------------------------------

Bundle: 569
Archive-Message-Number: 7148
Date: Sat, 2 Apr 94 15:19:55 CST
From: [-- REDACTED --] (David Johnson)
Subject: Traveller Background 6

Gentlesophonts:

Still from Thursday night:

Cynthia Higginbotham [-- REDACTED --] writes:
 
> Most of Rome's possessions
> were proud of their Romanized culture and of the protection of the
> legions...  AFTER a few centuries of Romanization. 

Well, I don't suppose the Romans let those who didn't agree (and yet somehow
managed to avoid a centurion's blade) write too many history texts.

> The cases you cite are all relatively modern,
> and had only a century, at most, to be assimulated by the invading
> culture.

Well, yes, but `assimilated' is an interesting word.  You may choose to
`assimilate' to my culture but if I *insist* you `assimilate' you might
call it `decimate' - assuming you survived the `assimilation'.  With 
`modern' examples we have better access to views other than those of the
`conquerors' than is the case with more historical examples.  Not too many
Gauls or Seleucids alive today but plenty of Ibos, Hmongs and Lakotas.

> And note that both Latin America and Africa have been glad
> to keep the *religions* of their invaders (Roman Catholicism in Latin
> America, Islam in much of Africa). 

Again, for those that `survived' the process of `assimilation'.  We may have
strayed over to "alt.history.political" but the point I guess, WRT
the Reformation Coalition, is that if they choose to practice this sort
of `assimilation' then, regardless of how they're portrayed in their
history books, we'd be hard pressed to describe them as `benevolent' in
TNE (at least I would be).
 
> David Johnson sez:
> So I ask, where does the idea that `Jane Everybody' has just as much say as
> `Peter Plutocrat' come from?
> - -------------------------------------------------------------------
> Cynthia:
>     Roman Republic, c.500 B.C.  Athens, c.700 B.C. (my dates on
> classical Greek civilization are fuzzy)  Anglo-Saxon and Scandanavian
> cultures 

Etc., 

>     The idea that "Jane Everybody' has just as much say as 'Peter
> Plutocrat' comes from incredibly ancient times when everyone in the
> tribe/clan contributed to its well-being, and thus had a say...

Well, again we've strayed into "alt.history.political" but Cynthia then
makes the point:

> Democracy or lack thereof rests
> solely on whether or not this assumption is held by the bulk of the
> populace.  If it is, a "presumed qualified" (Peter Plutocrat?)
> nobility will rule; if it is not, there will be revolution and unrest
> until the populace wrests the power of government from whomever was so
> foolish to presume that they had more right to make decisions about
> "Jane Everybody's" life than "Jane Everybody" did.

My question was not really `where this came from?' but rather `how it came
about?'.  Were all the former Imperial aristocrats guillotined (sp?) by
the founders of the Dawn League?  Democratic principles don't take hold
over night and the `Peter Plutocrats' don't just give up without a fight.
(Just ask Vladimir Zhironovsky.)  Regardless of the effects of the Rebellion,
Virus and subsequent collapse the Imperial aristocrats, but virtue of their
control of the greatest amount of resources, should have been best situated
to begin rebuilding.  Now, either they `got religion' and became `democratic'
(doubtful without a working example to enlighten them - would Yeltsin still be
a `democrat' if the West was aristocratic?) or someone displaced them like
the French revolutionaries did Louis XVI.

Peace,

David Johnson
Houston, Texas, USA

------------------------------