[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: The British Empire
On Tue, 14 Apr 1998, John Cowan wrote:
> Padrig Bryn yscrifef:
> > Napoleon's grand empire, or someone else's?
> Say what? I meant the modern European Union as it is today, except with
> England, Scotland, and Cambria as members rather than the U.K.
You know, European Union from Bordeaux to Moscow. He did try his hand at
it; but admited in the end that it was rather a Bad Thing.
> > Basically, different world --> different circumstances.
> Sure, but I've been trying to keep it as similar as possible. E.g., since
> Kemr is (Uniate) Catholic, there couldn't have been Catholic Emancipation
> in Ireland in 1822; instead, I made that date Goedelic Emancipation,
> led by the famous Goedelic politician Daniel Ui Chonaill.
The fundamental problem here is that a snaggle in the Weave of History
will (probably) spawn "anomalous solutions", ie., things will turn out in
unexpected ways, and those ways will probably not be "similar". It all
comes down to the Butterfly Effect.
> Just so, and don't forget German, the majority language in Pennsylvania at the
> time. But unless Brithenig-speaking (including Cambrio-Irish) settlement
> was *really* pervasive, English would still become the dominant (though
> not sole official) language.
Were they politically active enough to actually _do_ anything?
> > So many little things
> > from the sixth century to the 18th must be added _in just the right
> > amounts_ in order for anything like what happened in Philidelphia, etc. to
> > happen again.
> But that's The Game, IMHO: to determine what could have happened that
> would be consistent with the patterns already laid down, and yet
> produce something with a (twisted) resemblance to what happened *Here*.
> E.g., if the Great American Rebellion had failed, would Richard M. Nixon
> really have become a California used car salesman? In all probability, he
> wouldn't have been born at all --- but that's not The Game.
And in my opinion there is a flaw somewhere in the base of The Game. It's
one thing to daydream about how many iddy-biddy things I can muck about
with and still come up with something recognisable. It's another thing
entirely to construct what will likely happen when we muck with something
rather large (like the basic Substance of England).
I'm no historian, but I think it fairly logical to say that with a
severely altered Britain (all three islands) we will likely end up with
either no NoAm. confederation, or at least with a severely altered North
America. The USA as she stands now was a very poor bet in 1780 something!
It was by no means a sure thing that we would end up the way we did.
> > I just don't think it's likely. Something will get botched
> > somewhere. Some other kind of NA federation -- that may be possible; just
> > _not_ the USA.
> Not the USA as we know it, true, but what are the minimum differences
> that *must* exist based on the Brithenig assumption?
As I say above, it's my never be humble _opinion_ that the minimum
difference is "no recognisable USA (with all the attendant
differences in social/ religious/ economic/ political/ technological/
artistic/ medical and military history that come with it); I grant that
there may be some kind of settlement/ colonisation/ rebellion/ etc. in
North Amer., but that the fundamentals are terminally different; I grant
that the technical levels of *There* should be somewhat similar -- most
everything we take for granted *Here* was invented in Europe anyway
(automobile, aeroplane, trains, etc.) -- but that we should be somewhat
behind (or maybe ahead, I don't know! :-) )."
> > Besides, why _must_ the Brithenig and Scottish colonists rebel, if the
> > Saxon colonists rebel?
> Now there's a fair question. To know that, we have to figure out which
> colonies are planted by which Kingdom, and to know *that*, we need information
> on sources of population in the various colonies. New England is mixed
> (some Kerno, some East Anglians) with English dominant; Georgia is totally
> scrambled up. Pennsylvania would be mostly Scots (and the aforementioned
> Independence surely would have come, on constitutional grounds:
> the defect of the parliamentary system is that it makes the government of
> dependencies illogical and indeed almost imposssible. Canada damn near rebelled
> in 1837 for the same reasons.
Perhaps, but without a George III to peg everything on, we may never have
rebelled. This, too, was never a sure bet. I believe the stats were
something along the lines of 30 to 40 percent in favour of rebellion
> > Also remember that much of what the US (and indeed
> > Canada) is now is derived from certain events that occurred *Here* in
> > those days gone by. Scotland *There* can not be cleared the way it was
> > *Here*, therefore so many wouldbe Canadians and Merkins remain Scottish.
> Not so clear. If James II/VII loses power and the Hanoverians take over,
> then we see the 'Fifteen, the 'Forty-five, and the Clearance essentially
Perhaps, but Wary-of-Saxon-Depravities Comro may see to siding with the
Scottish in a Let's-put-the-English-in-their-Place action of some sort.
"Gos Nustr" not withstanding.
> > If Kemr has such a "hands-off" approach to Ireland, there is no reason to
> > presume the Starving Time, and therefore no mass emmigration.
> Again, not open and shut. The Famine was serious because the non-potato
> food that could have saved Ireland was shipped to England under contract.
> Kemrese law (tracking Welsh law) permits the taking of food without penalty
> by one who has starved for three days, provided he is willing to repay, but the
> absentee landlord could have argued in court that the Goedels *could* not repay.
> This is the era of *laissez-faire*, after all.
But there may not even _be_ a famine. I got the impression that Comro
interests were strongest in Ulladh, leaving the rest of the island to the
Irish (and the Bogs). Since the only thing the Irish had to eat,
apparantly, besides Bogs were potatoes. Thence the Famine. And why
should the Comro allow the Irish to starve anyway? Just because the Saxon
> > Even if the US comes about at all, it must
> > therefore be about as different from the one *Here* as the Brittish Isles
> > are *There*.
> That's what I suppose: different and yet the same. Having accepted
> multilingual/multicultural existence from the start would have made
> us a good deal more accepting of Spanish, Natives, etc., I think.
Different and yet the same!!?? What, Jowcko map Jowan, great grandson of
a Kernow immigrant becomes Prez and has his finger in the Red Button
during Bay of Pigs? How close are you trying to figure? I would concur
on your last point. Especially with the Natives, as I doubt there would
be a Manifest Destiny. Let alone a Louisiana Purchase. Somebody Else can
jerk the Natives around.
> > Who gets India? If anyone.
> England, I think, pretty much as before. Scots and Cambrians do a good
> deal of work there, but their governments aren't directly concerned.
> > I think most of those canyons will be right in the middle of whatever
> > England had touched *Here*; meaning that it probably will not exist
> > *There* or will exist in a radically different way.
> > fal mag; ffew yn mellt? ffageth a ysplicharlla.
> Translation, please?
Its bad with me; it was a joke? please to explain-it.
Whatever the joke was, it sailed right over my head.
> John Cowan firstname.lastname@example.org
> e'osai ko sarji la lojban.