[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: American dialect of Brithenig

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
was happening *there* at roughly the same time as it did *here*, what's
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
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
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
with alternate histories!  How did the Brithenig Empire change that
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

> > 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!
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_