Out of character thread XVI

[Zim]

1.) Your assuming that indigenous societies would just "naturally" find their way into becoming a nation-state. Nations were not inevitable but created and then supported by a mythology that made them seem inevitable..

Actually, I was talking about the Aztecs and Maya, and while the modern idea of a nation with a fixed ethnic makeup (something that applies to very few states in the world) might not have been inevitable, they certainly had the idea of states, and boundaries, and wars over said boundaries.

2.) Having done no small amount of reading about the Spanish Empire, I can tell you there is overwhelming historical evidence that many of those stories are true. But France and Britain were by no means innocent...

I can't argue with that, I just learned that many of the stories were false from one of my professors, who is considered one of the country's leading experts on Latin America. Well, that and things I learned and read while living in South America. That doesn't mean I"m right, since people, even profesors, can pick ideas from all sorts of questionable sources, and even the good sources disagree at times.

3.) Disease came about partly because some European settlers deliberately gave blankets from their smallpox wards to native tribes as "gifts". But even though some of it was by accident, it still happened because people from one area of the world, sailed to another area of the world and insisted on conquering and converting people that were doing quite fine on their own.

Interesting, I was also taught in university that that was also quite possibly a myth, and at the very least much less common than supposed. Never mind that the common cold and several other diseases than small pox caused most of the deaths, and that the diseases spread quite quickly in areas where Europeans had little contact, without the need for a primitive, mostly ineffective form of biological warfare...

So, in your hypothetical world state, would travel be so restricted that none of the people from the other three inhabitants of the world would ever have made it to the Americas? Or, in a more modern example, no travel from Africa to better contain Aids and most of the world's current cases of smallpox, no travel from Asia if there's any risk of bird flu spreading?

I'd say with a common world government and a common economy diseases will spread not only much quicker than they had managed to back then, but probably even somewhat quicker than today. Either that, or freedom would be much more restricted for our own "good".

Edit: Kotr Thread: The new place for political discussion!

[Privateerkev]

Actually, I was talking about the Aztecs and Maya, and while the modern idea of a nation with a fixed ethnic makeup (something that applies to very few states in the world) might not have been inevitable, they certainly had the idea of states, and boundaries, and wars over said boundaries.

Applying Western concepts to people not from the West tends to get messy. The indigenous people of South and Central America did not have an Enlightenment inspired nation-state with a citizen supported political and military structure. At the time, even the European countries didn't have these.

I can't argue with that, I just learned that many of the stories were false from one of my professors, who is considered one of the country's leading experts on Latin America. Well, that and things I learned and read while living in South America. That doesn't mean I"m right, since people, even profesors, can pick ideas from all sorts of questionable sources, and even the good sources disagree at times.

One thing you learn is that no one really knows anything for sure. But, there tends to eventually be a consensus about things. And while details and degrees may be debated, there seems to be a general agreement that the Spaniards murdered, raped, and overworked the indigenous population of South and Central Americas, as well as the Caribbean.

Interesting, I was also taught in university that that was also quite possibly a myth, and at the very least much less common than supposed. Never mind that the common cold and several other diseases than small pox caused most of the deaths, and that the diseases spread quite quickly in areas where Europeans had little contact, without the need for a primitive, mostly ineffective form of biological warfare...

I think there is enough evidence to suggest that it did happen. True, a lot of it was by "accident". But, my original point was, that it happened because one group sailed over and conquered another group.

So, in your hypothetical world state, would travel be so restricted that none of the people from the other three inhabitants of the world would ever have made it to the Americas? Or, in a more modern example, no travel from Africa to better contain Aids and most of the world's current cases of smallpox, no travel from Asia if there's any risk of bird flu spreading?

I'm not trying to rewrite history. In my hypothetical world-state, it starts in the future, not in the past. I live in reality and try to change it. I don't try to rewrite history. Not sure where you were going with that one Zim.

I'd say with a common world government and a common economy diseases will spread not only much quicker than they had managed to back then, but probably even somewhat quicker than today. Either that, or freedom would be much more restricted for our own "good".

Not sure how your connecting those things. You can have disease policy at the same time you have a global spanning government. I feel your mixing apples and oranges here.

[Zim]

Applying Western concepts to people not from the West tends to get messy. The indigenous people of South and Central America did not have an Enlightenment inspired nation-state with a citizen supported political and military structure. At the time, even the European countries didn't have these.

If not even the European had an idea of a "nation" (and, defining the term in a certain way, I'm well aware that they didn't), I'm not sure how the Spanish actions would apply as the actions of a nation state. Your specific mention of them seemed to imply to me that you saw their actions in this way.

When I specifically mentioned precolombian native Americans, it was only in acknowledgement that tribal societies changed greatly after contact with the Spaniards and my point about rates of death by violence in them would apply less after this contact occurred, and was not a attempt to imply that things were perfectly fine in the region in the immediate post-Colombian period.

One thing you learn is that no one really knows anything for sure. But, there tends to eventually be a consensus about things. And while details and degrees may be debated, there seems to be a general agreement that the Spaniards murdered, raped, and overworked the indigenous population of South and Central Americas, as well as the Caribbean.

I didn't mean to say that they didn't, only that some very well educated people disagree about the extent, particularly in regard to certain English and French propaganda seeking to show the Spanish as inhuman. Given your opinion that the holocaust is not neccessarily among the worst cases of genocide, I am a little surprised that you view the Spanish treatment of Native Americans differently.

I think there is enough evidence to suggest that it did happen. True, a lot of it was by "accident". But, my original point was, that it happened because one group sailed over and conquered another group.

Actually, despite hearing the story again and again, I have never read a shred of actual evidence that it did happen. Not saying there isn't any, only that as far as I know it could be as much of a myth as, say, people before Columbus not knowing the Earth was round. Statements by Professors at my college suggest as much.

I'm not trying to rewrite history. In my hypothetical world-state, it starts in the future, not in the past. I live in reality and try to change it. I don't try to rewrite history. Not sure where you were going with that one Zim.

Not sure how your connecting those things. You can have disease policy at the same time you have a global spanning government. I feel your mixing apples and oranges here.

I feel that you were the one comparing unlike things. You acknowledge the lack of nation-states in Europe during this period, but put forth the proposition that the diseases spread by the Spaniards somehow put a blight on the concept of the Nation-State.

Nationalism was not the cause of the decimation by disease of Native populations. In a stateless world, or one with a world state, such a thing would be just as likely to happen once travel advanced to the point where these peoples could contact eachother. If the Spaniards were a peaceful post nation-state people, only seeking to trade, the diseases would liekly spread just as quickly and be just as deadly. Their intention to conquer the peoples of the region had relatively little bearing on this, as much effect as it had in other ways.

If you wish to attack the idea of the nation-state, you would do well not to blame it for things it did not directly cause. Of course, if your posts concerning Central America were only in response to something I said that was only a tertiary issue at best, we should probably drop it and move on to more productive and central topics in our discussion.

I am beginning to think that mixing history with our political discussion was a mistake. Perhaps we should get back to figuring the odds in the Hummel von Salza confrontation?

[AussieGiant]

Ok now I think we have reached a point where this discussion could take place in another thread?

[Zim]

Ok now I think we have reached a point where this discussion could take place in another thread?

Actually, I'm about ready to drop it and move on to more casual topics, like the spread for the Hummel/Loyalist war.

Personally I see a slight overall advantage for the Loyalists. Even if Ignoramus gets to crush the hapless A.I. led besiegers, I still give a slight advantage to the Loyalists if they force a confrontation before the Cataclysm ends. I put them at a 3:2 advantage in favor of the Loyalists, with even odds if Ludwig were to march south with Jan's somewhat weakened army.

What about the rest of you guys?

P.S. Sorry, FH, after someone (I forget who) said discussion far off the topic of KOTR were common, I thought it was ok. I didn't know about the special rule regarding political discussions. If it makes a difference, I don't even think I have access to the backroom, it always shows up empty when I look at it.

Edit: P.P.S. I answered PK's last post via pm to avoid continuing to break ORG rules. I think I understand how we got mixed up now.

[AussieGiant]

I think your analysis is about right Zim.

I'm more interested in the Diet session in which both sides are going to get a roasting for disregarding a very clear and concise order from the Kaiser.

[Privateerkev]

Funny, we've talked about politics in here before. Didn't know about the rule. As for threadjacking the OOC thread, most of us are guilty of it. The game is slow right now anyways...

Plus, I saw Econ online when the discussion was going on and he obviously didn't say anything.

Who's up for a long in depth discussion on religion?

[OverKnight]

I agree it's going to be one hell of a Diet Session. This will be the first time our characters have been in the same room for quite some time. I can only imagine some of the show downs and debates that will ensue. Will the Kaiser be able to achieve a detente? Can the various rebellions and grudges be solved by words alone? Of course if a Civil War is still on going, will both sides be invited to the Diet?

It's going to be messy. Should be fun as long as we stay IC and not stray too much.

[econ21]

Ignoramus logged on to the Org a couple of hours ago, but I have not heard from him about whether he has installed the mini-mod. His PM box is full again. Night is falling in Australia right now, so my hunch is that it he will not fight his sally before the deadline of 23.00 hours UK time tonight.

If so, we will move to a PvP siege assault at Staufen in 1336. Should that happen, to avoid holding up the game, TinCow will move the turn on to 1338 for players not involved in Staufen.

As we are on page 21, I'm closing this thread and starting a new OOC one.

[Privateerkev]

Zim,

Go back through our old posts, and you'll see it was actually you that brought up New Spain first with this quote:

Hyper-Nationalism certainly has led to some terrible things, but something I read for a college class a long time ago stuck with me. Apparently the rate of death by violence in pre-state societies is dreadful, averaging about 1 in 3. Even the very worst Nation-States have never matched that. It was safer to be a German or a Jewish person in the first half of the 20th century, than to be, say, a Native American before Columbus, if your main concern is death by violence.

This led to me talking about post-Columbus violence. I never meant to imply that it was the work of the Spanish nation-state.

As for the holocaust, I only meant that I don't see it as "different" from other acts of genocide. Whether it's worse or not is hard to say. What makes one genocide worse than another?

And to keep this post on-topic, how about that KotR game huh?

[FactionHeir]

I wake up and see 3 new pages and all full of politics

Still, you guys should hope no mod walks in and locks it down. ORG rules disallow real life politics debates outside the backroom (you can create a KOTR player only thread there too).