutal than actual colonisation was. That is true of both Civilisations and London Waka, because they're much more about 21st century racism than 19th century colonies.

Like London Waka, in which the Maori reverse the Empire is a fun bit of satire, but an actual Maori invasion of England would involve mass executions, and slavery cos like that's how the Maori treat each other and more importantly, that's how pretty much any invading force treats the conquered.

 

[Charles EP M.]

Noughts and Crosses was more brutal than real life Britain at the time the books came out, but Blackman was also using the past of the UK (including the Troubles), South Africa, and southern US, with things changing as the books go.

 

[kratostatic]

I'm surprised no-one has brought up the War of the Worlds actually as a colonialism analogy. Of course in that the diseases work the other way around to how they usually did historically...