Re: Modern History and the Brzhona, etc.

[Padraic Brown <pbrown@nova.umuc.edu>]

On Mon, 29 Jun 1998, Andrew Smith wrote:

> Good mooorning. everyyybodyyy!
> 
> Time to catch up running.  (Weekends I don't usually look at email)

Blimey you NZ types get an early start!  Here in Lollardland, it's still
Sunday. ;-)

> 
> Some Observations:
> 
> In my opinion Padraic stopped to early in tracing back the cause of events
> leading up to the Cold War.  Behind the founding fathers of the United

I didn't want to go _too_ far back!  I suppose I could go all the way back
the beginning of _everything_, but that would be pushing things a bit. 
You are of course, quite correct in your Pilgrimspiel.  I now don't recall
my precise words (or if indeed I said it in my last post), but you're
right on the money in that Great Britain is the cause of the USA, and
therefore all the rest. 

I just wanted to make the particular point that the US is sort of pivotal
in modern history; and that since *here*'s USA can't exist *there*,
*there*'s modern history must perforce be quite (if not radically)
different.  I'm not much of an historian, but I think I'm quite capable of
comming to that conclusion logically; and for Project Interests, I feel
such things must be dealt with. 

> States are the Pilgrim Fathers (but not without any Pilgrim Mothers - or
> where did the Pilgrim Kiddies come from - No let's not go into that).  But

I think in those days people didn't talk about such things. :-)

> the Thanksgiving story seems to meet to be an important part of the
> Origen Myths of America.  In early modern Great Britain *there* there was
> religious dissent in all three kingdoms.  Where did these lollards and
> reformers go after the reformation failed at a national level, and after
> they lost the British Wars of Religion, alongside High Tory monarchs who
> waver between tolerance and harrasment?  It is these people who are
> attracted to settled in the new commonwealths and colonies on the Atlantic
> coast, at least to some degree.

Only if these wars are identical to *here*'s.  Otherwise, this seems
perfectly reasonable.

> 
> I should also like to point out that China does not necessarily need to be
> communist.  Check out the essay "The Xin Dynasty of 1916?" at
> http://pages.prodigy.com/VBDS39A/althis.htm.

Well, this is far from settled!  We were just hashing out some
possibilities.  Some kind of internal instability would be required for
the Chinese to to revolt and go Communist; barring such instabilities (or
assuming that his Imperial Majesty is able to overcome these difficulties) 
then China might well remain monarchical.  (I am not at all against such a
scenario; and as it has little direct bearing on Kemr, I don't see why it
couldn't happen.)  It also strikes me that with no USA vs. Japan in WWII,
the Imperial Monarchy and all the rest remain fully intact there, and
probably having entered the industrial age to a certain extent rather
recently. 

Another possibility is that when the USSR finally does crumble, and with
no "democracies" to model the new govt. upon, they may restore the
monarchy there; since the successful countries in the world at the time
would be monarchies (FK, China, Germany, Italy, Japan, etc.).

> 
> Well that's my spiel for monday morning.  My appologies to everyone else,
> I find AltHist as interesting as AltLang.  Bear with us.


Methinks the two go hand in hand.
My two shillings worth.

Padraic.

> 
> - andrew.
> 
> Andrew Smith                                  <hobbit@earthlight.co.nz>
> 
> MAN, despite his artistic pretensions, his sophistication, and his many
> accomplishments; still owes his existence to a six-inch layer of topsoil
> and the fact that it rains.
> 							   - Anonymous
> 
>