Inb4 Portuguese is the only working language at the UN and eating feijoada is mandatory.
What is a common thing or trope that always seem to happen?
- Thread starter Viking25
- Start date
I haven't seen a TL that believes in the White Legend, but it pops up in discussions. There was a thread fairly recently about how the Spanish Empire was so much better than the European empires that followed it because it was more "Roman" or whatever.
I would also argue that the widespread acceptance on this forum of GG&S veers into White Legend territory, where users treat the 90% depopulation of the Americas as inevitable the minute a European coughs in the direction of a Native American because diseases alone contributed to the mass deaths of the Americas, and that the conquistadores had some innate superiority that allowed them to singlehandedly conquer the Americas.
There's also a handful of kicks/bans that happen because people defend the likes of Columbus.
Last edited:
I feel like a part of Egypt's problem is that fir centuries it had been largely used as a breadbasket, as a possession of one empire after another: the Greeks, the Romans, the various Caliphates and Sultanates, then the French and the British. I may be wrong but an Egypt that had been independent (or a more equal partner in an empire) for longer may have stood a better chance.
I feel a lot of alternate history stories are obsessed over having a clean break, AKA where everything ends neatly and at the same moment, where nobody has to wonder what happens since it feels like an "end of history" moment. It might be nice for stories to tie up all loose ends, but history isn't really like that. Would like to see more stories where ultimately the ending is ambiguous or where the future of certain things are uncertain and left to chance. Or that some plotlines may "end" but not end in the traditional sense but rather they are the start of a whole different thing altogether. Like have endings that look like cliffhangers to things but ultimately still be just endings, where readers will wonder what will happen later on.
I've always left my timelines vagueness level somewhere between 'AWoL,AWoT' and 'The Footprint of Mussolini' :3
From my experience End of History endings are actually pretty rare here
Like I know plenty of attempts at making those, mainly from Sorairo's TLs, but they often leave a lot of things set up to cause trouble later
I would like to see one where a stable world order is truly achieved in a believable-realistic manner rather than "I'm leaving it here because things are looking positive right now but I left like 30 rogue agents to mess everything up later"
Like I know plenty of attempts at making those, mainly from Sorairo's TLs, but they often leave a lot of things set up to cause trouble later
I would like to see one where a stable world order is truly achieved in a believable-realistic manner rather than "I'm leaving it here because things are looking positive right now but I left like 30 rogue agents to mess everything up later"
I don't think this sort of clustering of archetypes is where Sorairo meant his work to reside in o.0
I dont think its what he meant either, he was more so trying to give a optimistic finale to otherwise heavily fucked up worlds but nonethless that dissonance is what I got from them
I have to agree more with Aluma on this.
Generally what I see is that the author tries to make you believe that the end of the story has been reached, but what you actually see is a deeply unstable situation that only pretends that it is the end of the story and is based on a damn balance of power between the protagonist country and the countries that it has not yet destroyed.
I suppose the authors have so internalized that silly idea of "competing to exist" that they allow one of the rivals to live so they have someone to compete with.
This is, of course, omitting the special cases in which the author decides that, instead of leaving it at the "end of the story" point on a bright note...
...the author decides to release a sequel in which the protagonist country becomes increasingly brutal and evil and begins to dynamit the world order...
...because the country wants to weaken and destroy his current allies to elevate in their place those who until then were his enemies.
I see this in alternate history map decisions and other short TLs too tbf.
I feel in some cases there are times when the author agrees a story ran its course and its better to end on a high note. But since they know history doesn't stop there they would rather make sure that history in their TL is still being made regardless of the ending.
Ah that makes sense, I dont usually go in the maps thread or the shared media forum so I wouldnt have seen those
Pretty much
"Nazis in foreign policy, democratic socialists in domestic policy."
This trope is very common mainly in stories focused on one country, and is based on the immense cognitive dissonance that exists between its foreign and domestic policies.
As many of you no doubt know, it is generally assumed to be true that you can have a welfare society or a militarized, foreign policy-involved society, but you cannot have both at the same time. This trope is when the author tries to square the circle and make his favorite country have both... but in the worst way possible.
So we end up with a situation where it seems that the foreign and domestic policies of the same country sound as if we are talking about two completely different countries.
Foreign policy is typical of wanked countries: an arrogant country with heightened militarism, which considers that "because I can, try to stop me" is a legitimate casus belli to declare wars and invade other countries.
The kind of country that employs Nazi-style racist and supremacist rhetoric as part of its normal diplomatic process, and that treats all other countries (including its "allies", in whom it sees nothing but meat shields) as stupid vassals who must accept their orders without questioning them.
This country will be an immensely aggressive nation, with which signing treaties is useless because at any moment the CEO (yes, they practice political-corporate management) can give him the whim to order them to bomb you, and that is what will happen.
It seems logical, therefore, to assume that in domestic politics this country so ridiculously drunk on his own hypothetical superiority, and so convinced that all other countries are little more than barbarian hordes who should bow before them and beg for mercy, will be equally horrible against its own citizens, and that being an immigrant in this country is the closest thing to being in hell, right?
Except... it's not like that.
It is in the chapters that cover domestic politics where the impression is most accentuated that this is a completely different country and that it lives absolutely disconnected from its foreign policy.
It will be described to us in broad and extensive detail how this country is the most progressive and tolerant nation on social issues that exists on the planet, the model to follow, the example to imitate that everyone should adopt.
A country where corruption is non-existent (and stopped quickly and effectively if it ever occurs) and where each and every political decision is adopted in the most democratic way possible. The concept of a politician coming to power and passing laws behind the backs of his citizens, or even considering not fulfilling his electoral promises, is simply inconceivable in this society.
A kind, open nation, where everyone is kind and tolerant of everyone, and where all groups receive the respect they deserve (and this is protected by law and enforced by a well-paid and willing police force that maintains order with soft hand).
A country whose rulers compete among themselves to see who is the most progressive, and where the mere suspicion of intolerance is treated as equivalent to high treason (often also insisting on how people who believe in that kind of thing are idiots who they buy into [insert enemy] propaganda). Where even the lowest of immigrants receives the same treatment of appreciation and respect that the highest of their natives would receive.
Extreme violence is much more likely to occur against anyone who even dares to look at an immigrant the wrong way than against the immigrants themselves.
At the same time, there will be a broad and extensive program of social services and wealth redistribution that ensures that even the lowest of citizens in this country will live under conditions comparable to those of members of the rich 1% in OTL and the rest of the world...
...except, of course, that this is totally incompatible with maintaining at the same time the foreign policy described above.
It's basically when the author tries to have both his ideal utopia and a "tough country" policy that "shows strength" and "does what needs to be done."
This trope is very common mainly in stories focused on one country, and is based on the immense cognitive dissonance that exists between its foreign and domestic policies.
As many of you no doubt know, it is generally assumed to be true that you can have a welfare society or a militarized, foreign policy-involved society, but you cannot have both at the same time. This trope is when the author tries to square the circle and make his favorite country have both... but in the worst way possible.
So we end up with a situation where it seems that the foreign and domestic policies of the same country sound as if we are talking about two completely different countries.
Foreign policy is typical of wanked countries: an arrogant country with heightened militarism, which considers that "because I can, try to stop me" is a legitimate casus belli to declare wars and invade other countries.
The kind of country that employs Nazi-style racist and supremacist rhetoric as part of its normal diplomatic process, and that treats all other countries (including its "allies", in whom it sees nothing but meat shields) as stupid vassals who must accept their orders without questioning them.
This country will be an immensely aggressive nation, with which signing treaties is useless because at any moment the CEO (yes, they practice political-corporate management) can give him the whim to order them to bomb you, and that is what will happen.
It seems logical, therefore, to assume that in domestic politics this country so ridiculously drunk on his own hypothetical superiority, and so convinced that all other countries are little more than barbarian hordes who should bow before them and beg for mercy, will be equally horrible against its own citizens, and that being an immigrant in this country is the closest thing to being in hell, right?
Except... it's not like that.
It is in the chapters that cover domestic politics where the impression is most accentuated that this is a completely different country and that it lives absolutely disconnected from its foreign policy.
It will be described to us in broad and extensive detail how this country is the most progressive and tolerant nation on social issues that exists on the planet, the model to follow, the example to imitate that everyone should adopt.
A country where corruption is non-existent (and stopped quickly and effectively if it ever occurs) and where each and every political decision is adopted in the most democratic way possible. The concept of a politician coming to power and passing laws behind the backs of his citizens, or even considering not fulfilling his electoral promises, is simply inconceivable in this society.
A kind, open nation, where everyone is kind and tolerant of everyone, and where all groups receive the respect they deserve (and this is protected by law and enforced by a well-paid and willing police force that maintains order with soft hand).
A country whose rulers compete among themselves to see who is the most progressive, and where the mere suspicion of intolerance is treated as equivalent to high treason (often also insisting on how people who believe in that kind of thing are idiots who they buy into [insert enemy] propaganda). Where even the lowest of immigrants receives the same treatment of appreciation and respect that the highest of their natives would receive.
Extreme violence is much more likely to occur against anyone who even dares to look at an immigrant the wrong way than against the immigrants themselves.
At the same time, there will be a broad and extensive program of social services and wealth redistribution that ensures that even the lowest of citizens in this country will live under conditions comparable to those of members of the rich 1% in OTL and the rest of the world...
...except, of course, that this is totally incompatible with maintaining at the same time the foreign policy described above.
It's basically when the author tries to have both his ideal utopia and a "tough country" policy that "shows strength" and "does what needs to be done."
Last edited:
There are good reasons for that sadly:
- Progressives/reformers in some countries have to have tough foreign policies if they want their countries to maintain influence worldwide. I don't exactly imagine them being voted in because their voters want to see the countries' influence reduced. And even if they aren't war hawks or want a better world, they have to share power with their ideological opponents and sometimes need to ensure their countries' dominance to get their support. And sometimes, these people genuinely do want to make sure their country remains powerful. Even OTL progressives have to vote for increased military spending so that they don't get seen as "weak" or "anti-patriotic" which could sabotage any attempt to pass a progressive agenda.
- It's not uncommon for some patriots or politicians to use their human rights records in order to show superiority and to get people to ignore the fact that their countries sometimes commit human rights abuses abroad. Sometimes it's a very good way for everyone to look the other way on how they violate other people's human rights. Western "free world"-rhetoric bullshit, pinkwashing, good welfare systems (whilst exploiting other poorer countries), etc.
- Also liberal democracies do have a record of supporting dictatorships when it fits their foreign policy goals. Sadly this is not an oxymoron.
When the author believes that the sequel needs action and the only way is making the leader spreading chaos because is the only country with enough power to do this.
Did the German Empire consider the people of Russia subhuman? They didn't do so with the Belgians I don't think, despite their war crimes.