Re: American dialect of Brithenig

[Sally Caves <scaves@frontiernet.net>]

Padraic Brown wrote:

  First of all, *here* we are a country,
> independant of all others, and (especially in the last century) seemed to
> have developped a "blow the rest of the world"  attitude, with overtones
> of superiority and imperialism. [The League seems to be a glorified
> Canada, with a kind of transatlantic umbillicus attached to the FK.] We
> are a big country, with a lot of room to play in; and we don't mind
> punching our neighbours in the knackers to get what we want (e.g., most of
> our territory).  [The League certainly consists of land west to the Mighty
> Mississip (and north to (?)); but the West seems a bit iffy: there's still
> Mexico to deal with, and without Manifest Destiny and Sea to Bloody Sea
> and all that, I don't think the League would go after someone else's
> goodies with the US's reckless abandon.] We are a hodge podge of races,
> creeds and cultures (whether we like it or not), all of which were thrown
> together with the above ideals all in the middle of a time of swift
> technological advance. [The League is a hodge podge of the same cultures
> and creeds one finds in the Old Country, i.e., British.] 

But that's what we were as well.  Mostly from the British Isles, with
some German, Dutch, French colonies too.  If colonization of the
Americas
was happening *there* at roughly the same time as it did *here*, what's
to
keep the "British" as you've made them from making the same quarrelsome
and territorial mistakes that the early settlers did?  The nature of the
Brithenig Empire?  After all, this is a big, new territory.  Are the 
Brithenig *there* so much more sensitive about the Native Americans?
And somehow successfully repellant of the conquistadorial Spaniards?

 In this century,
> we've meddled in the affairs of others (namely WWI & WWII), in which our
> enemies were utterly broken and which we built up again. 

Yes, granted, but this is a given after the long establishment of
colonization
and conquest.  The twentieth-century is built on earlier centuries. 
What was
different about settlement and colonization *there* in the seventeenth,
eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries?  No American revolution?  Is that
the
clincher?  I guess I need to know more about early Brithenig history and
philosophy... how much wiser they must be than our ancestors.

I presume, too, that there was also no "White Man's Burden," and that
India and other countries were left to themselves.

 [I don't think the "Great Wars" of *there* are the same as
> WWI and WWII *here*.  They're probably not much more than an extension of
> the General European War that's been going on since the 7th century or so.
> (Has Europe ever had a peaceful century?)  My sources for WW what-ifs are
> the two alternate history lists on the net.  The concensus seems to be
> that if the US keeps away from the 20th century chapter of Eurowar,
> Germany might very well fight to a draw (if not win) WWI (thus no
> Versailles, no reparations, no utter devastation of German economy, no
> rise of Hitler, no WWII). That being the case, Hitler and WWII as we know
> and love it can never be.  *There*, the second Great War of the century
> must be rather different; and who knows who the players are and where it's
> fought? Must the FK even get involved?]
> 
> *There*, there is no USA (as coarsely described above).  I'm not saying
> that technology _can not_ advance, not that there _can not_ be a sexual
> revolution or whatever else; only that they must evolve differently and
> with different social impetus.  And that the rise of these events must use
> a different curve.  In my never be humble opinion, in essence, No USA =
> Very Different World.

But it was That World that made possible the USA.  That's the intricate
problem
with alternate histories!  How did the Brithenig Empire change that
curve?
And how early?


> > > Basically think of *here* without the contribution of the USA (with all
> > > its associated problems and triumphs);
> >
> > Exactly.  But what about the contribution of Japan?  Or is Japan still
> > in the eighteenth century?
> 
> There was no USA to destroy 1940s Japan and then build it up into the
> great country it is now (in Our Image ;) ).  There was no USA to start
> Japan into industrialisation, if that's even right.  Whether Japan
> modernises or not in the late 19th century, there is no USA for it to
> fight against in the 40s: even if the League holds California (not a sure
> thing), it would have no reason to even try for Hawaii or the Philippines.
> The northern and middle Pacific would be Japan's playground.

Hmmmm.  Let me think about that one.  I snipped the nice stuff on
clothes.
Cool!

> > A million other questions, but these will have to do for now.  You see,
> > I'm interested, eventually, in teaching a course on time travel and
> > alternate
> > history, and you've got a fabulous thing going here, all of you.
> 
> Keep asking!  Keeps the list interesting.

Sure enough!
 
Sal
-- 
============================================================
SALLY CAVES
scaves@frontiernet.net
http://www.frontiernet.net/~scaves (bragpage)
http://www.frontiernet.net/~scaves/teonaht.html (T. homepage)
http://www.frontiernet.net/~scaves/contents.html (all else)
=====================================================================
Niffodyr tweluenrem lis teuim an.
"The gods have retractible claws."
				from _The Gospel of Bastet_
============================================================