An update so soon after the interlogue was nice. I think one of the most fascinating things about alternate history is being able to view things from OTL with different details. I had no idea who Roy was until you mentioned him, but he seems like a fascinating figure. It's a pity that it seems like Huq's dreams of a generally peaceful resistance are going to come to naught. There's really only two options for Kalam's 'Great Jihad': either he succeeds and kicks the British out of Bengal and achieves some success before becoming a martyr for a new heretical sect of Islam or this is effectively the equivalent of OTL's Indian Rebellion: bad in many respects, but if the French and Portuguese are smart, they'll move to try to help the British stabilize the region and the rebellion is quashed, with Kalam becoming a martyr here being a possibility too.
Regardless, as our author seems to suggest, both will probably be inspirations for future generations of Indians in their approach to resisting colonial control, especially on how effective the Great Jihad turns out to be.
As for some votes for countries to cover...
-The Space-Filling Empire: or, really, any part of subsaharan Africa in general
-Republic of Man: a bit early to return to Europe, but how this little thing is going to survive bugs the heck out of me
-Superia: the exact details of how the ENA gets a black eye sound exciting
-Corea: since it's going to be a regional power ITTL, I think what was going on here during and after the Popular Wars is certainly warranted
-The Mauré: I have to say that the concept of a native 'Oceanian' state will certainly make it a fun player in the region...
And I forgot to ask this earlier: any chance we'll finally see where the Hohenzollerns are going to end up ruling this volume?
---
Wasn't it suspected that the domains of the Austrian Habsburg will be very vulnerable to Societism?
I think someone mentioned that in the last thread, yeah. To be honest, it seems quite likely, too. That...
thing might look impressive on a map now, but it's going to ultimately have just as many problems as OTL's Austria-Hungary, perhaps even more, as the Habsburgs have been pretty successful ITTL and that breeds complacency. It could, theoretically, be a recipe for disaster.
I see the German kingdoms as another possible victim to succumb to Societist thought as well, personally.
Why do people think that the Combine will be autocratic and pro-slavery?
Well, I can't speak for others, but I thought it was pretty much confirmed when Sanchez was shaken by being chased by mobs. His faith in 'the people' was disturbed, and our writers do seem to say that this made him think they were incapable of making the correct decisions for society (as an example, see the notion ITTL that the lower classes are much more prone to racist tendencies than the more affluent, which we know is directly influenced by Societist thought).
The slave-holding bit is somewhat more hazy, however. I seem to recall it being mentioned a long way back that modern (in the since of the mid 20th century) had recently protested something. The context of this was in reference to talking about the UPSA's past, if I'm not mistaken. Not to mention: Sanchez is a 19th century man (which already informs his beliefs about race) who's been to varying countries that feature slavery in some fashion, along with having a close friend who's a slave owner, though it's true that he seems to have had an alright experience with blacks in Sierra Leone. While this post is getting way longer than it should, and if Thande will pardon me here, I think this might be what Societism looks like, roughly, at least in the UPSA:
-A state church exists to enforce Societist belief by combining it with theology; basically, codified Jansenist Catholicism
-While authoritarian or semi-authoritarian, Societism believes itself, at heart, to be a 'humanitarian' ideology: it seeks to destroy social as well as physical conflict (that is, wars)
-In contrast to Diversitarianism's 'doublethink,' Societism has 'thoughtcrime': deviation from the state's version of reality is not tolerated from citizens because it's seen as dangerous to the welfare of society
-Holds that those who have a right to rule are only the upper classes, as they're more intelligent and informed than those lower on the social ladder; the poor are also prone to various bouts of mob mentality and violence, and so are untrustworthy to act in the state's best interests (oligarchy, but may in some fashion still keep the trappings of a democracy)
-The world does, indeed, have a racial hierarchy, possibly influenced by Linnaen thought to an extent: whites are the most advanced (and so, are the most fit to stay in the ruling clique), with other races falling somewhere below them; because of this, there's the belief that these groups ARE meant to toil and serve but...
-This slavery is more 'libertarian' than one might expect: any 'lesser' group can be subject to enslavement (Asians, etc.). Actually, I can see a weird scenario where interracial marriages are enforced by the state to properly 'whiten,' and thus improve the condition of, future generations. Societism, at least in its native mother country, seeks to also create one humanity as a sort of end goal; of course, in practice, many officials probably create excuses to keep those in bondage, and their children, where they are
Or I could be totally off. There's always that distinct possibility as well.
