Look to the West Volume V: To Dream Again
- Thread starter Thande
- Start date
The point, I think, that Diversitarians are probably diverse also about what Diversitarianism means. I sorta recall Thande himself once commenting to that effect. I am fairly sure they do not uniformly agree that the best state of the world is an ethnostate for every different national culture yeah. IOTL, national "ethnostates" are clearly the biggest threat to cultural diversity ever seen, quite more so than multiethnic empires - even colonial ones -, and this TL has also seen a big deal of that nastiness. Ultimately, one tack the Diversitarian logic might sensibly take (and it seems it does ITTL in some places) is to emphasise the subnational cultural differences without necessarily stating that they need political sovereignty to exist. Coexistence of different cultures within the same political structure is just as damning to Societism, without having to imply the horrible cycle of nationalism and war that, well, basically proves Sanchez's point. Actually, what a large Societist power may do, merely by exisiting, is exactly what it is meant to be: ensuring global peace among different nations. Except that it does so by scaring all other nations into mutual peace out of fear. The point being the wish of said nations to keep existing as distinct, which they wouldn't be able to do if they keep fighting each other because, well, then, war is actually awful and people would turn Societist.
Last edited:
Bulldoggus
Banned
@Fleetlord Also, it is implied (or, rather, I should say I have the creeping suspicion) that there are different methods of Diversitarianism. For instance, I've always suspected that the Russian approach is "respect the diversity of the Empire, where every group has it's own role, and the Russian role is to call all the shots. And also wouldn't it be mighty un-diverse to deny us a small-scale Easter Pogrom?"
Now, it would be interesting to see what Diversitarians from TTL would think about OTL's Feminist Separatism (and more generally, about faultlines that not based on inherited culture but gender or... oh my God, class).
I am also under the impression that, while Linnean Racism is widely detested and racism in general not acceped in the Diversitarian world ITTL, the entirely different ideological lines would generally make its rejection far less of an issue. ITTL, while Lisieux was both very nasty and a racist, I don't think he'd compare to our Nazis in establishing racist views as a near-taboo (also, the horrors of colonialism itself are slightly lessened ITTL. There's Carolina of course, but I doubt Burdenism can viably survive to this day).
I am also under the impression that, while Linnean Racism is widely detested and racism in general not acceped in the Diversitarian world ITTL, the entirely different ideological lines would generally make its rejection far less of an issue. ITTL, while Lisieux was both very nasty and a racist, I don't think he'd compare to our Nazis in establishing racist views as a near-taboo (also, the horrors of colonialism itself are slightly lessened ITTL. There's Carolina of course, but I doubt Burdenism can viably survive to this day).
xsampa
Banned
What might Societist fashion look like? IIRC, some Societist women wore split skirts, and that step of rejecting traditional-gendered fashion will lead to others along the way. Perhaps under Alfarus, gendered fashion may be eliminated entirely, with mandatory unisex hairstyles, makeup and uniforms. Of course, class distinctions would be represented, mostly in clothing as always, but possibly in markings as well.
We do not know, yet, if Alfarus is going to be the Societist analogue of Stalin (though there are pointers in that direction). We do not even know as of now, if the actual Societist system implies a real body of government at all above the Zonal Rejes, indeed.
Also, it is not very clear that Familist Societism (which we now is going to be dominant Societist approach) is willing to accept gender non-distinction. I mean, the battle ITTL is shaping about cultural divides (as opposed to class IOTL, in extremely broad terms); gender is likely to fit awkwardly if at all, on both sides. There seems to be a more restricted overall view in TTL (at least in England) about "Cythereanism" on the Diversitarian side. And mainstream Societism is somewhat implied to have an unreconstructed patriarchal approach.
We are led to suppose this is controversial among Societists, but we'll see.
Thinking about it, the Diversitarian camp needs Societism in a way the Western Bloc did not IOTL (relative to the Soviet-aligned one).
It is heavily implied that the Last War of Supremacy opposed a group of Diversiarian powers and a Societist, let me say, "camp" (we know nothing if its structure, but there are hints at different Societist "states", which is indeed not supposed to be a thing under Societism). And Societists, it seems, lost big.
So, I guess that the "Sovereign Nations" (or whatever the Diversitarian alliance is called in this context) had reason not to go all in and destroy the threat once and for all. I suggest that they understood that they needed Societism as an actual force just not fall to the usual pattern of Diversity, namely destructive conflict. They are fine with South America (I suppose, and presumably some other places) staying Societist, since this allows most of the rest of the world to agree on a Diversitarian framework without this resulting in major conflict.
It is heavily implied that the Last War of Supremacy opposed a group of Diversiarian powers and a Societist, let me say, "camp" (we know nothing if its structure, but there are hints at different Societist "states", which is indeed not supposed to be a thing under Societism). And Societists, it seems, lost big.
So, I guess that the "Sovereign Nations" (or whatever the Diversitarian alliance is called in this context) had reason not to go all in and destroy the threat once and for all. I suggest that they understood that they needed Societism as an actual force just not fall to the usual pattern of Diversity, namely destructive conflict. They are fine with South America (I suppose, and presumably some other places) staying Societist, since this allows most of the rest of the world to agree on a Diversitarian framework without this resulting in major conflict.
xsampa
Banned
It's amazing how closely the Combine's policies fit with BOTH the OTL USA and the USSR at the same time. Promoting free trade (between zones) is something the US is famous for, but arranging provincial borders to support that is a Soviet practice. Also, the foreshadowed environmental destruction is reminiscent of BOTH the late Soviet Union and the US during the 1950s (the Ohio River setting itself on fire would be a famous example.),
Thande,
I just finished my read-through of all of LTTW from start to finish (it took me two months). If you're still accepting requests for extra material to add to Volume IV, I have one request: Russia. There are a few events involving Russia I feel could do with more explaining.
1. At the end of the popular wars, lithuania was drifting away from russia under their own branch of the Romsnovs. Then a map was posted showing Lithuania as again being a Russian vassal with no explanation. I felt that the personalities of the Tsar and Grand Duke (uncle and nephew respectively) were such that this sort of revassalization seemed out of place (Uncle Tsar was initially unwilling to take the throne because it "rightfully" belonged to his nephew - would he then go and assert suzeainty over the same man who he felt was the righrful Tsar?). I know this is probably something that happened under a different Tsar but I still feel it could do with more explanation.
2. There were a couple references in Volume IV to Russian intervention in Old Spain during the Great American War. But no more than those couple vague refernces. I'm curious as to what happened there.
3. In Volume V there was a reference to growing tension between Russia and Germany which led to the founding of the Vitesk Bloc and the eventual Pandoric War. At the time one of your loyal readers asked "what is the source of that tension" and you said "I'll cover it in a future update". I don't think it was ever covered which made the declaration of war by Germany against Russia feel a little artificial once it atrived. There were a couple references in Volume VI to a competition for "dominance of Eastern Europe" and a reference to Russian support for Slavs in Bohemia against Germany. So maybe the tension was supposed to be the result of the Kulturkrieg. Whatever the source of the tension was, it seemed that Poland and Lithuania formed enough of a buffer than neither Germany nor Russia was an existential threat to the other, so the reasons for war seemed unclear. I know this would fit better in Volume V than in Volume IV, but maybe there could be some way to work it in to a more general update involving Russia.
I apologize if these suggestions are tok late/not helpful, but I figured I should let you know the questions I was asking when reading Volume IV that I felt went unanswered.
I just finished my read-through of all of LTTW from start to finish (it took me two months). If you're still accepting requests for extra material to add to Volume IV, I have one request: Russia. There are a few events involving Russia I feel could do with more explaining.
1. At the end of the popular wars, lithuania was drifting away from russia under their own branch of the Romsnovs. Then a map was posted showing Lithuania as again being a Russian vassal with no explanation. I felt that the personalities of the Tsar and Grand Duke (uncle and nephew respectively) were such that this sort of revassalization seemed out of place (Uncle Tsar was initially unwilling to take the throne because it "rightfully" belonged to his nephew - would he then go and assert suzeainty over the same man who he felt was the righrful Tsar?). I know this is probably something that happened under a different Tsar but I still feel it could do with more explanation.
2. There were a couple references in Volume IV to Russian intervention in Old Spain during the Great American War. But no more than those couple vague refernces. I'm curious as to what happened there.
3. In Volume V there was a reference to growing tension between Russia and Germany which led to the founding of the Vitesk Bloc and the eventual Pandoric War. At the time one of your loyal readers asked "what is the source of that tension" and you said "I'll cover it in a future update". I don't think it was ever covered which made the declaration of war by Germany against Russia feel a little artificial once it atrived. There were a couple references in Volume VI to a competition for "dominance of Eastern Europe" and a reference to Russian support for Slavs in Bohemia against Germany. So maybe the tension was supposed to be the result of the Kulturkrieg. Whatever the source of the tension was, it seemed that Poland and Lithuania formed enough of a buffer than neither Germany nor Russia was an existential threat to the other, so the reasons for war seemed unclear. I know this would fit better in Volume V than in Volume IV, but maybe there could be some way to work it in to a more general update involving Russia.
I apologize if these suggestions are tok late/not helpful, but I figured I should let you know the questions I was asking when reading Volume IV that I felt went unanswered.
Bulldoggus
Banned
@Thande I wouldn't want to make an annoying request, as I am in awe of the herculean effort you have gone through over a decade plus to give us this remarkable timeline, but would an updated flags of the world be possible at some point?
Alex Richards
Donor
Covering this one myself, the vassalisation indication got dropped from the map in the Published version, which also corrected the rather... vague border in the original thread.
I think they'd be more likely to try and find "universal commonalities" across various musical traditions and start from those. But who knows?
We do overexaggerate I think how totally focused on "identity politics" TTL is. The Cold War was a struggle primarily over economic ideology, but people still had a lot of fights about issues not primarily economic - civil rights, nationalism, gay rights, censorship, etc, etc... In the same way, I'm sure that plenty of big fights over economic issues happened across the ASN, and (with repression) in the Combine.
xsampa
Banned
The Combine is predominantly capitalist, and its acceptance of class hierarchy confirms this. On the other hand, Caraibas' ideological devotion to entrepreneurship might mean an internal struggle between those who believe in oligopoly and those who believe in perfect competition.
the Combine is clearly going in non-democratic directions, much depends on the composition of the initial ruling class/elite: to what extent are they going to be concerned with the possibility of state capture by corporate, monied interests? Because that would seem to be a real issue in a capitalist system lacking some sort of "left opposition."
xsampa
Banned
The last update mentioned that "Societists had a plan when corporations had none.". Given that the old companies are among some of the political factions that contested for power, it's safe to say that the Combine (initially) doesn't want corporate domination.
xsampa
Banned
Also, does anyone have any idea what forms of attitudes towards space and non-human beings the Combine might have? The US considered Space to be the 'Final Frontier' and the USSR wanted to evangelize the message of Communism to aliens on the grounds that civilizations capable of contacting the Earth were more advanced and must be communist. Given the Combine's focus on an United Humanity and the importance of Unifying the World, it could lean either way. The Combine might project its repressed nationalism into bashing the aliens or expect them to somehow conform to human physiology.
Is he though? I feel like he's just a more megalomaniacial version of Napoleon, kind of like the cariacture of Napoleon in the British press of the time.
